NationStates Jolt Archive

"John and I are in this relationship as consenting adults," Ms Deaves told the Nine Network. "We are just asking for a little bit of respect and understanding."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/australia


Jenny Deaves, 39, says that her relationship with her boyfriend is just like any other sexual relationship with any man.

Except that he's her father.

She was reunited with him in 2000 after her parents had split up when she was young. Both her and her father left their partners and moved in together and have just had a baby.

They are appealing to be just left alone. Should they be?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/australia


Jenny Deaves, 39, says that her relationship with her boyfriend is just like any other sexual relationship with any man.

Except that he's her father.

She was reunited with him in 2000 after her parents had split up when she was young. Both her and her father left their partners and moved in together and have just had a baby.

They are appealing to be just left alone. Should they be?

Nope.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/australia


Jenny Deaves, 39, says that her relationship with her boyfriend is just like any other sexual relationship with any man.

Except that he's her father.

She was reunited with him in 2000 after her parents had split up when she was young. Both her and her father left their partners and moved in together and have just had a baby.

They are appealing to be just left alone. Should they be?

Yup.

heh

In seriousness, what would not leaving them alone possibly accomplish?

Well, apart from higher ratings.

Yup.

heh

Bwahahah! Ohh you are a one.

Ewwwww....but I'm not one to make that decision. Let the courts decide.

Consenting adults can do whatever they like as far as I care, as icky as it may be. It's when they have kids that it should become illegal, especially when one of them has already died from a heart defect.

Yup.

heh

In seriousness, what would not leaving them alone possibly accomplish?

Well, apart from higher ratings.

Propably not a lot, but then you are not suggesting that we just leave those who break laws alone?

Think of the poor kid. Dad is Grandpa. :eek:

Think of the poor kid. Dad is Grandpa. :eek:

And Mother is sister!

Propably not a lot, but then you are not suggesting that we just leave those who break laws alone?

Not all of them, but these people aren't exactly a danger to society. Taxpayer money could be better spent on an awful number of other things.

Also, considering the cultural taboo, I doubt adding an extra layer of deterrent in a legal sense to incest stops it. Someone who doesn't care about the ick factor enough to procreate with their father is probably not going to be put off by any punishment a semi-civilised society is going to place on it.

If they want a relationship of that sort, fine. I have no problem with two consenting adults doing whatever they like.

They should not, however, be permitted to breed. That would be genetic irresponsibility of the highest level.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/australia


Jenny Deaves, 39, says that her relationship with her boyfriend is just like any other sexual relationship with any man.

Except that he's her father.

She was reunited with him in 2000 after her parents had split up when she was young. Both her and her father left their partners and moved in together and have just had a baby.

They are appealing to be just left alone. Should they be?
I see no harm in allowing them to be together as they wish.

I do, however, see potential harm in allowing them to conceive children, both from the fact that this world is overpopulated as it is, and of course any child from that union would probably have genetic abnormalities, which would be bad.

Should people with inheritable genetic diseases be prohibited from reproducing?

And Mother is sister!

Mother is 1/2 sister

Not all of them, but these people aren't exactly a danger to society. Taxpayer money could be better spent on an awful number of other things.

Also, considering the cultural taboo, I doubt adding an extra layer of deterrent in a legal sense to incest stops it. Someone who doesn't care about the ick factor enough to procreate with their father is probably not going to be put off by any punishment a semi-civilised society is going to place on it.

Agreed, but incest is one of them taboo things and rightly so I think, like I said I really don't know what effect any 'punishment' to them would have, but I also believe in this case they should be faced with the lawfull consequenses of their choice.

No problem as far as I'm concerned. I've never understood those lwas anyway (not that I ever felt t he need to get closer to anyone in my family, but hey, that might well have to do with my family and nothing else).

I would advise caution about having kids, but what are you going to do if they decide to have them? Force her to have an abortion?

I would advise caution about having kids, but what are you going to do if they decide to have them? Force her to have an abortion?
If the kid ends up handicapped as a consequence of their choice and actions handle it the same way as if they had chosen to cause the handicap by any other method like beating it with a hammer or something.

Wonder if they manage to have an equal relationship or if the father-daughter tie tips the power balance "Honey clean our room or you're grounded!", "Yes dad.".

If the kid ends up handicapped as a consequence of their choice and actions handle it the same way as if they had chosen to cause the handicap by any other method like beating it with a hammer or something.

Wonder if they manage to have an equal relationship or if the father-daughter tie tips the power balance "Honey clean our room or you're grounded!", "Yes dad.".

I don't know... would you do the same with two people who know that there's a fair chance of a geentic defect in their offspring, and still decide to go for it?

And the article said they hadn't met since she was a very young girl, so I think the father-daughter behaviour probably doesn't really come into it much.

Should people with inheritable genetic diseases be prohibited from reproducing?

The problem here is that in the majority of cases where the match of parents leads to a genetically inherited it is not known until the first child shows the symptoms of that condition. If those parents then go on to produce more children knowing full well that this will lead to the rest of their children inheriting the same genetic condition the first child inherited then this seems to be as bad as a mother who knowingly smokes or drinks heavily during pregnancy - both show a blatant disregard for the child's well-being and bring in to question the safety of the child after it has been born given the parents complete disregard for its safety before it has been born.

Consenting adults can do whatever they like as far as I care, as icky as it may be. It's when they have kids that it should become illegal, especially when one of them has already died from a heart defect.
Precisely the reason why incest is illegal, and why the law should be enforced. The selfishness of this 'couple' is mind-boggling.

If those parents then go on to produce more children knowing full well that this will lead to the rest of their children inheriting the same genetic condition the first child inherited then this seems to be as bad as a mother who knowingly smokes or drinks heavily during pregnancy

So, should either of those be illegal?

Genetic purity isn't a good reason to do anything.

If these people really grew up without knowing each other, their relationship makes sense. Even if he's her biological father, she never knew him as a father. But if they weren't really separated like they claim, I think there's a problem here. I have a hard time believing incest is just a taboo, I think it's a naturally repulsive thing.

So, should either of those be illegal?

Yes, as part of the existing laws on child endangerment, rather than making incest itself illegal. The harm only arises when a child is conceived (as it was in this case). I don't have a problem with incest, I have a problem with what amounts to child abuse through wilful negligence.

Having said that, the other problem with father-daughter incest is capacity to give consent when one partner is dependent on the other. Even if the daughter is past the age of consent the grounds for consent could be diminished due to the nature of the father-daughter relationship, in the same way that teachers are not allowed relationships with pupils and psychiatrists are not allowed relationships with patients. This doesn't really apply in this instance but could apply in many other cases of parent-child incest.

Genetic purity isn't a good reason to do anything.

If these people really grew up without knowing each other, their relationship makes sense. Even if he's her biological father, she never knew him as a father. But if they weren't really separated like they claim, I think there's a problem here. I have a hard time believing incest is just a taboo, I think it's a naturally repulsive thing.

No, it's purely cultural. Historically, most marriages have been close, varying from cousin marriages (still legal in most places) to sibling marriages - mostly for economic reasons, keeping wealth and inheritance within the family.

Provided it wasn't overdone, incestuous breeding wasn't likely to cause many problems - but that was because of the high infant mortality rates anyway. Today, with infant mortality at negligible levels, the enhanced risk of reinforced negative alleles entering the human gene pool makes such pairings highly undesirable.

Hmmmm... Thread resurrection of the most insidious kind :)

I'd say it is nobody's business until they decide to conceive their progeny - even then I can't be one hundred per cent sure to say that the law should interfere (we don't check for genetic defects and their possible interactions in each and every couple planning to have children).

Of course, it goes without saying that these are IMHO™ :)

Cheerio!

No, it's purely cultural. Historically, most marriages have been close, varying from cousin marriages (still legal in most places) to sibling marriages - mostly for economic reasons, keeping wealth and inheritance within the family.

Provided it wasn't overdone, incestuous breeding wasn't likely to cause many problems - but that was because of the high infant mortality rates anyway. Today, with infant mortality at negligible levels, the enhanced risk of reinforced negative alleles entering the human gene pool makes such pairings highly undesirable.Marriage used to be taken less seriously. For example some people think that even though Edgar Allen Poe married his cousin, his cousin died a virgin.

Anyway, in most cases people don't grow up with their cousins. I don't think anyone who grew up with their siblings or parents would want to have sex with them. Marrying someone for economic reasons isn't the same as actually feeling attracted to them.

And Mother is sister!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMX__ETMHRw

Marriage used to be taken less seriously. For example some people think that even though Edgar Allen Poe married his cousin, his cousin died a virgin.

Anyway, in most cases people don't grow up with their cousins. I don't think anyone who grew up with their siblings or parents would want to have sex with them. Marrying someone for economic reasons isn't the same as actually feeling attracted to them.

It was taken seriously enough. In France, in the 1400s, a man who failed to consummate his marriage within two days of the ceremony could get ten lashes in the public square. And plenty of places had a habit of placing the mother of the bride in the marriage chamber the first night, to ensure consummation.

As for "attraction" - that was quite irrelevant. Marriages were arranged by the elders of the family, and the prospective bride and groom had no say in the matter.

Maybe it was considered irrelevant back then, but the you brought it up because you were arguing that incest is natural. If it's unnatural for people who grew up in the same house to be attracted to each other, than incest is unnatural. I don't know if there's any point making laws against it though.

I don't know... would you do the same with two people who know that there's a fair chance of a geentic defect in their offspring, and still decide to go for it?

If it was known, and the defect was very debilitating, and there would be real concerns about the child having any quality of life, yes. This isn't a eugenics thing. This is about is it fair and just bringing a thinking being in to this world, who will have a high chance of nothing but pain and suffering, just to satisfy your own selfish wants.

Maybe it was considered irrelevant back then, but the you brought it up because you were arguing that incest is natural. If it's unnatural for people who grew up in the same house to be attracted to each other, than incest is unnatural. I don't know if there's any point making laws against it though.

I don't know if it's "natural" or not; anthropologists get tied into all sorts of knots over questons like that, and I'm just a historian. I'm just saying that our repulsion to the concept seems to have more to do with our current culture than any sort of general rule about humans.

I'd just rather not be the poor guy who has to work out where the next haemophilia outbreak started and how it spread through a previously unaffected community.

If it was known, and the defect was very debilitating, and there would be real concerns about the child having any quality of life, yes. This isn't a eugenics thing. This is about is it fair and just bringing a thinking being in to this world, who will have a high chance of nothing but pain and suffering, just to satisfy your own selfish wants.I think it's pretty selfish to be making judgements about who would be better off dead and who wouldn't. If you were born without an arm you wouldn't consider it suffering because you would have no frame of reference. Suffering is relative.

Maybe it was considered irrelevant back then, but the you brought it up because you were arguing that incest is natural. If it's unnatural for people who grew up in the same house to be attracted to each other, than incest is unnatural. I don't know if there's any point making laws against it though.

It certianly seems unatural. I remember reading (a while back) some experimentation that showed how a daughter is repulsed by the natural smell of her father. You'll have to google it though, I have no link and can't really chase it down at the mo.

It certianly seems unatural. I remember reading (a while back) some experimentation that showed how a daughter is repulsed by the natural smell of her father. You'll have to google it though, I have no link and can't really chase it down at the mo.One weird thing is that most women seem to end up marrying people who are similar to their fathers. But not exactly the same.

One weird thing is that most women seem to end up marrying people who are similar to their fathers. But not exactly the same.

Not that weird, it happens the other way around too.

That story is kinda weird. I agree with those who say they just shouldn't have babies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/australia


Jenny Deaves, 39, says that her relationship with her boyfriend is just like any other sexual relationship with any man.

Except that he's her father.

She was reunited with him in 2000 after her parents had split up when she was young. Both her and her father left their partners and moved in together and have just had a baby.

They are appealing to be just left alone. Should they be?

http://www.profilefiend.com/Images/Cat_Graphics/cat/images/OMFG-Cat_laptop.jpg

Incest of any kind should not be punished. That infringes human rights, just as punishing people for being gay or for marrying with a fifty year age gap, although granted with the latter concerns are raised over the possibility of exploitation.

The German Patrick Stübing faces a prison sentence if he resumes sexual relations with his sister. That is absolutely appalling and harkens back to the times when people were imprisoned or victimised because they were gay or the times when interracial relationships were frowned upon, or even punished. Whatever two consenting adults wish to do in the provacy of their own homes is no business of anyone else's and certainly not of the government or law. Yiu can't choose who you fall in love with and you can't choose whether they are the same sex as you, a different sex, related to you, black, white, whatever.

I do have concern for any biological children they might produce, and it is fair to say they should be encouraged to adopt (or use a sperm donor, so the children is still biologically hers, and his aswell, by grandfather, although that is besides the point) rather than procreate together. However whether they should be explicitly banned by law...I'm not so sure. And whether their children should be taken away from them and put into foster care, as in the case of Patrick and Susan Stübing, I don't know. I think it's a terible invasion of rights to take a child from a loving family, however you do have to weigh up the risk of psychological damage, but as that is such a difficult thing to measure or predict, it's very hard to draw the line.

I think it's pretty selfish to be making judgements about who would be better off dead and who wouldn't. If you were born without an arm you wouldn't consider it suffering because you would have no frame of reference. Suffering is relative.

I notice how your example is of relatively minor suffering, when I specifically said debilitating. I also think it is not selfish, just a belief that quantity of life is not better than quality. We do have the right to tinker with gods creation, destroy non-viable life, whatever. We have an obligation to our fellow human being to minimise harm.

If we were talking about the real world, instead of hypotheticals on a forum, then, in the rare cases where it is known that the foetus has a high chance of being born with Debilitating medical condition/s you could have medical experts making the decision.

Much better medical experts choosing, than biased parents who are sure that their baby will be O.K, even when they are told there's a 75% chance the child will be messed up. The child is born. Probability does it's thing, 2 weeks of heartbreaking pain and suffering, and then the child dies. What good did that do?

Since they're both adults, I have no problem.

If they want a relationship of that sort, fine. I have no problem with two consenting adults doing whatever they like.

They should not, however, be permitted to breed. That would be genetic irresponsibility of the highest level.

Agreed.

Since they're both adults, I have no problem.

