The Student Room Group

Incest is a "fundamental right", says the German government's Ethics Council

Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said that they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.

“Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”

Their intervention follows a notorious case in which a brother and sister living as partners in Saxony had four children together. The couple had been raised separately and only met when the brother, identified only as Patrick S, was an adult, and his sister Susan K was 16.

Patrick S was sentenced to more than three years in prison for incest and the couple have since failed in their bid to have the guilty verdict overturned by the European Court of Human Rights.

The family was forced to live apart after the courts ruled that there was a duty to protect their children from the consequences of their relationship.

Two of the couple’s children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.

But the Ethics Council dismissed that argument, on the basis that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11119062/Incest-a-fundamental-right-German-committee-says.html

Scroll to see replies

Original post by thesabbath
The family was forced to live apart after the courts ruled that there was a duty to protect their children from the consequences of their relationship.

Two of the couple’s children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.


That's strange... it seems like the consequences of their relationship have already happened. What more is there to protect them from?

(Though I'm assuming the disabilities are actually a result of the incest, rather than the same kinds of disabilities that could happen to anyone? You never know, the way news articles so often like to put a spin on things...)
Original post by thesabbath


Two of the couple’s children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.

But the Ethics Council dismissed that argument, on the basis that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children.



This is why I love the internet. I never considered that before. I was reading this thinking 'Incest is icky but I couldn't give a toss what consenting adults get up to as long as no mutant babies come of it', then I got to that quoted bit. So now it's either try and tell all genetically disabled people they can't procreate, which won't happen, or turn a blind eye even to incestuous babies being knowingly conceived... hmmm...
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 3


Spoiler

The government shouldn't really have the right to tell you who you can and can't have a relationship/sex with as long as both parties are consenting adults.
People always raise the genetic complication issue but why are we assuming that if it's legalised suddenly we're all going to fall in love with our siblings and start humping like rabbits? Just because something is legal doesn't mean it still can't be taboo and frowned upon. I also remember reading that the chances of having genetic disabilities in the child isn't actually increased by that much either.

I would rather educate people on the pros and cons than to simply ban everyone from the activity, those goes for more than just incest too.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Arkasia


Spoiler



I lol'd. +1
Hitler was right, look at the world today especially Western society. Do you think he's become like this by chance? Nope. The illuminati at work, destroying everything good and pure in this world. Corrupting the people through not just the media but their huge wealth and influence in government.
Reply 7
Oh good lord, it's libertarianism gone mad.
First it was homosexuality, now we are considering incest, what's next beastiality?
Reply 9
Don't get more depraved than Germans.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Rationally, I agree with their point. Instinctively, ewwwww.
Reply 11
Original post by Anonymous263
First it was homosexuality, now we are considering incest, what's next beastiality?


The first 2 involve consenting adult humans. The last does not.

Totally different.
Quite right as well, why should the government get involved with harmless activity between 2 consenting adults? If you raise the issue of children, then I will naturally assume you are against people with genetic illnesses having sex as well, a much less popular view.
Incest,like homosexuality, will be widely acceptable in the future. Christianity, Islam, or other religions can't be against it. It's human destiny.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Reue
The first 2 involve consenting adult humans. The last does not.

Totally different.


Without wanting to be too graphic, what about if a female "presents herself" to a dog, and the dog then does the necessary, I'm guessing that's consent to some extent.

Regarding the main article, for me, the fundamental reason about incest being illegal is the sheer chance of a child having an abnormality being so high. I understand the argument about people with illnesses being allowed to have children but incest effectively makes a child disabled unnecessarily...

I suppose if you want to be ultra hip and liberal and pursue that "it doesn't bother me" line you have to be able to look a child in the eye when they ask you why they're deaf and sign to them saying its because your parents are related.

My mum works with a Bangladeshi girl (she's a teacher) who is mute and has severe hearing difficulties, and her parents are first cousins... Its just such an unnecessary reason for a child to be disabled...

Yet again we put the rights of a couple of adults who want to mess around and have some fun ahead of the rights of children.

Its the children that will suffer.
Original post by So Instinct
The government shouldn't really have the right to tell you who you can and can't have a relationship/sex with as long as both parties are consenting adults.
People always raise the genetic complication issue but why are we assuming that if it's legalised suddenly we're all going to fall in love with our siblings and start humping like rabbits? Just because something is legal doesn't mean it still can't be taboo and frowned upon. I also remember reading that the chances of having genetic disabilities in the child isn't actually increased by that much either.

I would rather educate people on the pros and cons than to simply ban everyone from the activity, those goes for more than just incest too.


This.
Original post by james22
Quite right as well, why should the government get involved with harmless activity between 2 consenting adults? If you raise the issue of children, then I will naturally assume you are against people with genetic illnesses having sex as well, a much less popular view.


Exactly.
Reply 17
ahhh the advantages of atheism.......
Reply 18
I think incest should be legal. If they're both consenting adults then there's no issue in my opinion.

If the concern is of children being born with disabilities, then one ought to want to bar them from having children, not from having sex. However, I don't think the risk of genetic abnormalities is particularly high, being comparable to a child being born to an older woman.

What we have currently seems to be people's emotional reactions having been enshrined in an old law, rather than a law that's a result of rational, consistent and fair consideration of the issue and individuals' rights.
Definitely a step in the right direction. It's a classic example of a victimless crime, nobody gets hurt and the only reason these archaic laws exist are because of religion.

On a side note to people who mentioned bestiality, why should that be illegal? If you can kill then eat an animal, why can't you have consensual sex with it? And if you argue animals aren't capable of consent, why is it not illegal to force breeding between two of the same animal? On a personal level I find the idea of having sex with a sibling or animal abhorrent but really there's no need for the government to get involved with stuff like this...
(edited 9 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest