Why is incest illegal? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

How would you introduce those measures into the family home?

That would be severely intrusive of the state.

@Yaboi, @l'etranger, well, I don't think people with genetic issues should have sex. Putting myself in their positions, why should I have a child who I know isn't going to experience the world at the same level as a healthy person? Seems immoral to me, but it also seems immoral making a law on it. I'm so confused right now.

Well surely based on that it would be hard to even police incest.

Contraception, and abortion if it fails.

Ha. Without religion, there is no argument against it.

It is currently both illegal and morally taboo so is not widespread. The state therefore does not need to monitor families to see whether it is taking place to the same extent they would have to monitor families to ensure it was taking place without negative consequences, if it were to be legalized.

If it were legalized, it could potentially become a more widespread phenomena over the course of the next few decades. If this happens then ensuring it is not occurring in ways that are harmful would require extensive policing of the family by the state.

First off, I'd like to state that I pride myself on being open-minded - that is, fantasizing about phucking my relatives.

Kidding aside, the taboo surrounding incest has always interested me. To most people, the thought of having sex with one of your parents or siblings seems beyond gross, but why? This is surely some sort of social convention or learned behaviour for us humans, since incest is a prevalent thing among the animal kingdom. Then again, inbreeding avoidance is also noticeable in certain species, (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169534796100288), so whether incest avoidance is an evolved mechanism, or just some kind of social structure developed over time, remains to be concluded.

Now, the gradual progression of gay rights has shown how we as a society approach social issues (which may be uncomfortable to a number of us) on the basis of whether or not they cause direct harm to anybody else. The distinction between over-16 consensual homosexuality and over-16 consensual incest is that incest increases the chances of birth defects. First degree relative incest doesn't just increase the probability, but it significantly increases the probability, to the point where the likelihood approaches 50 percent.

On those grounds, it seems fair to me that brother/sister, father/daughter relationships stay illegal (of course, if you disagree, please say so and state your reasons). Even if these couples use protection, they're having sexual intercourse knowing that there is a chance of the female conceiving.

But what about cousins? It seems to me that the argument in favour of making first relative incest illegal on the basis of birth defects must also apply to cousins, but what is the exact probability of first cousins having a baby with a defect? A study (http://theconversation.com/birth-defect-risk-for-children-of-first-cousins-is-overstated-15809) found that the children of first cousins in the Pakistani community had a 3.6% greater risk of being born with a congenital anomaly than children born to unrelated couples, whose risk was 2.6%.

This debate seems, to me, to be on the level of the age of consent debate, if we're allowing first-cousin relationships. We're therefore saying that the probability of birth defects is a major factor in how we look at incest, meaning at what specific percentage do we say "okay, that's it, we're not allowing this to happen"?

So, should we make cousin relationships illegal, or keep them legal?
Should we retain the ban on the already outlawed incest relationships?

How would you introduce those measures into the family home?

That would be severely intrusive of the state.

There is a massive social stigma, obviously, that would be in place regardless of the legal status of incest.

It would hardly become the norm, or even significantly prevalent.

so you support incest? at least on a cousin extent?

@Yaboi, @l'etranger, well, I don't think people with genetic issues should have sex. Putting myself in their positions, why should I have a child who I know isn't going to experience the world at the same level as a healthy person? Seems immoral to me, but it also seems immoral making a law on it. I'm so confused right now.

I think the legal status of practice speaks volumes. It definitely could change societies perceptions, over time.



I'm indifferent. I think my arguments against it are mainly consequentialst. If it causes harm to another party then I am very much against it.

In my opinion, once a law has set up a social stigma, its only purpose there-on-out is to punish offenders. Some acts will eventually become redundant for this reason, like the equality act in the distant future.

The state would force abortions?

so you support incest? at least on a cousin extent?

In the case of incest, yes. People would obviously be made aware of this beforehand, in the education system for example. Whether or not they then wish to take the risk is up to them.

But we live and function within the context of laws. They shape who we are. Laws are not just prescriptions for penalties, they are also deeply symbolic. Especially in the context of democratic elected, liberal states, committed to upholding individual liberty. I think if incest was legalised over night somehow in such states, peoples attitudes towards it would definitely change...eventually.

What a disgusting horrible thing to say. Disabled people or people with abnormalities should be allowed to have children if they want.

The only time I would not recommend it is if the baby will go through life in agony and pain. Otherwise let them experience one of the greatest gifts god can give us, children.

If it were legalized, it could potentially become a more widespread phenomena over the course of the next few decades.

What if murder was legalised tomorrow? Or theft? Or rape? Would your conjecture differ?

Would it though? That's what I'm wondering.

Natural (un)selection has meant that the vast majority of people find incest somewhat repugnant. Just because it gets legalised, does that necessarily mean the practice would get adopted by a significant proportion of people?

It's also worth noting that people who spend their lives together from a very young age tend not to experience sexual feelings for each other. So in theory, even if incest was legalised and the practice became less taboo, there would not be very high uptake. People would just not be attracted to their kin or at least find them significantly less sexually attractive than other people.