Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    I myself support people being forced to abort a knowingly disabled child anyway as it's basically cruelty to force them into the world.
    Say's more about you than anything else. I've spent my life working with children and adults with various disabilities; facilitating clubs, job opportunities, access to the community and broadly helping them to self-realise. I've worked as an education consultant for SEN schools and intervention centres. I've met hundreds of parents incredibly happy that they have a loving, meaningful relationship with their very happy child who just happens to be in some manner disabled.

    You call someone else a moron and then offer this as an alternative? You have completely discredited yourself. I'd have happily engaged with you on your other points despite your inability to be civil, but I see no reason to do that now.

    Thanks for your input anyway.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    If the scan was 100% effective and guaranteed no risk of disability, I would not be as opposed to it.

    But even the slightest chance of disability is a no.
    But nothing is ever 100% guaranteed. An anatomy scan and constant monitoring is as close as you can get though
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    By that logic, you're against relationships between all people who have an increased risk of producing a child with a disability, even if they never have their own biological children. Don't you see how silly that sounds?

    Tbh, I don't know why I even entertained because you know full well that you would still be against incest even if the couple don't have kids. Not everyone wants children ya know
    By that logic I support eugenics? Well done for stating something well known.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    By that logic I support eugenics? Well done for stating something well known.
    So you believe that it should be made illegal for healthy couples carrying gene mutations to certain disabilities to procreate? Despite there being no certainty that they will ever bear a disabled child?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't read 6 pages of this discussion because It's prObably full of disgusting justifications.

    I don't like to be like Des but sometimes you have to.

    Author, go to the gulag please.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:







    Hi,

    The first thing to say is this bill was intended to test the modern generation of MP's ability to assess legislation independent of their own biases, and to show that the Libertarian Party can and will produce legislation that ignites debate. The latter has certainly been achieved.

    This is a very polarising issue, and one that is very emotive for people because the vast majority find the concept of incest personally abhorrent. I personally find it disgusting as well, and certainly wouldn't ever take part in it. I do not, however, feel that my personal view of an action should determine whether or not that action should be illegal.

    We shouldn't legislate based on taboos and non-sequitur assumptions. We should legislate to protect freedoms for people wherever those freedoms do not impinge on anyone else's right to the same.

    I won't go over some of the arguments I addressed in the body of the bill, nor those that have been able handled by Conor and other members in my absence.

    I have tried to catch everything but I am very tired and hungry, so if I missed anything as I went through the thread please don't hesitate to quote me. Unlike many MPs here, I will actually respond to your comments.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Surely no other bill would be able to test the mettle of this House's liberal soul better than this. :laugh:
    Precisely

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Prsom. The potential leader of the newly proposed TSR Libertarian Party is, it would seem, re-introducing himself to the House.
    I think I succeeded :awesome:

    (Original post by Obiejess)
    Nay. Absolute nay. Symptomatic of mental health issues, not something to be accepted socially.

    Also a family member will always be in a 'position of trust' so this brings up ethical issues.
    The various DSMs have a long history of suggesting that all manner of behaviours are deviant. The most common example of course is the DSM III which considered homosexual sex to be a deviant behaviour. Saying that something is symptomatic of mental illness doesn't tell us anything useful at all, and certainly should predicate legislation. Being socially withdrawn is symptomatic of mental illness - shall we criminalise it? Or should we instead attempt to address the underlying causes of dysfunctional behaviour? Unfortunately I think your first argument falls at the first hurdle.

    A position of trust does bring up ethical issues, but many relationships begin from such dynamics. Someone ****ing their boss is the classic example. There comes a point where a person must be deemed capable of making their own decisions. Ray has suggested making the age limit either 18 or 21 - would this be something you'd agree with?

    (Original post by frankielogue)
    Nay. We should not be supporting such immoral acts. Incest is not something you are born with.
    Morality is fluid, variable and irrelevant here. Your personal concept of morality may be consistent with criminalising this behaviour, mine may not. Bob, who lives around the corner, thinks allowing women to drive is immoral. It just doesn't matter what you consider immoral.