Umm you see no errr ethical problems with a father finding his daughter sexualy attractive, and acting on that attraction?

Umm you see no errr ethical problems with a father finding his daughter sexualy attractive, and acting on that attraction?

Well.. that the daughter was over 30 when they got the relationship and did not have a father-daughter relationship with her father before that does make it somewhat less icky than it would have been if she were 16 or actually raised by him. I still consider it irresponsble of them to produce a baby though and pity that child.

And it is of course natural - animals do it all the time.

Umm you see no errr ethical problems with a father finding his daughter sexualy attractive, and acting on that attraction?

No. I see the moral presuppositions of society providing an otherwise illogical opposition to the attraction.

Well.. that the daughter was over 30 when they got the relationship and did not have a father-daughter relationship with her father before that does make it somewhat less icky than it would have been if she were 16 or actually raised by him. I still consider it irresponsble of them to produce a baby though and pity that child.

And it is of course natural - animals do it all the time.

Heh dogs also sniff each others arses, would you say that is then natural behavour for a human?

Yeah in this they are both adults, and the ickyness factor is lessened, but it still stands though that the father finds his daughter sexualy attractive and acted on that attraction. Age or no, circumstances or no, this is either good or it is not, which would you say?

No. I see the moral presuppositions of society providing an otherwise illogical opposition to the attraction.

That may be the case, but morality is only that which we find right or wrong. If as you say society says this is wrong, then it must be so.

Umm you see no errr ethical problems with a father finding his daughter sexualy attractive, and acting on that attraction?

When that daughter is a reasonably intelligent, capable of making her own decisions, granting of informed, uncoerced or manipulated consent, 40 year old woman...no, I don't.

When that daughter is a reasonably intelligent, capable of making her own decisions, granting of informed, uncoerced or manipulated consent, 40 year old woman...no, I don't.

So by your own admission then incest is fine depending on the circumstances?

So by your own admission then incest is fine depending on the circumstances?

Absolutly.

I mean really, I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish asking me that. Of course that's my position. Or, rather, it's not my place to determine what is, and is not, "fine". The only thing that matters, the only thing that SHOULD matter, is if every person gives informed, uncoerced, unmanipulated, informed consent as an adult. If that's the case, then I really can't say anything about it. I may not like it, but its really not any of my fucking business.

Absolutly.

I mean really, I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish asking me that. Of course that's my position.

Just makeing sure that I understand you, that I am not misreading your words.

When that daughter is a reasonably intelligent, capable of making her own decisions, granting of informed, uncoerced or manipulated consent, 40 year old woman...no, I don't.

I guess there in lies my issue with it. I would have to ask the question:

What reasonably intelligent woman wants to have sex with her father?


I am fine with it being against the law and it being a social taboo. But prison time etc, would be stupid and you are not going to stop them.

What reasonably intelligent woman wants to have sex with her father?



I guess that is also the angle that I'm thinking of, and as a father myself, the thought of sex with my children is not a comfatable one.

I guess there in lies my issue with it. I would have to ask the question:

What reasonably intelligent woman wants to have sex with her father?

I ask that question about things all the time.

What reasonable person wants to pierce themselves there?!?!

What reasonable person fantasizes about that?!?

Excrement? Really?

As icky as this is, I can't find any more reason to make it illegal than certain forms of sex play - which I think should be legal for competent, consenting adults.

*shrug*

I guess there in lies my issue with it. I would have to ask the question:

What reasonably intelligent woman wants to have sex with her father?

Ah but therein lies the question, what defines a "father"? And I don't mean a genetic donor. I mean what is it that creates that inate closeness that we have to our family as loved, but non sexual being. Is it that shared closeness of a common history? The fact that you were raised by your parents, developed the relationship with them, spend the years with them, and established roles and positions with them that enforced your relationship and its dynamics as parent and child, and not lovers?

If so, they never had that. He never raised her. He never comforted her as a child. He never wathced her grow up. He never told her about sex. He never did any of those things that a father does to a daughter over the years to build that relationship as father and daughter.

Except on a purely genetic level, he's no more her father than I am.

Ah but therein lies the question, what defines a "father"? And I don't mean a genetic donor. I mean what is it that creates that inate closeness that we have to our family as loved, but non sexual being. Is it that shared closeness of a common history? The fact that you were raised by your parents, developed the relationship with them, spend the years with them, and established roles and positions with them that enforced your relationship and its dynamics as parent and child, and not lovers?

If so, they never had that. He never raised her. He never comforted her as a child. He never wathced her grow up. He never told her about sex. He never did any of those things that a father does to a daughter over the years to build that relationship as father and daughter.

Except on a purely genetic level, he's no more her father than I am.

I get what you mean honestly I do, but I never grew up with my mum, I know her now of course, and yet I dunno, I just think sex with her would be wrong.

Ah but therein lies the question, what defines a "father"? And I don't mean a genetic donor. I mean what is it that creates that inate closeness that we have to our family as loved, but non sexual being. Is it that shared closeness of a common history? The fact that you were raised by your parents, developed the relationship with them, spend the years with them, and established roles and positions with them that enforced your relationship and its dynamics as parent and child, and not lovers?

If so, they never had that. He never raised her. He never comforted her as a child. He never wathced her grow up. He never told her about sex. He never did any of those things that a father does to a daughter over the years to build that relationship as father and daughter.

Except on a purely genetic level, he's no more her father than I am.

I understand what you are saying. And of course if they did not know they were relatives at all it wouldn't be an issue until someone knew. I think there have been cases of that in twins that were seperated at birth and such.

I will say I have no less issue when it is a step father either. So perhaps I am basing my opinion on the relationship.

To me the thing is, they do know they are relatives, they also know it is against the law to form such a relationship. Yet they allowed sexual desire to control their actions. Showing complete disregard for the law. I am just not fond of people thinking they don't have to abide by laws. Even when they don't like them.

Again I don't feel some kind of punitive punishment is in order. But I do feel that breaking this particular law should probably lead to mandatory psychological counseling for both parties.

I get what you mean honestly I do, but I never grew up with my mum, I know her now of course, and yet I dunno, I just think sex with her would be wrong.

But no one is telling you that you *should* have sex with your mother.
Just that, as an adult, you are allowed to make certain decisions about yourself. Including who you wish to have sex with (and who not).

That in no way makes this any less icky - but as pointed out a lot of sex is icky.

They each need to go through psych therapy and see if any major emotional/mental problems exist as a result of the dynamics of their daughter/father relationship. If that's the case, kids should be a definite and enforced no for these two. These kinds of problems (if they exist) will only be exacerbated for the kid when growing up because of the circumstances. If they are really happy and in love with each other, I don't see a real problem (however I doubt that this kind of thing is healthy).

I ask that question about things all the time.

What reasonable person wants to pierce themselves there?!?!

What reasonable person fantasizes about that?!?

Excrement? Really?

As icky as this is, I can't find any more reason to make it illegal than certain forms of sex play - which I think should be legal for competent, consenting adults.

*shrug*

Exactly. I think the overwhelming majority of us would agree that incest is pretty gross - but the overwhelming majority of us would also agree that, say, having your partner poop on your face during sexplay is pretty gross - but that's no reason to make it illegal. In the end, no matter how disgusting we find what these people are doing, I can't see any compelling reason for the law to be involved in their relationship.

Oh, and to the pro-eugenics folks here: that is SUCH a slippery slope, and I really don't think we want to go down it. Who decides how debilitating a genetic disorder has to be before people carrying genes for it are banned from reproducing? Who decides how large the risk of passing on a disorder has to be before we ban people from reproducing? And how exactly do we enforce that ban - forced sterilization? Do you honestly think that's a good and reasonable idea?

If as you say society says this is wrong, then it must be so.

Common practice (ergo legislature) cannot dictate what is inherently right or wrong. We must rely on reason and reason alone to do this; if not that, matters of consent. If not that, we must wait for more evidence and insight.

Oh, and to the pro-eugenics folks here: that is SUCH a slippery slope, and I really don't think we want to go down it. Who decides how debilitating a genetic disorder has to be before people carrying genes for it are banned from reproducing? Who decides how large the risk of passing on a disorder has to be before we ban people from reproducing? And how exactly do we enforce that ban - forced sterilization? Do you honestly think that's a good and reasonable idea?

No. Then again, one can state that these people should have seriously considered not reproducing, how the kid will be viewed by its peers and how it will have to cope with grandpa also being daddy.

If they did all that - fine. Then again " Emotions take over" does not seem to be an indication of them actually thinking it through or giving a damn about the feelings of the child.

To me the thing is, they do know they are relatives, they also know it is against the law to form such a relationship. Yet they allowed sexual desire to control their actions. Showing complete disregard for the law. I am just not fond of people thinking they don't have to abide by laws. Even when they don't like them.

And I believe, and this is a lawyer talking, that some laws deserve to be broken.

No. Then again, one can state that these people should have seriously considered not reproducing, how the kid will be viewed by its peers and how it will have to cope with grandpa also being daddy.

If they did all that - fine. Then again " Emotions take over" does not seem to be an indication of them actually thinking it through or giving a damn about the feelings of the child.

Oh, I agree that they should have put in some serious thought before having kids. Of course, I think everyone should put in some serious thought before having kids. It's not a choice to be made lightly.

Here's my question...presumably, and a biologist can correct me, won't most genetic defects that can occur as a result of incest be detectable in genetic screening? Do we know for a fact that these parents did not take appropriate medical measure to ensure that their child is genetically healthy?

Incest doesn't always result in crippling genetic problems, or any at all. The fact that they had a child does not mean, necessarily, that the child will have health issues. Do we know that they didn't make sure that the child wouldn't?

this (http://www.ziplo.com/grandpa.htm) is all that came to mind...

And I believe, and this is a lawyer talking, that some laws deserve to be broken.


I know lots of lawyers who feel that way. ;)

I just personally don't see things that way. If I don't like a law then it is my responsibility to exercise within my legal rights the things I can do to try to change it. (Lobby, vote, etc).

Here's my question...presumably, and a biologist can correct me, won't most genetic defects that can occur as a result of incest be detectable in genetic screening? Do we know for a fact that these parents did not take appropriate medical measure to ensure that their child is genetically healthy?

Incest doesn't always result in crippling genetic problems, or any at all. The fact that they had a child does not mean, necessarily, that the child will have health issues. Do we know that they didn't make sure that the child wouldn't?

Incest =/= genetic disorders. Any disorders that are present have a higher chance of propagating, but that is only if they exist already. Two 'pure' people (brother and sister) who have kids aren't going to magically have 18 toes and 3 fingers; that is to say homozygotes don't appear out of thin air.

Here's my question...presumably, and a biologist can correct me, won't most genetic defects that can occur as a result of incest be detectable in genetic screening? Do we know for a fact that these parents did not take appropriate medical measure to ensure that their child is genetically healthy?

Incest doesn't always result in crippling genetic problems, or any at all. The fact that they had a child does not mean, necessarily, that the child will have health issues. Do we know that they didn't make sure that the child wouldn't?

From what I understand, the risk of problems in a single case of incest is relatively low, but the risk would increase if the family was regularly incestuous. This is the reason that some places allow, for instance, first cousin marriages, but only if the parents were not also first cousins.

If the father carried an X-linked genetic problem, there would be a very high probability for the children to have it as well, as his daughter would be a carrier. But most such disorders would be known to him by now, I believe.

Genetic screening would turn up those things we know about, but not anything and everything. There are certainly heritable diseases that we haven't yet located.

Mother is 1/2 sister

FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

:p

Incest doesn't always result in crippling genetic problems, or any at all. The fact that they had a child does not mean, necessarily, that the child will have health issues.

True enough. It's also true that drinking under the influence of alcohol doesn't always result in an accident or any troubles at all. And that is exactly what I tell myself every time I do it.

I know lots of lawyers who feel that way. ;)

I just personally don't see things that way. If I don't like a law then it is my responsibility to exercise within my legal rights the things I can do to try to change it. (Lobby, vote, etc).

sometimes you cannot get support through the legal means.

I still think laws banning homosexual sex in the USA would still be "legal" had a nosy neighbor not called the cops in texas.

I don't know... would you do the same with two people who know that there's a fair chance of a geentic defect in their offspring, and still decide to go for it?

Gattaca! Gattaca! Gattaca!

I think this is absolutely appalling. People should not be allowed to do this.

There should be strong enforcement against these sick perverts.
Perhaps what we really need is some sort of committee to oversee this - anyone wishing to have sexual contact with another person must seek permission from the committee to ensure that contact is not in any way unpalatable to the committee members.

Yes, from now on, nobody is allowed any physical contact with another person unless approved by a council of elders or similar governing body.

Actually... that is not enough. We cannot permit the lascivious looks that might occur if not strictly controlled. Everyone must therefore wear completely concealing clothing - something that doesn't even hint at the basic body shape of the individual. No two people are allowed to even see each other unless they get permission from the committee. Oh, and speaking... voices can be very sensuous. No speaking to another is permitted either.

of course they should be left alone. it is awkard for people to live with, but i think marriage is okay between two consenting individuals who r of the age of 20+. we can't restrict their right to be happy, and marriage between relatives is fine by me, as long as it is not like "OMG i just married my father/mother etc. isn't that awesome?!!!". of course, i also think people need to take tests and get licenses to be parents, so i am pretty extreme.:fluffle:

I think this is absolutely appalling. People should not be allowed to do this.

There should be strong enforcement against these sick perverts.
Perhaps what we really need is some sort of committee to oversee this - anyone wishing to have sexual contact with another person must seek permission from the committee to ensure that contact is not in any way unpalatable to the committee members.

Yes, from now on, nobody is allowed any physical contact with another person unless approved by a council of elders or similar governing body.

Actually... that is not enough. We cannot permit the lascivious looks that might occur if not strictly controlled. Everyone must therefore wear completely concealing clothing - something that doesn't even hint at the basic body shape of the individual. No two people are allowed to even see each other unless they get permission from the committee. Oh, and speaking... voices can be very sensuous. No speaking to another is permitted either.

The existence of laws against certain types of sexual activities doesn't justify, lead to, or necessitate the existence of laws against ALL activities.

Your argument is little more than a slippery slope fallacy, and a strawman.

hey what about my post

sometimes you cannot get support through the legal means.

