This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Should incest be legalised?
OK, so I know this subject has been debated, and a few threads have been made on it, but I came across this argument for legalising incestuous relationships, and I want to see how people who think it shouldn't be legal respond to this:
"People seem to assume a 100% probability that any children will have a severe genetic defect from an incestous relationship.
A litlle research will show that the closest possible relation will increase the defect rate 7 to 10 % above the backgound rate. Now, couples every day, with known genetic disorders or known carriers, try to have children that may have as much as a 50% chance of getting that defect. NOTHING is done to stop them, and in fact many applaude their "conviction" to TRY and have a good one.
So, if the reason is possible defects then either the law is wrong or it is based on something else.
I believe it is based on the "ewwwww", "gross" factor that is the knee jerk reaction most people have. Its true there is a psychological finding called the Westermarck Effect that contributes to that, but for those that arent affected, and there is no under age people involved then and its all consensual, who does it hurt?
You may not like it, but that shouldnt make it illegal."
Discuss.
"People seem to assume a 100% probability that any children will have a severe genetic defect from an incestous relationship.
A litlle research will show that the closest possible relation will increase the defect rate 7 to 10 % above the backgound rate. Now, couples every day, with known genetic disorders or known carriers, try to have children that may have as much as a 50% chance of getting that defect. NOTHING is done to stop them, and in fact many applaude their "conviction" to TRY and have a good one.
So, if the reason is possible defects then either the law is wrong or it is based on something else.
I believe it is based on the "ewwwww", "gross" factor that is the knee jerk reaction most people have. Its true there is a psychological finding called the Westermarck Effect that contributes to that, but for those that arent affected, and there is no under age people involved then and its all consensual, who does it hurt?
You may not like it, but that shouldnt make it illegal."
Discuss.
Scroll to see replies
One thing that fails to address is that when incestuous relationships happen generation after generation you get much higher chances of genetic defects. So that's something that makes it different from people with known genetic disorders having children together, unless carriers of the disorder formed a close community and tended to breed with each other.
Another issue with incest is the possibility of psychological abuse. In the case of a parent-child relationship, even if the child is over 18 by the time they actually have sex, there's probably quite a high chance that the parent "groomed" them from a young age. Obviously this isn't always going to be the case, for example if someone has never met their biological parent until they're already an adult. This is presumably why it's illegal to have sex with someone if you have been their legal guardian, regardless of whether you're biologically related.
Another issue with incest is the possibility of psychological abuse. In the case of a parent-child relationship, even if the child is over 18 by the time they actually have sex, there's probably quite a high chance that the parent "groomed" them from a young age. Obviously this isn't always going to be the case, for example if someone has never met their biological parent until they're already an adult. This is presumably why it's illegal to have sex with someone if you have been their legal guardian, regardless of whether you're biologically related.
It's disgusting and wrong. End of.
Original post by Novis
It's disgusting and wrong. End of.
The term ''wrong'' is subjective.
On the face of it it does seem strange considering people who have genetic diseases/defects are allowed to have children (quite rightly) yet their children are far more likely to have these defects than healthy incestious parents.
It's pretty butters though.
It's pretty butters though.
7-10% more risk huh?
How come millions are spent researching causes of cancer etc., with far smaller advantages, and yet society is all to happy to remove the *"ewwwww", "gross" factor that is the knee jerk reaction most people have*, just for the sake of 'whats wrong with it?'
Apparently, morals are inhibitive stigma, standards are restricting human rights and tradition is archaic and always irrelevant -- according to the way this western society thinks and behaves. Let's liberalise everything and screw the consequences!
Eg., British abortion law. Intended to reduce number of backstreet abortions... backstreet abortions have gone up, at the same time as all the legal ones being on the increase.
Liberalising incest law essentially says to the world "you can sleep with whoever you want".
Add in this and you have my entrance into this discussion complete.
How come millions are spent researching causes of cancer etc., with far smaller advantages, and yet society is all to happy to remove the *"ewwwww", "gross" factor that is the knee jerk reaction most people have*, just for the sake of 'whats wrong with it?'