    (Original post by RuWill2001)
    Aye, why should the state say who sleeps with who?
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Ehhh a bit strange but meh, might as well.
    Good, sensible people :borat:

    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I support this but only if the age is brought up to 18. If I'm not mistaken, its illegal for a 16yr old to be sexually active with someone 18 and above.
    I also don't believe that they should be allowed to procreate but I'm not sure how that could be implemented without breaching human rights
    You are mistaken, and it couldn't be - which is rather the point. It seems likely that I will be altering the age limit to at least 18 for the second reading so hopefully you can support it then.

    (Original post by Conceited)
    It's odious. But consenting adults of sound mind are just that - consenting adults of sound mind. We've moved beyond laws and legislation that restrict individual liberty and privacy. The 'children are at risk of defects' argument doesn't yield any merit.

    I don't see why members would be against the bill being proposed.
    Precisely.

    (Original post by ATW1)
    Liberal priorities...
    It's part of a considered plan.

    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Why I am not a liberal member, or part of the new libertarians, it is a pretty easy first bill to write in terms of content for a party which hasn't even official formed yet, and therefore doesn't even have a subforum as of yet. Agreeable or not is not what I am arguing, but simply that this isn't a priority, but an easy way to show activity for a group looking to become a party.
    It isn't a priority. It is a fringe argument made precisely because it will demonstrate that the party can occupy an entirely different political space than the rest of the parties here. You hit the nail on the head. Also, the idea that every bill has to be of great significance is nonsense. A large amount of those submitted do little more than shuffle the status quo around a little bit.

    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    I think it's weird and all, but I sort of look forward to the day when the insult "Go and f*** your mother" may be met with "Erm.... I don't get it?".
    :lol: A consequence I hadn't considered.

    (Original post by jape)
    Extraordinary degeneracy.

    That said... I don't have a philosophically sound reason not to support this. But still. Ew.
    It is undoubtedly an unpleasant thing to consider for the vast majority of people, myself included. Like you say, though, there is no compelling philosophical basis for not allowing it.

    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Abstain. I'm usually for liberal legislation but this just seems rather inappropriate and unnecessary. I will need quite a lot more convincing if I am to vote in favour of this one.
    Why is it inappropriate? Given the responses myself and others have made in this thread. Are you not simply taking your own personal desire not to do something and using that as a basis for deciding that nobody can? Which argument(s) do you find yourself unconvinced by and why?

    (Original post by Tootles)
    Actually, I believe that if we're moving to a situation where all that happens between people above the age of consent is legal, incest should likewise be legal. For one thing, the idea of it being abusive isn't necessarily wrong - it only appears to be because much of what happens that is abusive is between parents and young children.

    While I don't know that I can (personally) accept extremes like sleeping with one's parents as being the right thing to do, I also don't think it's my place to tell them they can't. Having (drunkenly, in boredom, late one night) read up on much of this legislation, I've come to learn that not only is direct sexual activity illegal between relatives, but even allowing each other to watch oneself masturbate or engage in other sexual activities is actually legally (as well as socially) defined as incestuous.

    I would comment that our law is founded (ideally, at least) on respectability and respectfulness, and, while I personally wouldn't sleep with a close relative, I don't believe it's my place to tell anyone else who they can and can't sleep with, provided it's done in safety.

    And as regards religious law: as a man of faith myself, I try to hold a clear definition of right and wrong, stemming from what I hold to be acts of love for my fellows, and hatred toward them. Those moral laws are mine to keep, and the only ones I believe should be enforced are the obvious ones - don't kill, don't rape, don't beat people up or steal from them, blah. As a man of faith, I believe incest is not right. But just as a person, I acknowedge that incest (assuming it's concensual) is a victimless crime, and therefore one which needn't be legally defined as a crime at all. if people who do it are guilty, on some fundamental (or spiritual) level, of a crime/sin, that's for them to reckon with on their own. Not for me to tell them they should feel bad.