I still think laws banning homosexual sex in the USA would still be "legal" had a nosy neighbor not called the cops in texas.

Nah, Lawrence vs Texas was coming in one way or another those guys just happen to get tagged. It would have been another incident if not that particular one.

Societies views were changing when that case came about, if it had been thirty years earlier it would have never made it to the Supremes.

And that is the thing, if something is going to change in the law it has to first change in the court of public opinion. If these two want incest to be legal then lobby for it, gather others who share that view and try to change it in the court of public opinion. That is how all social laws are changed, when enough people believe the law is wrong.

The existence of laws against certain types of sexual activities doesn't justify, lead to, or necessitate the existence of laws against ALL activities.

Your argument is little more than a slippery slope fallacy, and a strawman.

Actually, I wasn't going for a slippery slope, but more of hyperbole to point out how ludicrous it was to make things illegal because someone thinks it is 'icky'.

And don't give me that 'genetic abnormality' argument unless you are prepared to use it for everyone - genetic disorders are not exclusive to incestuous relations. Likewise the power dynamic argument is only applicable to children or the mentally disabled, it does not apply to consenting adults.

So what justification do you have, aside from you finding it 'icky'?

*sigh* When will people grow the fuck up and stop caring about who their neighbor consentually boinks?

Really i wouldnt care, if you know, they both consent...but, honestly, You cant just let people go around Inbreeding, I mean, you end up with what amounts to Genetic Filth...just think of the kids...

They aren't exactly a good looking pair.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/img/2007/national/0704_deavescouple_9_lg.jpg

They aren't exactly a good looking pair.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/img/2007/national/0704_deavescouple_9_lg.jpg

They are obviously too fat to mate. They're also more likely to produce baby fatties because both of them are fat. Fat sex is also disgusting. Fat babies are unhealthy and it is unfair to the little tubby babies to be born. Say not to fat-on-fat mating and allowing the thin-person gene pool's fat ratio to increase.

They should not be punished. The details in this case shows that they do not merit punishment: It's a consentual thing, he never took part in raising her, and there's no signs of abuse. Hence, I have no qualms about letting them get jiggy with it.


Oh, and this:
Oh, and to the pro-eugenics folks here: that is SUCH a slippery slope, and I really don't think we want to go down it. Who decides how debilitating a genetic disorder has to be before people carrying genes for it are banned from reproducing? Who decides how large the risk of passing on a disorder has to be before we ban people from reproducing? And how exactly do we enforce that ban - forced sterilization? Do you honestly think that's a good and reasonable idea?

Unless they are american rednecks out in some isolated farm somewhere, they have no business committing incest, and the full hammer of legal restrictions on what they do should hit them

Unless they are american rednecks out in some isolated farm somewhere, they have no business committing incest, and the full hammer of legal restrictions on what they do should hit them

Why?

Actually, I wasn't going for a slippery slope, but more of hyperbole to point out how ludicrous it was to make things illegal because someone thinks it is 'icky'.


Well, the subject isn't quite *making* something illegal; It already is.

I think then the real question could be why do you want to make something legal on the basis (a strawman) that it is illegal because "someone thinks it is icky."

And don't give me that 'genetic abnormality' argument

I'm merely pointing out flawed reasoning in the post I quoted.

Well, the subject isn't quite *making* something illegal; It already is.

I think then the real question could be why do you want to make something legal on the basis (a strawman) that it is illegal because "someone thinks it is icky."

That's not really a good question.

Things are, by default, legal. A law has to be passed to make them illegal. Thus, the onus is always on those who want something to be illegal to justify government intervention. If no justification is there, no law should be there either.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/australia


Jenny Deaves, 39, says that her relationship with her boyfriend is just like any other sexual relationship with any man.

Except that he's her father.

She was reunited with him in 2000 after her parents had split up when she was young. Both her and her father left their partners and moved in together and have just had a baby.

They are appealing to be just left alone. Should they be?

Um...no. They shouldn't be. I mean, I'm all for the whole 'brother-sister' or even 'brother-brother' 'sister-sister' incest-thingie, but COME ON!!! He's her FATHER, for goodness's SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!! That's way gross!!!:eek:

That's not really a good question.

Things are, by default, legal. A law has to be passed to make them illegal. Thus, the onus is always on those who want something to be illegal to justify government intervention. If no justification is there, no law should be there either.

"By default?" What exactly does that mean? Before cities and the rule of law? I would venture to say that some things were 'illegal' by purely social means; incest being one of them. This isn't a case where some fringe in Texas declares hunting buffalo from the 2nd story window of a hotel to be illegal. Incest is *currently* illegal, so if someone wants to change that, they would need - at the very least - to argue for it.

No laws were ever revoked simply by continually demanding arguments for their existence. Similarly if one wanted to *make* something currently legal, illegal, they too would need to argue for that change.

"By default?" What exactly does that mean?

It means exactly what it says. "By default". Everything is legal unless we make a law against it. To make a law against it, we need a valid reason for government intervention.

Before cities and the rule of law? I would venture to say that some things were 'illegal' by purely social means; incest being one of them. This isn't a case where some fringe in Texas declares hunting buffalo from the 2nd story window of a hotel to be illegal. Incest is *currently* illegal, so if someone wants to change that, they would need - at the very least - to argue for it.

Why?

Why shouldn't the people who want to intrude in others' lives be the ones providing the justification for continued intrusion?

No laws were ever revoked simply by continually demanding arguments for their existence. Similarly if one wanted to *make* something currently legal, illegal, they too would need to argue for that change.

Perhaps. But the onus should always be on the people wanting to control others to justify their control, not the other way around.

The fact that it isn't that way is a problem.

Ok first off, I just got back from bathing in scolding hot water, to wash away the ickiness from reading that article. However, I don't think the scolding hot water, 1st and 2nd degree burns have exactly gotten rid of the residue of ickiness from reading that article.

HOWEVER, they are consenting adults, and they both seem to be in sound mind and body, and I don't see the child that they make as an abomination against god or whoever they worship, so I say leave the alone.

I'd probably say yes, they should be left alone, if only because at the moment the only rationale I can find for separating/imprisoning them is that I find it personally repugnant. And I'm not in favor of laws banning things that are only personally repugnant.

That said, ewwww.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/australia


Jenny Deaves, 39, says that her relationship with her boyfriend is just like any other sexual relationship with any man.

Except that he's her father.

She was reunited with him in 2000 after her parents had split up when she was young. Both her and her father left their partners and moved in together and have just had a baby.

They are appealing to be just left alone. Should they be?

1. Okay, I think it's wrong for a father and a daughter to have sex. I think it's wrong for a father and daughter to be in a relationship of this nature. I think it's very very wrong that they're choosing to have children when they know the associated risks.

2. I think cases like this are hard because it's not like he was a father figure. They were two separate people for a very long time. It's not like she's with someone who saw her grow up as a child. I think part of the reason incest is wrong is because it screws up an existing family unit. This is not the case in this situation.

3. However, I have to admit that I don't think they're exactly head over heels. I could excuse this in people who were much more articulate about their love and could actually defend it properly. His "so what" comment just proves it's not a situation where they'd DIE without eachother's love... it's just... "so what". When I watched it, I almost thought "these people are too stupid to understand what they're doing".

4. I think that the media shouldn't have really been involved. They just sensationalise everything.

5. I think it's very sad that they left their existing partners to be with one another. To be left by a man for his DAUGHTER would be pretty upsetting.

"Oh it's just emotions taking me over/Caught up in sorrow/Lost in the song..."

Ewwwww....but I'm not one to make that decision. Let the courts decide.

I'd probably say yes, they should be left alone, if only because at the moment the only rationale I can find for separating/imprisoning them is that I find it personally repugnant. And I'm not in favor of laws banning things that are only personally repugnant.

That said, ewwww.

Ok first off, I just got back from bathing in scolding hot water, to wash away the ickiness from reading that article. However, I don't think the scolding hot water, 1st and 2nd degree burns have exactly gotten rid of the residue of ickiness from reading that article.

HOWEVER, they are consenting adults, and they both seem to be in sound mind and body, and I don't see the child that they make as an abomination against god or whoever they worship, so I say leave the alone.

The "eww" factor isn't really the biggest problem with it.

If they want a relationship of that sort, fine. I have no problem with two consenting adults doing whatever they like.

They should not, however, be permitted to breed. That would be genetic irresponsibility of the highest level.

Here's my question...presumably, and a biologist can correct me, won't most genetic defects that can occur as a result of incest be detectable in genetic screening? Do we know for a fact that these parents did not take appropriate medical measure to ensure that their child is genetically healthy?

Incest doesn't always result in crippling genetic problems, or any at all. The fact that they had a child does not mean, necessarily, that the child will have health issues. Do we know that they didn't make sure that the child wouldn't?

That story is kinda weird. I agree with those who say they just shouldn't have babies.


I do have concern for any biological children they might produce...

I watched the program. Apparently they tried to have a kid and it died from a genetic defect (from what I remember from watching it) and now they're trying to have another child.

When that daughter is a reasonably intelligent, capable of making her own decisions, granting of informed, uncoerced or manipulated consent, 40 year old woman...no, I don't.

She didn't seem reasonably intelligent to me.


They are obviously too fat to mate. They're also more likely to produce baby fatties because both of them are fat. Fat sex is also disgusting. Fat babies are unhealthy and it is unfair to the little tubby babies to be born. Say not to fat-on-fat mating and allowing the thin-person gene pool's fat ratio to increase.

I truly hope you're being sarcastic.

They are both consenting to this relationship.....

so....

let them do that disgusting thing and tell them not to share it with the world, or we will take their kids, force him to get his balls cut.....and move on with our live to see what else is messed up in the world....


point is, it is to risky to have a kid, so ban them from that. other then that, as long as the door is closed, no one better open it

I watched the program. Apparently they tried to have a kid and it died from a genetic defect (from what I remember from watching it) and now they're trying to have another child.


They already have another child. It's 9 months old.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/australia


Jenny Deaves, 39, says that her relationship with her boyfriend is just like any other sexual relationship with any man.

Except that he's her father.

She was reunited with him in 2000 after her parents had split up when she was young. Both her and her father left their partners and moved in together and have just had a baby.

They are appealing to be just left alone. Should they be?

Yes.

If gays and lesbians argue for equal treatment based on the idea of "consenting adults" then we should apply that across the board.

Polygamists and adults who practice incest of any sort should be OK.

After all, the majority of European countries have no laws against incest.

And we all know how smart the Europeans are. Heaven forbid we should interfere with the actions of consenting adults.

I'm not even touching this thread...

*leaves quietly*

Yes.

If gays and lesbians argue for equal treatment based on the idea of "consenting adults" then we should apply that across the board.

Polygamists and adults who practice incest of any sort should be OK.

After all, the majority of European countries have no laws against incest.

And we all know how smart the Europeans are. Heaven forbid we should interfere with the actions of consenting adults.

Nice sarcasm. Now, let us do something constructive.

Please share your great wisdom with us and tell which kinds of sex are appropriate and which not. Same-sex ? With more than two people ? What is an acceptable age difference ? What is an acceptable difference in social status ? Which positions are allowed ? Which activities ? Can one use toys ? If so, which ?

Preferably including a form of reasoning that explains why some forms are fine and others are not.

If you wish to claim that religious prescripts like e.g. of a chosen form of Christianity should also be applied to nonbelievers, do note that my Goddess has ordered JHWH to go back to his room and be grounded there for the next few aeons for "telling the humans silly things". He is after all nothing but a naughty child.

Oh, and to the pro-eugenics folks here: that is SUCH a slippery slope, and I really don't think we want to go down it. Who decides how debilitating a genetic disorder has to be before people carrying genes for it are banned from reproducing? Who decides how large the risk of passing on a disorder has to be before we ban people from reproducing? And how exactly do we enforce that ban - forced sterilization? Do you honestly think that's a good and reasonable idea?
You don't ban it, you just hold the parents responsible. If they know the child they will bring in to this world has a significant chance of being in pain for all of it's short life, if they still choose to have that child, they take responsibility for what happens.
If the child is born with the debilitating illness, they get punished the same as someone who had tortured someone would get punished.

They already have another child. It's 9 months old.

Aaah, that's right. And I vaguely remember them saying something is/could be wrong with that kid too.

You don't ban it, you just hold the parents responsible. If they know the child they will bring in to this world has a significant chance of being in pain for all of it's short life, if they still choose to have that child, they take responsibility for what happens.
If the child is born with the debilitating illness, they get punished the same as someone who had tortured someone would get punished.

The flaw in this logic is that a poor child has to suffer through a life - how ever long it may be - with a debilitating illness, when it could have been prevented.

They are both consenting to this relationship.....

so....

let them do that disgusting thing and tell them not to share it with the world, or we will take their kids, force him to get his balls cut.....and move on with our live to see what else is messed up in the world....


point is, it is to risky to have a kid, so ban them from that. other then that, as long as the door is closed, no one better open it

This argument always really annoys me. Whenever someone does something "wrong" sexually - ie rape, incest, sexual abuse etc, someone always replies with "cut of his balls"/"rape him in the ass" etc. Those acts are sexual abuse in themselves. We should send a message that violence is not tolerated, but if we did as you've suggested, we'd be sending the message "fuck with me and I'll fuck with you", which is just going to cause more problems.

if we did as you've suggested, we'd be sending the message "fuck with me and I'll fuck with you", which is just going to cause more problems.May have something to do with a pervasive undercurrent of an interpretation of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth".

Ewwwww....but I'm not one to make that decision. Let the courts decide.

Um.

Let the courts decide??










...That's political irresponsibility to say the least.

The flaw in this logic is that a poor child has to suffer through a life - how ever long it may be - with a debilitating illness, when it could have been prevented.

It is a problem. But I can't see the governemnt doing forced sterilisations and forced abortions. Th only other option is to hold the parents accountable. If they know when they take that 50/50 chance of giving birth to a child that will know pain and then die, and nothing else, that they will go to jail if luck goes against them, hopefully they will abort or not conceive.