Apparently, morals are inhibitive stigma, standards are restricting human rights and tradition is archaic and always irrelevant -- according to the way this western society thinks and behaves. Let's liberalise everything and screw the consequences!
Eg., British abortion law. Intended to reduce number of backstreet abortions... backstreet abortions have gone up, at the same time as all the legal ones being on the increase.
Liberalising incest law essentially says to the world "you can sleep with whoever you want".
Add in this
One thing that fails to address is that when incestuous relationships happen generation after generation you get much higher chances of genetic defects. So that's something that makes it different from people with known genetic disorders having children together, unless carriers of the disorder formed a close community and tended to breed with each other.
Another issue with incest is the possibility of psychological abuse. In the case of a parent-child relationship, even if the child is over 18 by the time they actually have sex, there's probably quite a high chance that the parent "groomed" them from a young age. Obviously this isn't always going to be the case, for example if someone has never met their biological parent until they're already an adult. This is presumably why it's illegal to have sex with someone if you have been their legal guardian, regardless of whether you're biologically related.
Another issue with incest is the possibility of psychological abuse. In the case of a parent-child relationship, even if the child is over 18 by the time they actually have sex, there's probably quite a high chance that the parent "groomed" them from a young age. Obviously this isn't always going to be the case, for example if someone has never met their biological parent until they're already an adult. This is presumably why it's illegal to have sex with someone if you have been their legal guardian, regardless of whether you're biologically related.
It's just wrong.It is not right.
Original post by Psyk
One thing that fails to address is that when incestuous relationships happen generation after generation you get much higher chances of genetic defects. So that's something that makes it different from people with known genetic disorders having children together, unless carriers of the disorder formed a close community and tended to breed with each other.
Use of condom, pill and you're assuming the same children will produce offspring who will also mate with each other when that's not conclusive, even if they produced genetically inferior offspring who are we to say they're not allowed to produce them, do we understand their suffering on empathic grounds?
Another issue with incest is the possibility of psychological abuse. In the case of a parent-child relationship, even if the child is over 18 by the time they actually have sex, there's probably quite a high chance that the parent "groomed" them from a young age. Obviously this isn't always going to be the case, for example if someone has never met their biological parent until they're already an adult. This is presumably why it's illegal to have sex with someone if you have been their legal guardian, regardless of whether you're biologically related.
we are psychologically groomed nonstop it would simply be one of many influences we receive, are we not psychologically groomed to do certain things through media and social environments such as school? If she was so influenced/groomed to have sex with her father let her be so as long as he doesn't force her physically.
Use of condom, pill and you're assuming the same children will produce offspring who will also mate with each other when that's not conclusive, even if they produced genetically inferior offspring who are we to say they're not allowed to produce them, do we understand their suffering on empathic grounds?
Another issue with incest is the possibility of psychological abuse. In the case of a parent-child relationship, even if the child is over 18 by the time they actually have sex, there's probably quite a high chance that the parent "groomed" them from a young age. Obviously this isn't always going to be the case, for example if someone has never met their biological parent until they're already an adult. This is presumably why it's illegal to have sex with someone if you have been their legal guardian, regardless of whether you're biologically related.
we are psychologically groomed nonstop it would simply be one of many influences we receive, are we not psychologically groomed to do certain things through media and social environments such as school? If she was so influenced/groomed to have sex with her father let her be so as long as he doesn't force her physically.
That's my rational take on it.
Original post by Novis
It's disgusting and wrong. End of.
You are disgusting and wrong. End of. See what I did there? You cannot simply say something is wrong because it is disgusting, can I say that fish is wrong because it's disgusting, no I can't because I understand that it's my preference nothing more, I don't have the right to impose my preferences on other people because they don't hold more value.
Original post by tehforum
Refer to incestual relationships program which came on Channel 4. It focused on families who had children with severe defects, because both the parents were carriers of the defective gene.