    Being a registered sex offender. Can't remember if there's a prison term or fine too.


    Exactly.


    Anyone you trust is in a position of trust, by definition, but if I (by mutual consent) slept with, say, my sister - how is that any more abusive of that trust than if I slept with a friend?


    It is not. You're confusing consent and majority.


    How do you define serious?

    Incest doesn't actually, for the most part, produce disabled children, unless it has been going on for many generations. If you look at recent cases of incest-produced babies, I believe you'd be very challenged to find any with debilitating congenital disorders of any nature.


    Says it all. A lot of the law is still there mostly because ew.
    +1

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    lol, I really don't know. Haven't read the whole thread, but I'm inclined to say aye.

    Also... does anyone else get the impression that BH has a hot sister?
    Good man.

    If I did, I certainly wouldn't admit it under these deeply suggestive circumstances :facepalm2:


    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Aye, tbh. Connor has summed it up pretty well. However, we have to ensure that there are services in place so if people feel as if they are being abused by a person in a position of power they can report it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The Liberal leader proving his credentials right here. A man we can believe in :moon:

    (Original post by ToastyBread)
    Aye , If you want to f%&k your family , then feel free to , i know i might be showing my liberal side a bit too much here, but if you want to do it , do it , if you sexually identify as a postbox , then just be a postboox , if you want to f%&k your family , do it . If you are both 16 or over , why should you be stopped by the state doing what you want to do?
    Indeed. Also, do you wish to join the party? I know you were interested in the previous attempt.

    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    I haven't read 6 pages of this discussion because It's prObably full of disgusting justifications.

    I don't like to be like Des but sometimes you have to.

    Author, go to the gulag please.
    Come at me, gopnik.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Say's more about you than anything else.
    Yes it says I'd rather live in a world where people didn't have to suffer from disabilities which didn't have to exist *gasp* I'm so horrible, send me to the galllows.

    I've spent my life working with children and adults with various disabilities; facilitating clubs, job opportunities, access to the community and broadly helping them to self-realise. I've worked as an education consultant for SEN schools and intervention centres. I've met hundreds of parents incredibly happy that they have a loving, meaningful relationship with their very happy child who just happens to be in some manner disabled.
    That's a lovely emotional point you're making but it's completely irrelevant to my point. My point is that the human race is arguably better off without disabilities and so we should not be encouraging people to give birth to children with disabilities. All of those parents are perfectly capable of having a loving, meaningful relationship with a non-disabled child as welll so I'm not quite sure what the problem is as one (no disabilities) is clearly favourable over the other.

    You call someone else a moron and then offer this as an alternative? You have completely discredited yourself. I'd have happily engaged with you on your other points despite your inability to be civil, but I see no reason to do that now.
    I clearly see that you got a little bit offended about my post which entirely rests upon yourself. If it somehow awful to propose that we don't have disabilities in the future and do everything to stop that, then I guess I am just satan aren't I. I am perfectly sure that a mother who drank excessively, smoked and took drugs whilst pregnant could still love her child, it doesn't mean it's perfectly fine to accept this no questions asked.

    And I do ever so love the 'I would have argued about this, but one rude name made me just completely decide it was all worthless!" - i.e. "I would have argued but I couldn't think of anything to say except from bringing up pointless, emotional arguments again".

    Thanks for your input anyway.
    Np sweetie
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    I haven't read 6 pages of this discussion because It's prObably full of disgusting justifications.

    I don't like to be like Des but sometimes you have to.

    Author, go to the gulag please.
    Who's Des? I'm curious
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Who's Des? I'm curious
    DMcGovern


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    DMcGovern


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Is he notorious for something, I know hardly anyone here except you, Jammy, Nigel, and Ray
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    ByronicHero I might consider joining , but it will almost deifintely be nearer the election , also I said previously that i only thought of a libertarian party as a good idea , so as i said i will seriously consider it , but it will almost definitely be around may when we have the next election , as I wish to keep my seat as an MP
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)









    Hi,

    The first thing to say is this bill was intended to test the modern generation of MP's ability to assess legislation independent of their own biases, and to show that the Libertarian Party can and will produce legislation that ignites debate. The latter has certainly been achieved.