Think of the poor kid. Dad is Grandpa. :eek:

umm... listen to this song

I am my own grandpa

http://www.ziplo.com/grandpa.htm

there is no "so what". laws are either laws or their not.

if a law is unreasonable, and it can and often does happen that some are, then it is a law that needs chainging. and the proccess for doing so certainly needs to be responsive, not only to popular presure, which may at times itself not always be entirely rational or responsible, but also to objective natural, more so then social, reality.

emotions may play a rich and rewarding roll in life, but trustworthy they are not, ever.

=^^=
.../\...

But no one is telling you that you *should* have sex with your mother.
Just that, as an adult, you are allowed to make certain decisions about yourself. Including who you wish to have sex with (and who not).

That in no way makes this any less icky - but as pointed out a lot of sex is icky.

True, but my comments where about how I still find the very idea of incest wrong.

Exactly. I think the overwhelming majority of us would agree that incest is pretty gross - but the overwhelming majority of us would also agree that, say, having your partner poop on your face during sexplay is pretty gross - but that's no reason to make it illegal. In the end, no matter how disgusting we find what these people are doing, I can't see any compelling reason for the law to be involved in their relationship.

The easy answer to that would be, becuase it is already against the law.

Common practice (ergo legislature) cannot dictate what is inherently right or wrong. We must rely on reason and reason alone to do this; if not that, matters of consent. If not that, we must wait for more evidence and insight.

Yet it does doesn't it, or incest would not be ileagal, and gay marriage would have been legal a looooong time ago.

As to what is inherently right and wrong, well there is no such thing it's all relative.

but if we did as you've suggested, we'd be sending the message "fuck with me and I'll fuck with you", which is just going to cause more problems.

Shit isn't that war all over?:D

The easy answer to that would be, becuase it is already against the law.

That's not a very compelling reason when you don't think it should be against the law.

Nice sarcasm. Now, let us do something constructive.

Please share your great wisdom with us and tell which kinds of sex are appropriate and which not. Same-sex ? With more than two people ? What is an acceptable age difference ? What is an acceptable difference in social status ? Which positions are allowed ? Which activities ? Can one use toys ? If so, which ?

Preferably including a form of reasoning that explains why some forms are fine and others are not.

If you wish to claim that religious prescripts like e.g. of a chosen form of Christianity should also be applied to nonbelievers, do note that my Goddess has ordered JHWH to go back to his room and be grounded there for the next few aeons for "telling the humans silly things". He is after all nothing but a naughty child.

I am being constructive. Most European nations have no laws against incest. And on Internet forums, we are constantly treated to how advanced, civilized, progressive, and sensitive to human rights all European nations are compared to the US. As an American, I feel then that to avoid criticism on the issue, we should let these poor family members do whatever they want to do as consenting adults, and leave them alone.

I truly hope you're being sarcastic.
Obviously, but had that post not been in jest, it still would have been about on par with some of the "arguments" being tossed up in this thread.
This argument always really annoys me. Whenever someone does something "wrong" sexually - ie rape, incest, sexual abuse etc, someone always replies with "cut of his balls"/"rape him in the ass" etc. Those acts are sexual abuse in themselves. We should send a message that violence is not tolerated, but if we did as you've suggested, we'd be sending the message "fuck with me and I'll fuck with you", which is just going to cause more problems.
May have something to do with a pervasive undercurrent of an interpretation of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth".

Agreed. The idea of retributive "justice" is silly, at best, and socially devastating at worst.

I'm also interested in this 50% chance people keep saying their kids have of being born with genetic defects. I thought the chance of defects, even should the parents be identical twins, was something at like 38%. Furthermore, simply the chance of genetically defective children does not give you a pass to prohibit it on legal grounds. By your logic, anyone suffering a genetic defect cannot reproduce with another suffering the same, or just anyone else in particular. The eugenicists in this thread are going to have to work really hard to justify that position and I've yet to see any address the issue of what to do about others with actual genetic diseases.

As has been said by many, many others: yea, I think it's disgusting; but, hell, look at those two? Pretty much any kind of sex involving them, incestuous or otherwise, would disgust me but nothing gives me the right to bar it.

I happen to think incest is bad, no matter which way you look at it. Yeah, yeah, you're in love with a man that happens to be your father, gross and wrong. But what can we all do about it? Seriously? Nothing. If they want to be together, screw it. No one can change that, even when is morally wrong. What they shouldn't have done though was have a child. Now, that, is truly f*cked up.

What they shouldn't have done though was have a child. Now, that, is truly f*cked up.

If it were fucked up for two people in love to have a child, humanity as we know it would not exist.

That's not a very compelling reason when you don't think it should be against the law.


*shrug* I agree, but I think it should be against the law, so again *shrug*

*shrug* I agree, but I think it should be against the law, so again *shrug*

So then perhaps in the spirit of debate you could have provided some other compelling reasons why the law should be involved in this consentual relationship.

If it were fucked up for two people in love to have a child, humanity as we know it would not exist.

If incest happened in Antiquity to perpetuate humanity, it happened for that purpose, where groups of individuals who were isolated needed a way to continue their respective family lines. Nowadays, incest is not justified, in any way, because humans abound, there's no need to keep marrying in close knit family groups (unless you're a redneck or believe that beings from the movie "Wrong Turn" can exist;)). Again, having a child from such a f*cked up union as the one between daughter and father is just wrong, even if it were them trying to "preserve" the human species or because they're "in love". No justification, period.:rolleyes:

The easy answer to that would be, becuase it is already against the law.

The difficult thought behind that would be that laws can be changed and that it's not so long ago that homosexuality was illegal, for pretty much the same reason : the "ick!"-reaction of non-homosexuals.

Yes, it is illegal, and the right way to go about this relationship would have been to fight the law on its own ground until it's made legal, but that costs a lot of time, money and energy...

If incest happened in Antiquity to perpetuate humanity, it happened for that purpose, where groups of individuals who were isolated needed a way to continue their respective family lines. Nowadays, incest is not justified, in any way, because humans abound, there's no need to keep marrying in close knit family groups (unless you're a redneck or believe that beings from the movie "Wrong Turn" can exist;)). Again, having a child from such a f*cked up union as the one between daughter and father is just wrong, even if it were them trying to "preserve" the human species or because they're "in love". No justification, period.:rolleyes:

This is a perfect example of what amazes me about this thread : We're being presented with a situation where two adults made a choice about their lifes that does not concern anyone but themselves and doesn't harm anyone including themselves. All they did was break a law that effectively contradicts the very basis of Western laws (you know, the whole equality, freedom, full rights to anyone who doesn't infringe on the rights of others kind of thing).
And all those who promote the law in question have nothing to put forward apart from "it's icky and wrong" and "their kids have a slightly higher chance of having genetic defects". Seriously, is that all you've got?

This is a perfect example of what amazes me about this thread : We're being presented with a situation where two adults made a choice about their lifes that does not concern anyone but themselves and doesn't harm anyone including themselves. All they did was break a law that effectively contradicts the very basis of Western laws (you know, the whole equality, freedom, full rights to anyone who doesn't infringe on the rights of others kind of thing).
And all those who promote the law in question have nothing to put forward apart from "it's icky and wrong" and "their kids have a slightly higher chance of having genetic defects". Seriously, is that all you've got?

Yet you ignore the life of their child to be born, which is of prime concern. Even if he's born perfectly healthy, he's still going to have to live for the rest of his life knowing that his Dad is his Grandfather, and everyone else knowing it too, which will make life incredibly difficult for him, I would definitely hate to have the life their child will have. Illegal? Perhaps not, but just because this couple are 'rebelling' against 'oppressive victimless crime laws', doesn't mean they deserve any ounce of respect.

Yet you ignore the life of their child to be born, which is of prime concern. Even if he's born perfectly healthy, he's still going to have to live for the rest of his life knowing that his Dad is his Grandfather, and everyone else knowing it too, which will make life incredibly difficult for him, I would definitely hate to have the life their child will have. Illegal? Perhaps not, but just because this couple are 'rebelling' against 'oppressive victimless crime laws', doesn't mean they deserve any ounce of respect.

I've heard that argument sooo many times... usually referring to single parents, stay-at-home dads, and adopting homosexuals. Do you think it holds any value in those cases? Why then in this one?

And I'm sure they can happily live without your respect. As long as they get to live in peace.

This is a perfect example of what amazes me about this thread : We're being presented with a situation where two adults made a choice about their lifes that does not concern anyone but themselves and doesn't harm anyone including themselves. All they did was break a law that effectively contradicts the very basis of Western laws (you know, the whole equality, freedom, full rights to anyone who doesn't infringe on the rights of others kind of thing).
And all those who promote the law in question have nothing to put forward apart from "it's icky and wrong" and "their kids have a slightly higher chance of having genetic defects". Seriously, is that all you've got?

Thats all there is isn't there.

Thats all there is isn't there.

I don't see "icky" and "possible genetic defects" as enough ground to deny two adults their free choices, sorry.
It's been pointed out numerous times that if we really were so concerned about genetics, we would ban people who actually already have a defect, or a family history of genetic problems, from reproducing. And "icky" should not ever be an argument for or against other people's rights.

This is a perfect example of what amazes me about this thread : We're being presented with a situation where two adults made a choice about their lifes that does not concern anyone but themselves and doesn't harm anyone including themselves. All they did was break a law that effectively contradicts the very basis of Western laws (you know, the whole equality, freedom, full rights to anyone who doesn't infringe on the rights of others kind of thing).
And all those who promote the law in question have nothing to put forward apart from "it's icky and wrong" and "their kids have a slightly higher chance of having genetic defects". Seriously, is that all you've got?

Think about the psychological effect of growing up knowing your parents are father and daughter. Think about the genetic deffects this child can carry and that, wether he presents any on him/herself or not, he/she can pass it on to future generations. Think about how society, a cruel organization unto itself, will do to this child. The damage will occur, even if you, me or anyone what to paint it with little hearts and rainbow colored unicorns.

If two consenting adults disregard conventions and, despite being a father and a daughter (mother-son, grandfather-cousin), decide to live together, fine. Let them. What I find horrible and unjustifiable is procreating. They love each other they say, woop-dilly-doodle-doo!, just don't condemn a child who never asked to be brought to this world to a life of being ostrasized. And again, incestuous relationships, no matter how much one may want to see around them, are wrong. Period.

I don't see "icky" and "possible genetic defects" as enough ground to deny two adults their free choices, sorry.
It's been pointed out numerous times that if we really were so concerned about genetics, we would ban people who actually already have a defect, or a family history of genetic problems, from reproducing. And "icky" should not ever be an argument for or against other people's rights.

When a right is already considered taboo though what then?

I've heard that argument sooo many times... usually referring to single parents, stay-at-home dads, and adopting homosexuals. Do you think it holds any value in those cases? Why then in this one?

Single parenting is not exactly a desirable thing (the family may be poorer and there may be more stress etc...) but it's not abnormal and wont put the child in a difficult position. Stay-at-home dads don't cause any problems at all as far as I'm concerned and never knew it did, my Dad was a stay-at-home Dad. Gays adopting is perfectly normal, and may only cause bullying when the child is young, the problems would be insignificant and can be dismissed. None of this even compares to what it will be like for this Child.

If they did all that - fine. Then again " Emotions take over" does not seem to be an indication of them actually thinking it through or giving a damn about the feelings of the child.
Personally, I'm of the view that part of being human means being able to decide whether or not to act on your emotions and instincts. "Emotions take over" could potentially be an excuse for any manner of behaviour. Are we to excuse the killer for murder because his 'emotions took over'? Should the wife-beater be let off because his 'emotions took over'?

The purpose of law - and of morality - is to protect society. Certainly there are different classes of 'threat', some worse than others; and equally there are times when law, and conventional morality, can be seen to be unnecessarily binding and to go beyond their bounds in regulating things that don't need regulating. In these cases it's fair to question the existing restriction. It's fair to ask the question in this case - but I see a lot of people arguing that incest is okay by them, just as long as no kids are produced. I'm betting there are a fair few people out there in heterosexual relationships who could testify to the difficulty of making absolutely sure that conception won't occur. It's easy to talk about always being prepared, always taking the appropriate precautions - but sometimes, you know, emotions just take over. And sometimes, the precautions simply don't do what they're supposed to do.

So this attitude is contradictory. It seems to accept that "emotions take over", and that an incestuous relationship between consenting adults should therefore be excused; but it also presumes an absolute quality of self-control on the part of the people then involved in the said relationship. If we're expecting them to demonstrate that control and responsibility within a relationship, then we can equally expect them to demonstrate it in deciding not to pursue a relationship at all. If we accept "emotions take over" as a valid excuse for entering into the relationship in the first place, then we must accept it as an excuse similarly valid when children result.

Single parenting is not exactly a desirable thing (the family may be poorer and there may be more stress etc...) but it's not abnormal and wont put the child in a difficult position. Stay-at-home dads don't cause any problems at all as far as I'm concerned and never knew it did, my Dad was a stay-at-home Dad. Gays adopting is perfectly normal, and may only cause bullying when the child is young, the problems would be insignificant and can be dismissed. None of this even compares to what it will be like for this Child.

So the problem here is not with the couple or the child, but with society? Is that what you're saying? Cause it's not "normal"?

So the problem here is not with the couple or the child, but with society? Is that what you're saying? Cause it's not "normal"?

Society in a way is the problem yes. But who ever is the problem is irrelevant, the fact is, this Child's life is going to be hell.

Think about the psychological effect of growing up knowing your parents are father and daughter. Think about the genetic deffects this child can carry and that, wether he presents any on him/herself or not, he/she can pass it on to future generations. Think about how society, a cruel organization unto itself, will do to this child. The damage will occur, even if you, me or anyone what to paint it with little hearts and rainbow colored unicorns.

If two consenting adults disregard conventions and, despite being a father and a daughter (mother-son, grandfather-cousin), decide to live together, fine. Let them. What I find horrible and unjustifiable is procreating. They love each other they say, woop-dilly-doodle-doo!, just don't condemn a child who never asked to be brought to this world to a life of being ostrasized. And again, incestuous relationships, no matter how much one may want to see around them, are wrong. Period.

Guess what? Children will always be ostracized for one reason or another. I was because I was left-handed and the whole class witnessed the teachers attempts to "correct" me. My best friend was cause she was 5 years old when her parents got married. Another friend of mine was cause her father is Indian. My brother was for having a small safety-blanket right up till he was 12. Another girl at school was for a speech impediment.

