Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    "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."

    That's exactly what you're asking for when you normalize incest, children thinking it's ok for them to do it as well. Then you get generations. I don't know, if it's true that the chance of getting a ****ed up baby is low I may abstain.

    I would however like to say I'm dissapointed that this is the libertarians first bill
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    i would support this were the age to be 18.
    Ok, that will probably be done before this is sent to vote

    (Original post by Paracosm)
    Personal and moral objections... I've nothing real to offer to you except what you don't want to hear, nor will you be able to change my mind. Sorry.
    It's always useful for people to declare their implacable opposition; it saves everyone time and effort. So fair enough

    (Original post by Snufkin)
    No, I don't think the prospect of prison is a deterrent to most people, but neither do I think decriminalising incest would create an atmosphere where people could come forward and seek help - legal or not, a disgust of incest is too deeply rooted in society.

    I would rather incest remained illegal and keep prison as an option to protect adults who may be coerced into having relations with their sibling/parent. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that a father say to his daughter "if you loved me you'd do this", and if she was financially dependent on him or suffered from dependent personality disorder then she may (unwillingly) consent and suffer long-lasting psychological damage as a result. As I understand the law, she would have no legal protection because she gave her consent.
    I see. Fair enough. I understand your concern, I am just not sure that there is anything I could change to alter your opinion which wouldn't in turn render this bill inert. I just don't think that the deterrent makes a difference to the vast majority of people willing to abuse their children, but criminalisation does negatively impact those people who just want to pursue their own desires in peace.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Ok, that will probably be done before this is sent to vote



    It's always useful for people to declare their implacable opposition; it saves everyone time and effort. So fair enough



    I see. Fair enough. I understand your concern, I am just not sure that there is anything I could change to alter your opinion which wouldn't in turn render this bill inert. I just don't think that the deterrent makes a difference to the vast majority of people willing to abuse their children, but criminalisation does negatively impact those people who just want to pursue their own desires in peace.
    thank you
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    B1101 – Incest Decriminalisation Bill 2017, ByronicHero (seconded by joecphillips MP)

    Incest Decriminalisation Bill 2017

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    1. Incest

    (1) For the purposes of this bill incest is defined as sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual, between a person of at least 16 years of age and their parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, half-sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece, who are also age 16 or above.
    (2) Such actions are no longer an offence.

    2. Commencement, short title and extent

    (1) This may be cited as the Incest Decriminalisation Act 2017
    (2) This act shall extend to England; and
    (3) Shall come into force immediately following Royal Assent; and
    (4) Shall be provided to the Welsh Assembly Government for their consideration; and
    (5) Subject to changes made by the National Assembly for Wales; and
    (6) Subject to an affirmative vote shall come into force immediately following Royal Assent.

    Answers to anticipated questions


    It is against our culture, our way of life

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Well this is a nonsense argument. Rights for women would once have been described exactly the same way, as would rights for slaves or racial equality. Something being prevalent does not logically equate to it being right and such arguments are completely out of place in a progressive society. We used to think homosexuality was a sexually deviant practice; that something is taboo is absolutely no argument for its continued illegality.


    If they have children, those children could suffer

    Spoiler:
    Show

    The fact is they don't have to have children and the fact that sex can lead to pregnancy and that the baby could be at a very slight higher risk of being born with complications is no argument against legalization. The same logic would make it illegal for anyone with hereditary illnesses to have a child. It is an unfortunate consequence, but is entirely insufficient to curtail a person's freedoms in this way

    .

    I'm against this for religious reasons

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Fine, but who are you to impose your religiously based beliefs on other people? Religion has absolutely no place in the legal system of a modern country. It can guide your personal choices but a wall should exist, and exist strongly, between the church (taken to represent all religion) and the state. This is, obviously, a complete non-argument.



    Come on guys, please don't support this bill. The law is there for a reason, and genetic abnormalities, is only the first one!
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    Come on guys, please don't support this bill. The law is there for a reason, and genetic abnormalities, is only the first one!
    Laws are there for reasons yes, because they are subject to causality. However, those reasons are often little more than superstitions and assumptions. In this case there are ostensibly legitimate reasons to want to criminalise incest - albeit ones I don't agree with - but I just want to challenge the idea that because something is a law it must necessarily have a good and legitimate rationale for being one. That just isn't always the case!

    Thanks for commenting
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Despite my first and second posts, I dont see why my own personal position on the matter should affect the law itself.
    Will vote aye.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    B1101 – Incest Decriminalisation Bill 2017, ByronicHero (seconded by joecphillips MP)

    Incest Decriminalisation Bill 2017


    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    1. Incest

    (1) For the purposes of this bill incest is defined as sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual, between a person of at least 16 years of age and their parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, half-sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece, who are also age 16 or above.
    (2) Such actions are no longer an offence.

    2. Commencement, short title and extent

    (1) This may be cited as the Incest Decriminalisation Act 2017
    (2) This act shall extend to England; and
    (3) Shall come into force immediately following Royal Assent; and
    (4) Shall be provided to the Welsh Assembly Government for their consideration; and
    (5) Subject to changes made by the National Assembly for Wales; and
    (6) Subject to an affirmative vote shall come into force immediately following Royal Assent.