    This is a very polarising issue, and one that is very emotive for people because the vast majority find the concept of incest personally abhorrent. I personally find it disgusting as well, and certainly wouldn't ever take part in it. I do not, however, feel that my personal view of an action should determine whether or not that action should be illegal.

    We shouldn't legislate based on taboos and non-sequitur assumptions. We should legislate to protect freedoms for people wherever those freedoms do not impinge on anyone else's right to the same.

    I won't go over some of the arguments I addressed in the body of the bill, nor those that have been able handled by Conor and other members in my absence.

    I have tried to catch everything but I am very tired and hungry, so if I missed anything as I went through the thread please don't hesitate to quote me. Unlike many MPs here, I will actually respond to your comments.



    Precisely



    I think I succeeded :awesome:



    The various DSMs have a long history of suggesting that all manner of behaviours are deviant. The most common example of course is the DSM III which considered homosexual sex to be a deviant behaviour. Saying that something is symptomatic of mental illness doesn't tell us anything useful at all, and certainly should predicate legislation. Being socially withdrawn is symptomatic of mental illness - shall we criminalise it? Or should we instead attempt to address the underlying causes of dysfunctional behaviour? Unfortunately I think your first argument falls at the first hurdle.

    A position of trust does bring up ethical issues, but many relationships begin from such dynamics. Someone ****ing their boss is the classic example. There comes a point where a person must be deemed capable of making their own decisions. Ray has suggested making the age limit either 18 or 21 - would this be something you'd agree with?



    Morality is fluid, variable and irrelevant here. Your personal concept of morality may be consistent with criminalising this behaviour, mine may not. Bob, who lives around the corner, thinks allowing women to drive is immoral. It just doesn't matter what you consider immoral.





    Good, sensible people :borat:



    You are mistaken, and it couldn't be - which is rather the point. It seems likely that I will be altering the age limit to at least 18 for the second reading so hopefully you can support it then.



    Precisely.



    It's part of a considered plan.



    It isn't a priority. It is a fringe argument made precisely because it will demonstrate that the party can occupy an entirely different political space than the rest of the parties here. You hit the nail on the head. Also, the idea that every bill has to be of great significance is nonsense. A large amount of those submitted do little more than shuffle the status quo around a little bit.



    :lol: A consequence I hadn't considered.



    It is undoubtedly an unpleasant thing to consider for the vast majority of people, myself included. Like you say, though, there is no compelling philosophical basis for not allowing it.



    Why is it inappropriate? Given the responses myself and others have made in this thread. Are you not simply taking your own personal desire not to do something and using that as a basis for deciding that nobody can? Which argument(s) do you find yourself unconvinced by and why?



    +1



    Good man.

    If I did, I certainly wouldn't admit it under these deeply suggestive circumstances :facepalm2:




    The Liberal leader proving his credentials right here. A man we can believe in :moon:



    Indeed. Also, do you wish to join the party? I know you were interested in the previous attempt.



    Come at me, gopnik.
    I hope I proved my libertarian credentials here!
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Is he notorious for something, I know hardly anyone here except you, Jammy, Nigel, and Ray
    I am proud to be in the 'know' pile. :woo:
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    Yes it says I'd rather live in a world where people didn't have to suffer from disabilities which didn't have to exist *gasp* I'm so horrible, send me to the galllows.



    That's a lovely emotional point you're making but it's completely irrelevant to my point. My point is that the human race is arguably better off without disabilities and so we should not be encouraging people to give birth to children with disabilities. All of those parents are perfectly capable of having a loving, meaningful relationship with a non-disabled child as welll so I'm not quite sure what the problem is as one (no disabilities) is clearly favourable over the other.