People are cruel, and kids are the cruellest of the lot. If this was to be a reason for not having kids, people who are too poor to afford brand name clothes for their kids should be called selfish, people who raise their kids religious/atheist (whatever the minority would happen to be) should be called selfish, people who raise their kids vegetarian should be called selfish and most certainly all parents who are told that their child will be born with any sort of birth defect and still decide to keep the kid rather than abort it ought to be called selfish!
I'm not painting anything pink here, but do try and keep the perspective of things.

So the problem here is not with the couple or the child, but with society? Is that what you're saying? Cause it's not "normal"?

So, you're basically saying that a daughter and father (because they're consenting adults) can become romantically involved, live together and procreate without taking into consideration that the child of that union will forever be affected by their decision? Because if that's what you're implying, Cabra, I'm sorry to say but, you're über wrong.

Society in a way is the problem yes. But who ever is the problem is irrelevant, the fact is, this Child's life is going to be hell.

Well, I guess that must have been the same for the first mixed-marriages children, wouldn't it? And for the first few kids raised by same-sex parents, just imagine. Not even to mention for the first couple of kids raised by single mums....

So, you're basically saying that a daughter and father (because they're consenting adults) can become romantically involved, live together and procreate without taking into consideration that the child of that union will forever be affected by their decision? Because if that's what you're implying, Cabra, I'm sorry to say but, you're über wrong.

You know, that argument always gets me. Cause it's these words exactly that my grandmother used when she sent my mother back to that abuser of a husband of hers : "You can't think of just yourself now, the kids need a normal family and a father, no matter what."

Don't pressume to know what's best for people, ever.

If incest happened in Antiquity to perpetuate humanity, it happened for that purpose, where groups of individuals who were isolated needed a way to continue their respective family lines.
Actually, most of the time incest happened it was to keep money/power/land in a certain family.
Nowadays, incest is not justified
I'm sorry, I must be in the wrong reality. Where I come from people don't need any justification to fall in love with someone.
, in any way, because humans abound, there's no need to keep marrying in close knit family groups (unless you're a redneck or believe that beings from the movie "Wrong Turn" can exist;)).
So what if there's no need? There's no need for me to ever have sex, but I'm still going to(hopefully >.> <.<)
Again, having a child from such a f*cked up union as the one between daughter and father
Explain why this is fucked up, please.
is just wrong,
Explain why, please.
even if it were them trying to "preserve" the human species or because they're "in love". No justification, period.:rolleyes:
I still don't understand why you think people need a justification to be in a relationship other than wanting to be in it.
Yet you ignore the life of their child to be born, which is of prime concern. Even if he's born perfectly healthy, he's still going to have to live for the rest of his life knowing that his Dad is his Grandfather, and everyone else knowing it too, which will make life incredibly difficult for him, I would definitely hate to have the life their child will have.
Incest is bad because the kids will be embarrassed?

Well, I guess that must have been the same for the first mixed-marriages children, wouldn't it? And for the first few kids raised by same-sex parents, just imagine. Not even to mention for the first couple of kids raised by single mums....

Single mothers have been around since the dawn of humanity, I'm not sure why you think they are vindicated by society, but accepting for the sake of argument anyway: all these relationships are normal healthy ones, and by the time gays started properly adopting children for instance was when such a relationship was really already accepted in the west, or at least in much of Europe, which meant having gay parents wouldn't seem that bad. I'm not sure if incest is a psychologically healthy relationship at all however, but if society was one day able to accept this relationship as normal, then I wouldn't think it would be as harmful for them to have a child.

Incest is bad because the kids will be embarrassed?

Thats a strawman, In that post I never said incest was bad, only that this couple shouldn't have children. Although I admit I'm skeptical as to whether incest is psychologically healthy.

Well, I guess that must have been the same for the first mixed-marriages children, wouldn't it? And for the first few kids raised by same-sex parents, just imagine. Not even to mention for the first couple of kids raised by single mums....

It's true, and when I remember back to the 70's and early 80's it was the same. But taking that particular stick by the other end, we could also say that the same my be true in the future for the 50 year old man to have a sexual realtionship with the 15 year old girl.

Peadophilla is the new taboo, but does that mean we must just discard the old ones? Incest like this, I.E. Father/Daugther has not just been taboo for a few years, or a few centurys, but for a loooooooong time, now I wonder why that is?

Speaking about them being consenting adults. The age of sexual consent in this country is 16, would you feel differant if the girl was 16 in this case? What if in the fullness of time the legal age of sexual consent drops to 15 or 14, would that make any differance?

Guess what? Children will always be ostracized for one reason or another. I was because I was left-handed and the whole class witnessed the teachers attempts to "correct" me. My best friend was cause she was 5 years old when her parents got married. Another friend of mine was cause her father is Indian. My brother was for having a small safety-blanket right up till he was 12. Another girl at school was for a speech impediment.

People are cruel, and kids are the cruellest of the lot. If this was to be a reason for not having kids, people who are too poor to afford brand name clothes for their kids should be called selfish, people who raise their kids religious/atheist (whatever the minority would happen to be) should be called selfish, people who raise their kids vegetarian should be called selfish and most certainly all parents who are told that their child will be born with any sort of birth defect and still decide to keep the kid rather than abort it ought to be called selfish!
I'm not painting anything pink here, but do try and keep the perspective of things.

I think that you're the one who isn't keeping things into perspective here. Once again, if two consenting adults who happen to be father and daughter decide to live together and have an intimate relationship, let them. But, regardless of children being cruel and making fun of you because you're a lefty or because your father is from India or because your fat or too skinny, doesn't even begin to compare to being pointed at because your father is also your grandfather and he was sexually intimate with your mother, who also happens to be this man's daughter.

It's selfish of the adults to bring a child to this world who'll always be looked at as the product of an incestuous relationship. And if they decide to have it, give it up for adoption. No matter how you look at it, incest is not acceptable.

Guess what? Children will always be ostracized for one reason or another. I was because I was left-handed and the whole class witnessed the teachers attempts to "correct" me. My best friend was cause she was 5 years old when her parents got married. Another friend of mine was cause her father is Indian. My brother was for having a small safety-blanket right up till he was 12. Another girl at school was for a speech impediment.

People are cruel, and kids are the cruellest of the lot. If this was to be a reason for not having kids, people who are too poor to afford brand name clothes for their kids should be called selfish, people who raise their kids religious/atheist (whatever the minority would happen to be) should be called selfish, people who raise their kids vegetarian should be called selfish and most certainly all parents who are told that their child will be born with any sort of birth defect and still decide to keep the kid rather than abort it ought to be called selfish!
I'm not painting anything pink here, but do try and keep the perspective of things.

All true, but remember we are not talking about a kid who has two mums, or two dads, or mixed race parents, or single parents, we are talking about a kids whose dad and mum are father and daughter. Now bearing that in mind look at all the remarks from adults here, just here on this little forum.

Incest is taboo, and likely to remain so, you really think that adults will have nowt to say to this kid, even when the kid grows up?

And on Internet forums, we are constantly treated to how advanced, civilized, progressive, and sensitive to human rights all European nations are compared to the US.
Are we? I'm in Europe - the UK, to be precise - and I'm not aware that we're significantly more advanced, civilised, progressive and sensitive to human rights than the people of the USA. More than many of the countries in the world, perhaps - unfashionable though it may be to say so - but I think in the main the US population is quite similar to the European in many respects.

There are Americans who wouldn't know civilisation from a milkshake, of course - and some of them are in pretty high positions (mentioning no names, obviously *coughgeorgecough*) but the same could be said of some Europeans (*coughgordoncough*). There might be a certain rivalry across the Atlantic - rivalry that concentrates predominantly on relatively cosmetic cultural matters (like, for instance, Jeremy Kyle and his society-destroying ilk being Your Damn Fault) - and there might be the occasional fierce disagreement (anyone for a freedom fry?). But by and large, I think any attempt by US or EU to gain significant moral high ground over the other is going to be pretty hopeless.

I wonder if perhaps you're just a little oversensitive on this score?

[Incidentally, pre-emptive note to any Brits currently winding themselves up for a fierce tirade about the UK isn't 'Europe': we're in the EU, like it or not; and frankly, I don't think nationalism's all that pretty a thing - especially when the country in question is in the state we're currently in.]

Single mothers have been around since the dawn of humanity, I'm not sure why you think they are vindicated by society, but accepting for the sake of argument anyway: all these relationships are normal healthy ones, and by the time gays started properly adopting children for instance was when such a relationship was really already accepted in the west, or at least in much of Europe, which meant having gay parents wouldn't seem that bad. I'm not sure if incest is a psychologically healthy relationship at all however, but if society was one day able to accept this relationship as normal, then I wouldn't think it would be as harmful for them to have a child.

Of course they have, and for the last couple of centuries at least their children where made to feel like the scum of the earth (my own grandfather went through being called a "bastard" for the better part of his life). And, no, I wouldn't call a guy knocking up a girl 50 years back and then leaving without a word a healthy relationship.

True, some incestuous relationships can be psychologically unhealthy. However, many aren't, the one in the example is about two people who had next to no contact during the entire childhood of the girl. I would assume when they met, it would to them have been like meeting a total stranger. There was a recent case of a pair of newly-weds who discovered they were brother and sister, I think it was an adoption case there. I suspect we shall see some increase in the number of such relationships, what with increased mobility and decreased family stability, and I don't really see any reason to ostracise those people.

You know, that argument always gets me. Cause it's these words exactly that my grandmother used when she sent my mother back to that abuser of a husband of hers : "You can't think of just yourself now, the kids need a normal family and a father, no matter what."

Don't pressume to know what's best for people, ever.

Blog it, dear. It's not the same. And I don't presume to know what's best for people. I'm not god and I surely do not control society. Again, incest isn't an acceptable relationship, just like abusive relationships aren't acceptable. This is not about what's best for the parents, but what's best for the kids. So spare me the emotional allusions.

Think about the psychological effect of growing up knowing your parents are father and daughter.
Think about the effect of knowing your parents are gay. Ban gay marriage. Or your parents being of two different races. Ban interracial marriages. Ban everything except 'normal' marriages.
Think about the genetic deffects this child can carry and that, wether he presents any on him/herself or not, he/she can pass it on to future generations.
What makes you think the same isn't true for you? There's no more reason to believe that you and anyone you might choose to procreate with are less likely to produce a child with a genetic defect.
Think about how society, a cruel organization unto itself, will do to this child. The damage will occur, even if you, me or anyone what to paint it with little hearts and rainbow colored unicorns.
Ban everything that soceity doesn't approve of! Punish those who dare to be different!

If two consenting adults disregard conventions and, despite being a father and a daughter (mother-son, grandfather-cousin), decide to live together, fine. Let them. What I find horrible and unjustifiable is procreating.
Poeple don't need a justification for wanting to have kids. It's somethnig of an in-built desire.
They love each other they say, woop-dilly-doodle-doo!, just don't condemn a child who never asked to be brought to this world to a life of being ostrasized. And again, incestuous relationships, no matter how much one may want to see around them, are wrong. Period.
And by this reasoning, so are interracial relationships, gay relationships, straight relationships where the woman 'wears the pants', D/s relationships, open relationships and probably a whole lot of other things. If society thinks that what two or more consenting people are doing is icky then society should stop being such a peeping tom.
So, you're basically saying that a daughter and father (because they're consenting adults) can become romantically involved, live together and procreate without taking into consideration that the child of that union will forever be affected by their decision?
Your assumption that this is the case is baseless.

You know, that argument always gets me. Cause it's these words exactly that my grandmother used when she sent my mother back to that abuser of a husband of hers : "You can't think of just yourself now, the kids need a normal family and a father, no matter what."

Don't pressume to know what's best for people, ever.
So it'd be reasonable to say that you're not arguing from an objective position?

It's selfish of the adults to bring a child to this world who'll always be looked at as the product of an incestuous relationship. And if they decide to have it, give it up for adoption. No matter how you look at it, incest is not acceptable.

Why? Where's the differnce between being made fun of because you're father talks funny, and your father is actually your grandfather? Besides the fact that, you know, you can't hide an Indian father with strong accent, but you don't have to tell anyone that your father is also your mother's father...

Thats a strawman, In that post I never said incest was bad, only that this couple shouldn't have children. Although I admit I'm skeptical as to whether incest is psychologically healthy.

Ah, sorry. So an incestuous couple having children is bad because the child will be embarrassed?

Of course they have, and for the last couple of centuries at least their children where made to feel like the scum of the earth (my own grandfather went through being called a "bastard" for the better part of his life).

Did your grandfather live in particularly religious area?


And, no, I wouldn't call a guy knocking up a girl 50 years back and then leaving without a word a healthy relationship.


Thats a meaningless assessment since it's not even a relationship.


True, some incestuous relationships can be psychologically unhealthy. However, many aren't, the one in the example is about two people who had next to no contact during the entire childhood of the girl. I would assume when they met, it would to them have been like meeting a total stranger. There was a recent case of a pair of newly-weds who discovered they were brother and sister, I think it was an adoption case there. I suspect we shall see some increase in the number of such relationships, what with increased mobility and decreased family stability, and I don't really see any reason to ostracise those people.

I don't ostracise incestuous people, but I don't at this current time respect their decision to have children. When society, if it does, become more accepting to incestuous couples, then I wouldn't care, but right now I think it's a cruel decision.

So it'd be reasonable to say that you're not arguing from an objective position?

My position usually is "If there's no harm done, let them do what they like". Dunno if you would call that objective.

I've seen a lot of harm done by statistic-wielding, well-meaning helpers, and "think of the children" is very, VERY high up on my list when it comes to potentially worsening a situation.

Ah, sorry. So an incestuous couple having children is bad because the child will be embarrassed?

I don't quite think that is the right word. More psychologically traumatised.

All true, but remember we are not talking about a kid who has two mums, or two dads, or mixed race parents, or single parents, we are talking about a kids whose dad and mum are father and daughter. Now bearing that in mind look at all the remarks from adults here, just here on this little forum.

Incest is taboo, and likely to remain so, you really think that adults will have nowt to say to this kid, even when the kid grows up?