    Answers to anticipated questions


    It is against our culture, our way of life

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Well this is a nonsense argument. Rights for women would once have been described exactly the same way, as would rights for slaves or racial equality. Something being prevalent does not logically equate to it being right and such arguments are completely out of place in a progressive society. We used to think homosexuality was a sexually deviant practice; that something is taboo is absolutely no argument for its continued illegality.



    If they have children, those children could suffer

    Spoiler:
    Show

    The fact is they don't have to have children and the fact that sex can lead to pregnancy and that the baby could be at a very slight higher risk of being born with complications is no argument against legalization. The same logic would make it illegal for anyone with hereditary illnesses to have a child. It is an unfortunate consequence, but is entirely insufficient to curtail a person's freedoms in this way

    .

    I'm against this for religious reasons

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Fine, but who are you to impose your religiously based beliefs on other people? Religion has absolutely no place in the legal system of a modern country. It can guide your personal choices but a wall should exist, and exist strongly, between the church (taken to represent all religion) and the state. This is, obviously, a complete non-argument.




    Oh dear. Oh well most Aston Villa fans have broken the law then if it is decriminalising incest
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Would you agree that homosexuality and transgenderism are symptomatic of mental health issues? It seems that a lot of people who call themselves homosexuals or transgender have mental health issues, so would you agree that these acts are not something to be accepted socially?
    No. No I wouldn't. But incest normally arises from abuse.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    And when two people commit incest now, and choose to keep the child, we lock that child's parents in prison? I should hope not!

    Obviously an act like this should come with protections from coercion, personally I would keep it illegal for parent/child perhaps, at least until an older age and where there's no longer a dependence. But it's hard to justify locking up adult siblings for a bit of fondling around if that's what they go for.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emily Porter)
    Tad concerned that people are support incest between parents/grandparents and their children/grandchildren! Wtf that's crazy!
    Would you mind explaining why you think that? So long as both parties are above the age of consent, and do consent, what is the problem?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Would you mind explaining why you think that? So long as both parties are above the age of consent, and do consent, what is the problem?
    The problem for most people opposing this bill is the child produced by the sexual act.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    The problem for most people opposing this bill is the child produced by the sexual act.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    To avoid this, perhaps introduce a clause requiring contraception to be used. The other option is an exception in the bill for families with a history of certain genetic disorders.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Surely a repeal of part of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is the more appropriate way to go about doing this?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    The problem for most people opposing this bill is the child produced by the sexual act.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    First cousins have a 1.5 - 3% increased risk of birth defects, which is presumably higher (albeit not too drastically) with closer relations such as siblings.

    Those who make the point you've highlighted are making the assumption that the incestuous relationships mentioned in the bill are for pro-creation. What about it being for pleasure?

    Women over 40 are just as likely to have children with birth defects as with first cousins. If a women were to drink alcohol excessively during pregnancy the child could end up having fetal alcohol syndrome. There's no law to prevent women over 40 becoming pregnant and women can get wasted practically every other day when pregnant without facing legal consequences.

    The only reason incestuous relationships are an offence and illegal as a result is because society thinks it's disgusting and creepy. That clearly isn't a good enough to warrant it being against the law.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I support this;

    I personally think that it's a degenerate act and don't condone it at all (it's distgusting in fact), but two consenting adults having sex shoudn't be illegal, that's draconian.
    This is a valid point and lies at the heart of how far we allow the state to oversee what goes on in the bedroom.

    For moral and ethical reasons, I would vote against this bill, but do acknowledge the need for restraint in how much we legislate against activities between consenting adults.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Looks at title ... looks away looks again realises it's a serious bill
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    First cousins have a 1.5 - 3% increased risk of birth defects, which is presumably higher (albeit not too drastically) with closer relations such as siblings.

    Those who make the point you've highlighted are making the assumption that the incestuous relationships mentioned in the bill are for pro-creation. What about it being for pleasure?

    Women over 40 are just as likely to have children with birth defects as with first cousins. If a women were to drink alcohol excessively during pregnancy the child could end up having fetal alcohol syndrome. There's no law to prevent women over 40 becoming pregnant and women can get wasted practically every other day when pregnant without facing legal consequences.

    The only reason incestuous relationships are an offence and illegal as a result is because society thinks it's disgusting and creepy. That clearly isn't a good enough to warrant it being against the law.
    I think I've been pretty consistent on this, I do think there should be restrictions on who has children and when to protect the future of the child. And it is for the very reason that this bill doesn't make clear the legality of reproduction that I cannot support it.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Would you be up for a gene screening program where people are only allowed to marry others and have kids with them if their genes are suitably different enough to increase genetic diversity which increases health overall?
    I'm uneasy about eugenics in general, but if the aim was more about increasing the gene pool rather than breeding out inheritable disorders, I'd certainly be receptive to the idea.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Precisely
    I disagree - the Socialist Party's legalisation of drawn child pornography to progressively help paedophiles and prevent instances of abuse was a lot more testing

    Also, I'd agree with an age limit of 18 or 21 on incest.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Looks at title ... looks away looks again realises it's a serious bill
    The right decision is not always the easy decision
 
 
 
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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.