    I clearly see that you got a little bit offended about my post which entirely rests upon yourself. If it somehow awful to propose that we don't have disabilities in the future and do everything to stop that, then I guess I am just satan aren't I. I am perfectly sure that a mother who drank excessively, smoked and took drugs whilst pregnant could still love her child, it doesn't mean it's perfectly fine to accept this no questions asked.

    And I do ever so love the 'I would have argued about this, but one rude name made me just completely decide it was all worthless!" - i.e. "I would have argued but I couldn't think of anything to say except from bringing up pointless, emotional arguments again".



    Np sweetie
    It isn't that I had nothing to say, it is that I had a lot to say but didn't think it would be time well spent given that 1) we are evidently in different worlds politically and 2) your first post suggested that you are a prick. I should probably respond though, given I've made a big deal of doing so in my large post.

    I don't think you are wrong to want a world where nobody has to have a disabled child, especially a profoundly disabled child. I do think you are wrong to want to force parents to abort their disabled children even if they don't want to, and can commit to caring for them. I think the implication of your post(s) is that a disabled person cannot live a full, happy and fulling life - which is complete nonsense. You may argue that I am reading something that isn't there. We will agree to disagree.

    I also think that you suggesting we are encouraging people to have disabled children is a complete non-sequitur. It's like saying that by not making it illegal to drive cars we are encouraging people to run people over with them. Possible outcomes and intended outcomes are different. I suppose you could argue that by removing barriers to the action we are indirectly encouraging it. Is that your argument?

    You're right that your comments offended me; they did so because they are ignorant and show, in my opinion, a complete lack of understanding of SEN issues. It is also correct that my being offended has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how right or wrong your comments are. My offence is irrelevant, and I respect your right to offend me. I just also reserve the right to assume you're incapable of being reasonable, and to choose not to bother with you (though evidently I am not exercising that right presently ).

    Have I misunderstood or misrepresented any off your arguments here? I have no idea who you are, but if you are an MP I am going to assume I will not be getting your support if this goes to vote :lol:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I agree in principle that consenting adults should be free to do what ever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

    However, in practice, if more incest goes on, more disabled children will be born. Contraception is not 100% effective and there will be those who choose not to use it.

    I also don't think the consent issue is clear cut when it comes to family relationships. Children are brought up in a family that they don't choose. The control that family members have in shaping our lives creates power imbalances that don't exist in ordinary sexual relationships.

    When it comes to a father having sex with his 16 year old daughter, the line between what is consensual and what is not is so blurred that it doesn't really exist because abusive fathers can manipulate over years. The daughter may not know any different. She has been brought up to think what is happening is normal and she is too afraid of her father to reject his advances. Is that consent or not?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Typical MHoC, debate about incest devolves into forced abortion and eugenics very quickly.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I hope I proved my libertarian credentials here!
    No need to prove anything to me, mate

    (Original post by Sternumator)
    I agree in principle that consenting adults should be free to do what ever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

    However, in practice, if more incest goes on, more disabled children will be born. Contraception is not 100% effective and there will be those who choose not to use it.

    I also don't think the consent issue is clear cut when it comes to family relationships. Children are brought up in a family that they don't choose. The control that family members have in shaping our lives creates power imbalances that don't exist in ordinary sexual relationships.

    When it comes to a father having sex with his 16 year old daughter, the line between what is consensual and what is not is so blurred that it doesn't really exist because abusive fathers can manipulate over years. The daughter may not know any different. She has been brought up to think what is happening is normal and she is too afraid of her father to reject his advances. Is that consent or not?
    The latter point has been a common theme in this thread. I am pretty committed to changing the stated age to 18, possibly even 21, due to these kinds of concerns. Would that be sufficient to gain your support? As I said to Ray, I would rather we make some progress than none and an thus happy to make reasonable concessions.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    And here I was, thinking the Islamic Society was exteme.
    • Community Assistant
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    snip
    I didn't get a reply! https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho...&postcount=101
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, I'm worried about the increased risk of incestuous children having disabilities.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 16, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.