So the situation is different because people still cling to an old taboo and can't get over their "ick"-reaction?

Blog it, dear. It's not the same. And I don't presume to know what's best for people. I'm not god and I surely do not control society. Again, incest isn't an acceptable relationship, just like abusive relationships aren't acceptable. This is not about what's best for the parents, but what's best for the kids. So spare me the emotional allusions.

Well, give me any argument other than emotional allusions... so far, all I got to hear is "It's just not right, don't you get it? It's just not right, I say!"

All true, but remember we are not talking about a kid who has two mums, or two dads, or mixed race parents, or single parents, we are talking about a kids whose dad and mum are father and daughter. Now bearing that in mind look at all the remarks from adults here, just here on this little forum.

Incest is taboo, and likely to remain so, you really think that adults will have nowt to say to this kid, even when the kid grows up?
I don't know about you, but the meanness and childishness of some adults has very little if any bearing on whether something is acceptable or not, and I don't see why it should be.
I don't quite think that is the right word. More psychologically traumatised.

What makes you think it'll be that bad?

[QUOTE=Ifreann;13594316]Actually, most of the time incest happened it was to keep money/power/land in a certain family.

I'm sorry, I must be in the wrong reality. Where I come from people don't need any justification to fall in love with someone.

So what if there's no need? There's no need for me to ever have sex, but I'm still going to(hopefully >.> <.<)

Explain why this is fucked up, please.

Explain why, please.

I still don't understand why you think people need a justification to be in a relationship other than wanting to be in it.[/ill QUOTE]

Once again, you're only considering what the adults want. This is not about love, not at all. If the adults want to be together, and they've fallen in love even if they're father and daughter, fine. What I don't agree with is them having kids. Whereas these adults exercised free will and, disregarding all social values (and I'm not saying society matters in this) decide to live together, it's ok. Let them do that until Kingdom come. But do not, and I repeat, do not even begin to consider that just because they're in love, and that because there's no reason to fall in love, that incest and a child of incest are justifiable. It's not.

So the situation is different because people still cling to an old taboo and can't get over their "ick"-reaction?

That's exactly it. It may in the fullness of time change. when(if) the majority loose the ick then I daresay it will change.

Did your grandfather live in particularly religious area?

He was born in Germany in the 1920s... not more or less religious than anywhere else at that time, I should think.


I don't ostracise incestuous people, but I don't at this current time respect their decision to have children. When society, if it does, become more accepting to incestuous couples, then I wouldn't care, but right now I think it's a cruel decision.

I can understand that, to a degree. The perfect situation in this case, as I said before, would have been to push through the legalisation of this outdated prohibition, create public awareness (talk shows, sit coms, the lot), and once society for the most part got over itself have the kid.
However, chances are that by that time, the woman in question would be well beyond menopause. And believe me, wanting to have children is a very, very strong human urge indeed...

Well, give me any argument other than emotional allusions... so far, all I got to hear is "It's just not right, don't you get it? It's just not right, I say!"

Thats what a taboo is, it just isn't right, there may or may not be logical reasons behind it, it may be all emotional, or just a feeling that it ain't right.

Like eating the corpses of your dead, like necrophilia, I can see no rational resone why we would go 'ewww' at the thought of both of these, but we still do, and that makes it moraly wrong.

Well, give me any argument other than emotional allusions... so far, all I got to hear is "It's just not right, don't you get it? It's just not right, I say!"

:rolleyes: Tell me, Cabra, what does society, and the law, says about incestuous relationships? Don't listen to me, tell me though, what do these 2 entities say? What have you heard, growing up, about incest? What have you seen when it comes to science, about incestous relationships? Do tell me what does Religion states about it? Don't listen to me, you tell me what's wrong and what's right according to your views and your own presumptions of what's best for people.

He was born in Germany in the 1920s... not more or less religious than anywhere else at that time, I should think.


Well, Germany was going through economic hell at that time, and people were pissed off and many were seeking right wing radicalism at that time as a way out of this mess, that may of had something to do with it.


I can understand that, to a degree. The perfect situation in this case, as I said before, would have been to push through the legalisation of this outdated prohibition, create public awareness (talk shows, sit coms, the lot), and once society for the most part got over itself have the kid.
However, chances are that by that time, the woman in question would be well beyond menopause. And believe me, wanting to have children is a very, very strong human urge indeed...

Well I don't think that satisfaction of urges is enough of a justification.

Thats what a taboo is, it just isn't right, there may or may not be logical reasons behind it, it may be all emotional, or just a feeling that it ain't right.

Like eating the corpses of your dead, like necrophilia, I can see no rational resone why we would go 'ewww' at the thought of both of these, but we still do, and that makes it moraly wrong.

Er, no.
Personally, I've got no moral problem with cannibalism. It's not for me, but if some folks like it...
I try and base my morals on a bit more than just "ewww", and I feel the world would be better of if most people did. (sounds much more arrogant than I mean it to sound, sorry...)

Once again, you're only considering what the adults want. This is not about love, not at all. If the adults want to be together, and they've fallen in love even if they're father and daughter, fine. What I don't agree with is them having kids.
So certain people don't have the right to repeoduce on your say so? Grade-A Industrial Strength Bullshit(TM)
Whereas these adults exercised free will and, disregarding all social values (and I'm not saying society matters in this) decide to live together, it's ok. Let them do that until Kingdom come. But do not, and I repeat, do not even begin to consider that just because they're in love, and that because there's no reason to fall in love, that incest and a child of incest are justifiable. It's not.
How many times do I have to ask before you actually answer me? Why does this couple or any other need a justification for having a child?
Thats what a taboo is, it just isn't right, there may or may not be logical reasons behind it, it may be all emotional, or just a feeling that it ain't right.

Like eating the corpses of your dead, like necrophilia, I can see no rational resone why we would go 'ewww' at the thought of both of these, but we still do, and that makes it moraly wrong.

Corpses are generally rife with bacteria, and IMS eating human brains can cause some kind of disease. I want to say prion disease, but I'm not sure.
:rolleyes: Tell me, Cabra, what does society, and the law, says about incestuous relationships?
It doesn't matter
Don't listen to me, tell me though, what do these 2 entities say?
It doesn't matter.
What have you heard, growing up, about incest?
It doesn't matter
What have you seen when it comes to science, about incestous relationships?
That the children of them are more likely to be homozygous since their parents are more likely to be heterozygous.
Do tell me what does Religion states about it?
It doesn't matter.
Don't listen to me, you tell me what's wrong and what's right according to your views
How am I or anyone else meant to form an opinion on anything other than based on our own views?
and your own presumptions of what's best for people.
I prefer mine to yours, not that Im' making any.

I've seen a lot of harm done by statistic-wielding, well-meaning helpers, and "think of the children" is very, VERY high up on my list when it comes to potentially worsening a situation.
Fair point, and in general I'd agree: "think of the children" is generally used to prevent people thinking too deeply about an issue, and to push a particular point of view.

However, in this case, the potential children are, unavoidably, a factor that needs to be considered. Not only because of the social problems they'll face - as mentioned, the likely mockery by peers (as in 'fellow students', rather than 'lords of the realm'); but also because of the very real issue of genetic abnormalities and the likely effect on quality of life. People are often understandably cautious of any attempt to judge a moral issue based on what's 'natural'. So I'll be clear: incest isn't 'unnatural' - but from a natural standpoint it's not ideal.

It is a biological reality that inbreeding will not only introduce risk of anomalies in the offspring of the couple in question, but if made generally acceptable and therefore more common it would contribute to a reduction in the expansion of the species' genetic pool. It would be wrong to say that breeding within a limited genetic range has never occurred naturally - of course it has, and will again - but in general, the natural course is for replication to increase overall diversity by means of new combinations of DNA. Evolution, by and large, works on the principle that biodiversity will increase over time, not remain static or decrease.

Now, as we've seen, the above will inevitably draw arguments that the same reasoning could be used to justify eugenics, or other similarly Nazi-esque possibilities. But to me, "that's what the Nazis would do" (and no, I'm not quoting you as having said that, just describing the general theme) is not a million miles away from "think of the children" in terms of logical merit.

Er, no.
Personally, I've got no moral problem with cannibalism. It's not for me, but if some folks like it...
I try and base my morals on a bit more than just "ewww", and I feel the world would be better of if most people did. (sounds much more arrogant than I mean it to sound, sorry...)

Heh yeah but you are not the majority are you now Cab!

:rolleyes: Tell me, Cabra, what does society, and the law, says about incestuous relationships? Don't listen to me, tell me though, what do these 2 entities say? What have you heard, growing up, about incest? What have you seen when it comes to science, about incestous relationships? Do tell me what does Religion states about it? Don't listen to me, you tell me what's wrong and what's right according to your views and your own presumptions of what's best for people.

The first question is m00t, since the argument is changing about the law.

And when did society's or religious opinion make anything morally right or wrong? Society also says gays shouldn't marry or adopt, does that mean their right about that, too?
Religion says abortion is murder, does that make it so?

What's your moral ground for objecting? Not making the child an outcast? Would that mean you object to Muslims having daughters in Western countries, as wearing a headscarf might get them dirty looks?
Step back for a moment and think about WHY you object to this so much, and so little to all other things parents do that makes their kids look weird.

Corpses are generally rife with bacteria, and IMS eating human brains can cause some kind of disease. I want to say prion disease, but I'm not sure.

Yeah but so is everything, and what about freshly killed humans?

The first question is m00t, since the argument is changing about the law.

And when did society's or religious opinion make anything morally right or wrong? Society also says gays shouldn't marry or adopt, does that mean their right about that, too?
Religion says abortion is murder, does that make it so?

What's your moral ground for objecting? Not making the child an outcast? Would that mean you object to Muslims having daughters in Western countries, as wearing a headscarf might get them dirty looks?
Step back for a moment and think about WHY you object to this so much, and so little to all other things parents do that makes their kids look weird.

Except now society largely says that gays should be alowed to marry and adopt children.

Heh yeah but you are not the majority are you now Cab!

Are you arguing that the majority is right because they're the majority? Seriously? ;)

Are you arguing that the majority is right because they're the majority? Seriously? ;)
I remember that idea. It was called 'democracy', I think.

Or 'Wikipedia'.

One or the other.

Are you arguing that the majority is right because they're the majority? Seriously? ;)

Seriously, yes I am. Morality is only what we think is right or wrong, and so whatever the majority says is right, in very real practice, is. Do you deny this then?:)

Except now society largely says that gays should be alowed to marry and adopt children.

Nope. The law says. Society, according to most polls I remember, is still largely against it. Just not really bothered enough to do much about it, in most cases ;)

Seriously, yes I am. Morality is only what we think is right or wrong, and so whatever the majority says is right, in very real practice, is. Do you deny this then?:)

I do indeed. There are a good few things that are both legal and moral despite the majority of society objecting.

So certain people don't have the right to repeoduce on your say so? Grade-A Industrial Strength Bullshit(TM)

How many times do I have to ask before you actually answer me? Why does this couple or any other need a justification for having a child?


Corpses are generally rife with bacteria, and IMS eating human brains can cause some kind of disease. I want to say prion disease, but I'm not sure.

It doesn't matter

It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter

That the children of them are more likely to be homozygous since their parents are more likely to be heterozygous.

It doesn't matter.

How am I or anyone else meant to form an opinion on anything other than based on our own views?

I prefer mine to yours, not that Im' making any.

Here we go. This particular couple is practicing incest, even if they didn't had any contact while the wife (or whatever she is) was growing up. This is an incestuous relationship, and that's reason enough for them NOT to have children. If another couple, a "normal" couple (whatever may be considered normal by X or Y society), decides to have a kid, they don't need a justification to. For that matter, I'm not against gays marrying but I don't condone them adopting or having a child. Again, it has nothing to do with love or the desire to procreate.

Yeah but so is everything,
Everything is not rife with baceria.
and what about freshly killed humans?

Instincts aren't that sophisticated. We developed a fear of corpses, and it was helpful because rotting bodies aren't exactly clean, so it stuck around, and we still have it, to some extent.

I do indeed. There are a good few things that are both legal and moral despite the majority of society objecting.

Such as........

Here we go. This particular couple is practicing incest,
No shit, Sherlock.
even if they didn't had any contact while the wife (or whatever she is) was growing up.
Makes no difference to me.
This is an incestuous relationship,
Yes, I'm well aware of that.
and that's reason enough for them NOT to have children.
Explain why.
If another couple, a "normal" couple (whatever may be considered normal by X or Y society), decides to have a kid, they don't need a justification to. For that matter, I'm not against gays marrying but I don't condone them adopting or having a child. Again, it has nothing to do with love or the desire to procreate.
Apparently the 'right' to be free of ridicule in your life supersedes the right to procreate. :rolleyes:

I remember that idea. It was called 'democracy', I think.

Or 'Wikipedia'.

One or the other.

Read a bit further and you'll probably find mention of the fact that pure democracies neither exist nor work.

The first question is m00t, since the argument is changing about the law.

And when did society's or religious opinion make anything morally right or wrong? Society also says gays shouldn't marry or adopt, does that mean their right about that, too?
Religion says abortion is murder, does that make it so?

What's your moral ground for objecting? Not making the child an outcast? Would that mean you object to Muslims having daughters in Western countries, as wearing a headscarf might get them dirty looks?
Step back for a moment and think about WHY you object to this so much, and so little to all other things parents do that makes their kids look weird.

Has the law changed about incest, Cabra?
(and please, I'm not attacking you)
I also said that if a couple do decides to have a child, even if the relationship is incestuous, they should give that child up for adoption. I never said they should abort it. As for gays, I don't object to them marrying. But I do stand my ground in that they shouldn't have children. Of course, your parents being gay doesn't have as much an impact as growing up knowing your father is also your grandfather.
About the Muslim girls wearing the veils to hide their faces in Western society, please. That is part of their religious practice and neither you nor me are entitled to criticize that. Hiding your face isn't the same as having a child from an incestuous relation. It's not the same, dear.

That is part of their religious practice and neither you nor me are entitled to criticize that.

Welcome to the world of free speech, where we are allowed to criticise anything we want.

Such as........

This (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/27/poll.gay/index.html), for example...

Everything is not rife with baceria.