Does anyone else remember that documentary?
Does anyone else remember that documentary?
Same could be said for carriers of genetic disorders should they also not be allowed to have sex or children, can't we screen for these genetic disorders by means of IVF and therefore decide on the healthy embryo to be implanted and if not refer to my above post about suffering.
And why does everyone here seem to assume that sex=children, hasn't our modern society shown it to be otherwise, sex is merely pleasure with the side -effect of having children, perhaps a couple of centuries ago it had a different telos(purpose) but now we live in a rather overpopulated environment as a matter it would be good for people to not consider children on rational grounds.
Basically, on rational grounds which law should be based on incest should be legalized however it's perversion through emotivism and intuitionism has caused for law to be decided on popular opinion and religion when it should be secular for religion and popular opinion means isolation and oppression towards minorities on irrational basis.
edit; I would appreciate criticism before neg's
(edited 12 years ago)
It's like speeding. Would you not think it was stupid to only fine someone for speeding if they caused an accident?
Original post by Stratos
That's my rational take on it.
You are disgusting and wrong. End of. See what I did there? You cannot simply say something is wrong because it is disgusting, can I say that fish is wrong because it's disgusting, no I can't because I understand that it's my preference nothing more, I don't have the right to impose my preferences on other people because they don't hold more value.
Same could be said for carriers of genetic disorders should they also not be allowed to have sex or children, can't we screen for these genetic disorders by means of IVF and therefore decide on the healthy embryo to be implanted and if not refer to my above post about suffering.
And why does everyone here seem to assume that sex=children, hasn't or modern society shown it to be otherwise, sex is merely pleasure with the side -effect of having children, perhaps a couple of centuries ago it had a different telos(purpose) but now we live in a rather overpopulated environment as a matter it would be good for people to not consider children on rational grounds.
Basically, on rational grounds which law should be based on incest should be legalized however it's perversion through emotivism and intuitionism has caused for law to be decided on popular opinion and religion when it should be secular for religion and popular opinion means isolation and oppression towards minorities on irrational basis.
You are disgusting and wrong. End of. See what I did there? You cannot simply say something is wrong because it is disgusting, can I say that fish is wrong because it's disgusting, no I can't because I understand that it's my preference nothing more, I don't have the right to impose my preferences on other people because they don't hold more value.
Same could be said for carriers of genetic disorders should they also not be allowed to have sex or children, can't we screen for these genetic disorders by means of IVF and therefore decide on the healthy embryo to be implanted and if not refer to my above post about suffering.
And why does everyone here seem to assume that sex=children, hasn't or modern society shown it to be otherwise, sex is merely pleasure with the side -effect of having children, perhaps a couple of centuries ago it had a different telos(purpose) but now we live in a rather overpopulated environment as a matter it would be good for people to not consider children on rational grounds.
Basically, on rational grounds which law should be based on incest should be legalized however it's perversion through emotivism and intuitionism has caused for law to be decided on popular opinion and religion when it should be secular for religion and popular opinion means isolation and oppression towards minorities on irrational basis.
Oh yeah, the program concentrated on the Muslim communities in Bradford. Due to the lack of education and ignorance - but also due to their beliefs, they believe that having a child is the will of Allah, so condoms are restricting that.
I don't know what the stats are for the number of defective children born as a result of his/her parent having a defective gene, but I would say it is minimal. However, the pain and suffering that is inflicted on those poor souls who do have a defective gene can justify the illegalisation of incest.
WINCEST
Obvious Muslim is obvious
Original post by tehforum
I don't know what the stats are for the number of defective children born as a result of his/her parent having a defective gene, but I would say it is minimal. However, the pain and suffering that is inflicted on those poor souls who do have a defective gene can justify the illegalisation of incest.
You see, the problem lies here.
If this is the reason that the ban is justified then nobody with an inheritable genetic defect would be allowed to have children.
They are, even people carrying genes for conditions with an inheritability of 50%.
Therefore incest is banned for a different reason, namely because it's a societal taboo.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