Shit man there is bacteria everywhere.


Instincts aren't that sophisticated. We developed a fear of corpses, and it was helpful because rotting bodies aren't exactly clean, so it stuck around, and we still have it, to some extent.

So I wonder what governs the instinct not to fuck your daughter?

So I wonder what governs the instinct not to fuck your daughter?

I wouldn't know, I'm not that well up on human evolution, genetics and psychology. I'll tell you this though, it's no reason not to fuck your daughter if you both consent.

This (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/27/poll.gay/index.html), for example...

What? But that shows that the majority of people(in the USA) belive that gays cannot change their sexual orientation, and that 57%(the majority) say that gays should be allowed to marry and adopt. So that rather prooves my point not yours?

Has the law changed about incest, Cabra?
(and please, I'm not attacking you)

No. All the more reason to keep trying to get it changed, isn't it? ;)


I also said that if a couple do decides to have a child, even if the relationship is incestuous, they should give that child up for adoption. I never said they should abort it. As for gays, I don't object to them marrying. But I do stand my ground in that they shouldn't have children. Of course, your parents being gay doesn't have as much an impact as growing up knowing your father is also your grandfather.

How would you know? How would you know how much impact it has on a kid growing up with two mommies, or two daddies? And how much impact it has on a kid to grow up knowing his daddy is also his grandad (apart from less birthday presents, obviously, but most kids get over that quickly enough)? So how on earth can you compare the two and declare that one is worse than the other? Based on what?


About the Muslim girls wearing the veils to hide their faces in Western society, please. That is part of their religious practice and neither you nor me are entitled to criticize that. Hiding your face isn't the same as having a child from an incestuous relation. It's not the same, dear.

Of course we can criticise them, and people generally are not the least bit hesitant to do so.
And hiding your face is a good bit more obvious than your parents relationship, so I'd say headscarves will have more of an impact on your daily life.

I wouldn't know, I'm not that well up on human evolution, genetics and psychology. I'll tell you this though, it's no reason not to fuck your daughter if you both consent.

Yet you had a reasonable stab at the rational behind the taboo of corpse eating? What if your daughter was 15 and consented?

What? But that shows that the majority of people(in the USA) belive that gays cannot change their sexual orientation, and that 57%(the majority) say that gays should be allowed to marry and adopt. So that rather prooves my point not yours?

Well, it is legal for gay in the US to adopt, and in some areas to get married. Despite public opinion disagreeing. How does that prove your point that the majority is always right?

So I wonder what governs the instinct not to fuck your daughter?

Extremly extended childhood.
Most animals have no problem fucking their offspring once they're grown up, but won't try to hump what they perceive as children. Humans have extended that notion of childhood to last a lifetime for parents.

No shit, Sherlock.

Makes no difference to me.

Yes, I'm well aware of that.

Explain why.

Apparently the 'right' to be free of ridicule in your life supersedes the right to procreate. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
I'm not contesting the right to procreate. I'm just saying that if you're practicing incest, you shouldn't have kids. Abstain from it. As for your thirst for an explanation, my dear Watson, here you go:

Although there is some form of incest that is taboo (forbidden) in every society, the degree of relationship within which marriage is forbidden varies greatly from culture to culture and in different periods of history. Almost universally, sexual relations between mother and son, father and daughter, and sister and brother are forbidden. Studies indicate that incest, although rarely discussed, is a continuing problem in most societies. Sexual molestation by family members is a recurring form of child abuse. (http://www.crescentlife.com/psychissues/incest.htm)


For me, because I had a close friend who was product of such an union, and because for many years, I saw the damage this caused in his life and his interaction with others, having a child, procreating between a father and a daughter, and the product of that union is akin to child abuse.

Yet you had a reasonable stab at the rational behind the taboo of corpse eating?
I've heard all that before somewhere.
What if your daughter was 15 and consented?

15 year olds can't consent. Incestuous relationships don't necessarily involve an underage party, as you should know.

Yet you had a reasonable stab at the rational behind the taboo of corpse eating? What if your daughter was 15 and consented?

Corpse eating is not a universal taboo. Some Papua-New Guinean tribes practice it as reverence for the dead, for example.
Equally, incest is not a universal taboo. Egyptian dynasties were famous for marrying off brothers and sisters for centuries.

:rolleyes:
I'm not contesting the right to procreate. I'm just saying that if you're practicing incest, you shouldn't have kids. Abstain from it. As for your thirst for an explanation, my dear Watson, here you go:

Although there is some form of incest that is taboo (forbidden) in every society, the degree of relationship within which marriage is forbidden varies greatly from culture to culture and in different periods of history. Almost universally, sexual relations between mother and son, father and daughter, and sister and brother are forbidden. Studies indicate that incest, although rarely discussed, is a continuing problem in most societies. Sexual molestation by family members is a recurring form of child abuse. (http://www.crescentlife.com/psychissues/incest.htm)
So don't do it because people say so? Bullshit. People say I shouldn't eat meat of drink beer. I'm still going to. I am not society's bitch.


For me, because I had a close friend who was product of such an union, and because for many years, I saw the damage this caused in his life and his interaction with others, having a child, procreating between a father and a daughter, and the product of that union is akin to child abuse.

In your opinion. Your opinion that is backed up by 'WAH, people will make funof the kid'.

So don't do it because people say so? Bullshit. People say I shouldn't eat meat of drink beer. I'm still going to. I am not society's bitch.




In your opinion. Your opinion that is backed up by 'WAH, people will make funof the kid'.

That first argument seriously puts into question what you really do know about the whole argument, which is nothing and you know what, presenting anything to you is a waste of time and effort. It is obvious you condone incest, no need to spout more nonsense, I get it. Eating meat or drinking beer isn't the same as being a child of incest, give me a break.:rolleyes:

And no, my argument isn't backed solely by "WAH, people will make fun of the kid". It goes deeper than that, but you just nit-pick what interests you. And that's ok too, it's your choice. But just because you're ok with it doesn't make it right. Incest is wrong in our society, and that's it. And it'll be wrong regardless of what you or me, or anyone else thinks.

15 year olds can't consent.

Really? Proof?

Well, it is legal for gay in the US to adopt, and in some areas to get married. Despite public opinion disagreeing. How does that prove your point that the majority is always right?

Umm because the link you provide, said that 57% approved, 57% is a majority agreement, not a majority diagreement.

That first argument seriously puts into question what you really do know about the whole argument, which is nothing and you know what, presenting anything to you is a waste of time and effort. It is obvious you condone incest, no need to spout more nonsense, I get it. Eating meat or drinking beer isn't the same as being a child of incest, give me a break.:rolleyes:

And no, my argument isn't backed solely by "WAH, people will make fun of the kid". It goes deeper than that, but you just nit-pick what interests you. And that's ok too, it's your choice. But just because you're ok with it doesn't make it right. Incest is wrong in our society, and that's it. And it'll be wrong regardless of what you or me, or anyone else thinks.

So what would make it right, then?

I've heard all that before somewhere.


15 year olds can't consent. Incestuous relationships don't necessarily involve an underage party, as you should know.

Okay and 16? and if the legal age of consent comes down to 15?

So what would make it right, then?

Do you think, Cab, honestly, that something will ever make an incestuous relation right?

Corpse eating is not a universal taboo. Some Papua-New Guinean tribes practice it as reverence for the dead, for example.
Equally, incest is not a universal taboo. Egyptian dynasties were famous for marrying off brothers and sisters for centuries.

Granted, so lets just stick to where it is taboo, heh like here and in the US.

Do you think, Cab, honestly, that something will ever make an incestuous relation right?

I think it already is, provided both parties are consenting adults. You were the one who claimed that "it is wrong", without yet providing anything but a debated law and emotional appeals.

Granted, so lets just stick to where it is taboo, heh like here and in the US.

Which leads directly to the question that, if it's not a universal taboo, and since it has no merit in and of itself, should it remain a taboo?

Which leads directly to the question that, if it's not a universal taboo, and since it has no merit in and of itself, should it remain a taboo?

Well speaking from the 'it's ick' side yes I think it should. But let me ask this question to all those who are on the 'meh it's okay' side, would you have sexual relations with your own children? Why, why not?

You don't ban it, you just hold the parents responsible. If they know the child they will bring in to this world has a significant chance of being in pain for all of it's short life, if they still choose to have that child, they take responsibility for what happens.
If the child is born with the debilitating illness, they get punished the same as someone who had tortured someone would get punished.

And again, who decides what constitutes a "significant chance"? Who defines what constitutes "pain"? Who defines what constitutes "debilitating"? Who, precisely, do you believe should be invested with the authority to declare who is and is not worthy to reproduce?

Corpse eating is not a universal taboo. Some Papua-New Guinean tribes practice it as reverence for the dead, for example.
Equally, incest is not a universal taboo. Egyptian dynasties were famous for marrying off brothers and sisters for centuries.

Incest is one of the common occurances that all societies have and it is a taboo to a lesser or greater extent depending on the society in question.

Yes, Egyptian dynasties (solely the Ptolemaic) practiced incest, you're correct in that assumption. But that very practice of inbreeding was also one of the factors that brought the downfall of it.
http://rapesurvivor.pbwiki.com/Incest
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P3-1184989321.html
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg15220571.300-sex-secrets-of-the-pharaohs-are-all-in-the-genes.html

Well speaking from the 'it's ick' side yes I think it should. But let me ask this question to all those who are on the 'meh it's okay' side, would you have sexual relations with your own children? Why, why not?

Assuming I would raise them myself, I think I would not.
The reason being that coming from a parent-child relationship, I would imagine it would be very difficult indeed to establish an equal relationship with any of them. Also, great familiarity usually does away with sexual attraction (many couples notice that after living together as family for a long time, they regard each other more as brother and sister than as hot sex partners).

If I were to assume that the child would be raised elsewhere and I had no contact with him/her until they were grown up, I would consider it a possibility.

Incest is one of the common occurances that all societies have and it is a taboo to a lesser or greater extent depending on the society in question.

Yes, Egyptian dynasties (solely the Ptolemaic) practiced incest, you're correct in that assumption. But that very practice of inbreeding was also one of the factors that brought the downfall of it.
http://rapesurvivor.pbwiki.com/Incest
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P3-1184989321.html
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg15220571.300-sex-secrets-of-the-pharaohs-are-all-in-the-genes.html




Egyptian Pharohs often didnt boink their sisters either (until the Ptolemys). The marriages were ceremonial and symbolic, thats why Egyptian Pharohs had large harems.


The Ptolemys didnt know that, and so when they tried to assimilate into Egyptian Culture, they started boinking their sisters:p

Well speaking from the 'it's ick' side yes I think it should. But let me ask this question to all those who are on the 'meh it's okay' side, would you have sexual relations with your own children? Why, why not?
I wouldn't have sexual relations with my own child. But I also wouldn't have anal sex. Just because I find something distasteful or unappealing doesn't mean I think it should be illegal, or that any person who does it must be wrong.

I think it already is, provided both parties are consenting adults. You were the one who claimed that "it is wrong", without yet providing anything but a debated law and emotional appeals.

You're sorely mistaken because in my society, Spain, for example, incest is illegal, wether we're talking about consenting adults or not. In the US it's also illegal. I wasn't bringing emotional appeal for my argument, I'm giving you the reasons why it's morally wrong. Now, if you, on your personal character, accept it as being fine, that's another thing. But you thinking is ok doesn't begin to change the fact that incest is bad.

Really? Proof?

:rolleyes:



Physically they can. Legally they cant. Thats what we'e talking about, the legal part.

Assuming I would raise them myself, I think I would not.
The reason being that coming from a parent-child relationship, I would imagine it would be very difficult indeed to establish an equal relationship with any of them. Also, great familiarity usually does away with sexual attraction (many couples notice that after living together as family for a long time, they regard each other more as brother and sister than as hot sex partners).

If I were to assume that the child would be raised elsewhere and I had no contact with him/her until they were grown up, I would consider it a possibility.


Eeew!

:rolleyes:



Physically they can. Legally they cant. Thats what we'e talking about, the legal part.

So you're talking about some completely meaningless and arbitrary rule that has no bearing on the realities of the situation? Great, bit of a double standard though.

I wouldn't have sexual relations with my own child. But I also wouldn't have anal sex. Just because I find something distasteful or unappealing doesn't mean I think it should be illegal, or that any person who does it must be wrong.


Psh youre no fun :p

So you're talking about some completely meaningless and arbitrary rule that has no bearing on the realities of the situation? Great, bit of a double standard though.

Ummm....we're disgussing how LEGALLY a 15 year old cannont consent. You asked for proof when someone said 15 year olds cant consent, and we told you it was legal not literal. There is no double standard.


The law says I cant kill someone. I am physically capable of killing someone, but its illegal. Is that also a double standard?

You're sorely mistaken because in my society, Spain, for example, incest is illegal, wether we're talking about consenting adults or not. In the US it's also illegal. I wasn't bringing emotional appeal for my argument, I'm giving you the reasons why it's morally wrong. Now, if you, on your personal character, accept it as being fine, that's another thing.

As I said before, legality and morality are no privilege of society.
I have stated on what grounds I would promote the legality of incest :
Equality, freedom of choice of sexual partners, and liberty to live one's life as one sees fit without inflicting harm.
Those are some of the most basic principles we built our legal system and societies on, yet when it comes to incest they go right out the window to give way to "it's icky, it must be wrong!" No reason other than emotional appeals such as "don't you find it disgusting?" and "think of the children, I'm sure they will be teased" have been brought forth to defend this piece of legislation so far. Those are nowhere near good enough to make something wrong in my book.

I watched the program. Apparently they tried to have a kid and it died from a genetic defect (from what I remember from watching it) and now they're trying to have another child.

Genetic? Or congenital? The two are not the same.

If genetic, was it defined? As in, do they know what the genetic problem was?

Eeew!

You wanted to know. Now deal with it. :p

Do you think, Cab, honestly, that something will ever make an incestuous relation right?

I think the question is, or should be, if all parites give informed consent as adults and take necessary precautions to ensure any children born from the union are healthy, we shouldn't ask if anything can make that right, we should ask why exactly it is wrong.

Ummm....we're disgussing how LEGALLY a 15 year old cannont consent. You asked for proof when someone said 15 year olds cant consent, and we told you it was legal not literal. There is no double standard.


The law says I cant kill someone. I am physically capable of killing someone, but its illegal. Is that also a double standard?

What? He didn't say anything about the legality anyway, he simply said "15 year olds cannot consent anyway", in defense of why it's ok to be against that but not incestious couples having babies. I'm challenging that assertion since it most certainly is not true, whether they can't legally consent is totally irellavent to the conversation.

As I said before, legality and morality are no privilege of society.
I have stated on what grounds I would promote the legality of incest :
Equality, freedom of choice of sexual partners, and liberty to live one's life as one sees fit without inflicting harm.
Those are some of the most basic principles we built our legal system and societies on, yet when it comes to incest they go right out the window to give way to "it's icky, it must be wrong!" No reason other than emotional appeals such as "don't you find it disgusting?" and "think of the children, I'm sure they will be teased" have been brought forth to defend this piece of legislation so far. Those are nowhere near good enough to make something wrong in my book.

And yet society still finds incest wrong. Once again, Cab, whatever you or me consider to be ok has no weight on this. And yes, icky and thinking about the childer far outweight whatever you or me think. That's how it is. Still, even if the adults are consenting and have the right to live freely doesn't mean it's ok to be involved in an incestuous relation in my book. But we've already establish that, just as we've established that what we individually think means nothing in the overall scheme of things.

What? He didn't say anything about the legality anyway, he simply said "15 year olds cannot consent anyway", in defense of why it's ok to be against that but not incestious couples having babies. I'm challenging that assertion since it most certainly is not true, whether they can't legally consent is totally irellavent to the conversation.

Well, considering he meant that legally they cannot consent, I think it is 100% relevent.


No one is stupid enough to think a 15 year old is physicaly incapable of mouthing the words that would be consent to sex. Especially no one who has ever been 15.

And yet society still finds incest wrong. Once again, Cab, whatever you or me consider to be ok has no weight on this. And yes, icky and thinking about the childer far outweight whatever you or me think. That's how it is. Still, even if the adults are consenting and have the right to live freely doesn't mean it's ok to be involved in an incestuous relation in my book. But we've already establish that, just as we've established that what we individually think means nothing in the overall scheme of things.

Why does society thinking it mean it is wrong? Tyranny of the majority and all that jazz...

My 2 cents. the law against incest needs to stand. However it is their choice no prison sentence or fine needs to be performed. All that should be done is their ability to reproduce needs to be removed. have them agree to have the surgery and remove all further involvement in their lives.

You're sorely mistaken because in my society, Spain, for example, incest is illegal, wether we're talking about consenting adults or not. In the US it's also illegal. I wasn't bringing emotional appeal for my argument, I'm giving you the reasons why it's morally wrong.

Actually you have, at best, provided a circular argument. It's illegal because the majority makes it illegal. It's immoral because the majority makes it immoral. It's illegal because it's immoral.. You haven't given anything even remotely approaching "reason"

And yet society still finds incest wrong. Once again, Cab, whatever you or me consider to be ok has no weight on this. And yes, icky and thinking about the childer far outweight whatever you or me think. That's how it is. Still, even if the adults are consenting and have the right to live freely doesn't mean it's ok to be involved in an incestuous relation in my book. But we've already establish that, just as we've established that what we individually think means nothing in the overall scheme of things.

I disagree. I don't give society the right to decide what's right or wrong. If it had that right, I as a woman still would not be allowed to vote or earn my own money and immigrants would regularly legally burned to death in their own houses. Sure society will have opinions, it always does, some of them justified and others less so. But society doesn't get to determine what's right or wrong. It doesn't even entirely get to determine what's legal and what's not. It gets to influence legislation, but only so much.
In the overall scheme of things, it's still possible for a minority to be morally right and get the necessary legislative changes. Gays come to mind, as do blacks, women, etc.

Well, considering he meant that legally they cannot consent, I think it is 100% relevent.


And how the hell do you know what he meant? Where does anyone use the word legal once? Please show me.


No one is stupid enough to think a 15 year old is physicaly incapable of mouthing the words that would be consent to sex. Especially no one who has ever been 15.

So then his his answer (assuming he did mean the legality) is not an answer at all, but more of a dodge since the legalities are irrelevant.

And how the hell do you know what he meant? Where does anyone use the word legal once? Please show me.



So then his his answer (assuming he did mean the legality) is not an answer at all, but more of a dodge since the legalities are irrelevant.

Ok, if you want to assume that hes an idiot rather than assume what any logical person would assume, dont let me stop you.


By all means, make yourself look like an ass.

Actually you have, at best, provided a circular argument. It's illegal because the majority makes it illegal. It's immoral because the majority makes it immoral. It's illegal because it's immoral.. You haven't given anything even remotely approaching "reason"

It is illegal because it is immoral. It is immoral because the damage to the genetic stock threatens the community as a whole.

It is illegal because it is immoral. It is immoral because the damage to the genetic stock threatens the community as a whole.

Last I checked, most morality was relative, despite what conservatives try to get people to think.

Why does society thinking it mean it is wrong? Tyranny of the majority and all that jazz...

I, myself, do not know that, KoL.

Argument against the ick factor: Many other things are seen as icky, yet most people don't condemn them. Skat fetish as an example. The majority thinks it's icky, yet the majority allows it. Why is incest different?

Argument against eugenics: You're dealing with possibilities not guarantees. Not even close to guarantees. An incestuous birth has no specific stats regarding the chances of it having a defect, since the chances of both parents being carriers of the same disease have to be taken into account. The chances are low, especially if there have been no incestuous births leading up to this one.
To be consistent, genetic screening would be required of all couples, especially those with genetic disorders. As some siblings can share virtually no genes with one another, and some completely unrelated people can share 50% or more of their genes. Nevermind the fact that someone has to differentiate between a disorder that cannot be allowed to "continue", and one that can. (Excluding the generic genes present in everyone of course)

Argument against psychological effects: Get some stats on the many people born from incestuous relationships, we'll see if they suffer any common effects. (I bet most of those people don't even know their parents are related). Comparison to homosexual, single, and inter-racial parents would be required, and see if they beat the horrible stats against people who's parents got divorced at a young age.

It is illegal because it is immoral. It is immoral because the damage to the genetic stock threatens the community as a whole.

Wow... I would advise you to gather a little more knowledge about genetics before posting about the subject again.

I disagree. I don't give society the right to decide what's right or wrong. If it had that right, I as a woman still would not be allowed to vote or earn my own money and immigrants would regularly legally burned to death in their own houses. Sure society will have opinions, it always does, some of them justified and others less so. But society doesn't get to determine what's right or wrong. It doesn't even entirely get to determine what's legal and what's not. It gets to influence legislation, but only so much.
In the overall scheme of things, it's still possible for a minority to be morally right and get the necessary legislative changes. Gays come to mind, as do blacks, women, etc.

I happen to think incest is wrong, but that's just me. I've given you the reasons why I think it's wrong, both morally and socially. But if you disagree with that, tell me then, why do you think so many societies find it wrong, even if it's to a lesser or major extent?

It is immoral because the damage to the genetic stock threatens the community as a whole.
Actually, no it doesn't.

The reason why incest can be problematic is because people who are genetically related are more likely to both be carrying a (usually recessive) copy of a negative trait. If their offspring inherits the recessive from both of them, then there can be birth defects or other problems.

But the actual issue there is the presence of the trait in the first place. If two people who are unrelated both happen to each carry the same trait, then their offspring faces the same risk as the child of two related people who carry the trait.

Simple relatedness doesn't magically cause birth defects, in other words.

Ok, if you want to assume that hes an idiot rather than assume what any logical person would assume, dont let me stop you.


By all means, make yourself look like an ass.

I'm not assuming anything. There is no reason to assume that when someone says "x cannot consent" they really mean "x cannot legally consent", you're the one making the assumption. I also don't see any reason for him to mention that at all if that was what he meant, it's akin to me saying "Bush has grey hair" when you ask me "So Why did Bush invade Iraq?", it doesn't make sense. Please address the second part of my post you quoted.

Read a bit further and you'll probably find mention of the fact that pure democracies neither exist nor work.
Yes, I know.

You wanted to know. Now deal with it. :p

Hey just empahsising the eeewness of it all!

It is illegal because it is immoral. It is immoral because the damage to the genetic stock threatens the community as a whole.

Um, what? Others have pointed out the flaws in your ideas of how inheritance works, but I have to ask exactly how the existence of a child with a genetic disorder "threatens the community as a whole." I have a genetic disorder - several, in fact, especially if you count things like near-sightedness. Am I a threat?

Actually you have, at best, provided a circular argument. It's illegal because the majority makes it illegal. It's immoral because the majority makes it immoral. It's illegal because it's immoral.. You haven't given anything even remotely approaching "reason"

It is immoral and it's illegal, all societies and their legal systems agree on that, be it in a lesser or major extent. I'm part of that society and I've grown considering incest wrong. There's no reasonable way of looking at the incestuous union of a father and a daughter with good eyes. It's an aberration, even, and I'm repeating myself, we're considering that said union is between consenting adults and all the wah wah about the right to procreate.

I happen to think incest is wrong, but that's just me. I've given you the reasons why I think it's wrong, both morally and socially. But if you disagree with that, tell me then, why do you think so many societies find it wrong, even if it's to a lesser or major extent?

Taboos often have odd roots. Why is homosexuality a taboo in traditional societies? Why is sex change a taboo in the Western world, but not for example in India? (Ok, the traditional sex change there is more like a castration than anything else, yet those people are regarded as a third gender) Why is eating certain types of animal or pieces of animal taboo in some societies? Have you ever had a fried goat feotus? It's a delicacy in some places.

I think I mentioned it before in this thread, a good contended for "main cause of incest taboo" is the extreme extension of childhood in the human species. Most animals have no problem whatsoever humping their offspring once they're old enough, but I can't think of any right now that would hump immature individuals. With humans, this perception of "child" is prolonged much more than in any other animal, for the parent it usually doesn't ever change during their whole lifetime, with the authority of the parent still holding on even after the child has left home or started its own family. This might well be the cause why such relationships aren't that common.

What? He didn't say anything about the legality anyway, he simply said "15 year olds cannot consent anyway", in defense of why it's ok to be against that but not incestious couples having babies. I'm challenging that assertion since it most certainly is not true, whether they can't legally consent is totally irellavent to the conversation.

But he meant legaly, that he didn't use the actual word is fuzzing things, read the posts to which he was replying and it is plainly obvious from the context that he meant legaly.

Um, what? Others have pointed out the flaws in your ideas of how inheritance works, but I have to ask exactly how the existence of a child with a genetic disorder "threatens the community as a whole." I have a genetic disorder - several, in fact, especially if you count things like near-sightedness. Am I a threat?

Yes :p

If the 2 people in question are consenting adults (adult being defined by the cultural and legal norm), then i have no problem with them shagging. Like usual, we want to be busybodies. The sex hurts no-one else, so what's the problem.

There's talk about the power dynamic, the father brainwashing the child, etc. Ban religion then. Kids are brainwashed in to that. Sorry, sorry, cheap shot. Religion as brainwashing can be a different thread. Ban child beauty pageants, that's traumatic, and nearly always driven by the parent, etc.

Children being involved changes everything though.

It is immoral and it's illegal, all societies and their legal systems agree on that, be it in a lesser or major extent.

A great many socieites viewed black people as subhuman. Were they right, merely because they believed it to be true?

I'm part of that society and I've grown considering incest wrong.

And what makes your version of right and wrong the objectively true one?

It's an aberration

An aberration...of what? once again, circular reasoning bullshit. It's an aberration of normal relationships, and we don't allow it because it's wrong and we know it's wrong, because we don't allow it.

You seem incapable of creating a real argument here. When challenged to define why you believe it to be immoral, you say because societies don't allow it. When asked why they don't allow it, you say because it's immoral. You haven't demonstrated anything, you haven't shown anything, you've pulled the "I'm part of a society that thinks it's wrong therefore it's wrong" card and if you had any understanding of history, you'd understand why that particular card should never, ever, be played.

The question to you is simple, why is it wrong? Why is it immoral? Why is it something that societies should prevent?

Why does society thinking it mean it is wrong? Tyranny of the majority and all that jazz...

Coz that is what morlaity is. You can have your personal morality 'it is wrong to eat meat' and you can have you socialogical mority which IS governed by what the majority feel 'It is right for our goverment to be a demoncracy', thats just the way it is.

At this moment in time, the moral majority say that incest is moraly wrong, therefore it is so. Morlaity is wholey subjective.

Yes :p

Mwahaha! My near-sightedness will destroy us all!

Coz that is what morlaity is. You can have your personal morality 'it is wrong to eat meat' and you can have you socialogical mority which IS governed by what the majority feel 'It is right for our goverment to be a demoncracy', thats just the way it is.

At this moment in time, the moral majority say that incest is moraly wrong, therefore it is so. Morlaity is wholey subjective.

Then the whole term of morality becomes a worthless definition, as slavery, female disenfranchisement and the holocaust could all be considered to be morally right things at the time.

Is it your contention that in 1942 Germany, the holocaust was morally right?

Mwahaha! My near-sightedness will destroy us all!

Very true, the two great banes of society are near-sightedness and left-handedness :D

But he meant legaly, that he didn't use the actual word is fuzzing things, read the posts to which he was replying and it is plainly obvious from the context that he meant legaly.

Not to me, in that whole conversation you didn't mention anything to do with the law, rather instincts preventing people from engaging in certain taboos. It's also a common argument that children cannot physically consent (they lack required hormones needed to actually want sex) and it's not unreasonable to think that Ifrean was talking about that sort of thing. But assuming he did mean that 15 year olds can't legally consent, how would that be the least bit relevant?

Coz that is what morlaity is. You can have your personal morality 'it is wrong to eat meat' and you can have you socialogical mority which IS governed by what the majority feel 'It is right for our goverment to be a demoncracy', thats just the way it is.

At this moment in time, the moral majority say that incest is moraly wrong, therefore it is so. Morlaity is wholey subjective.


Bull. You just said the holocaust, gulags, sexual slavery of young girls, genocide of Native Americans, and thinking blacks and women were inferior was "moral".