This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Should incest really be illegal?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by anarchism101
I don't think it should be a crime, but I think people should be made very aware of the risks, as we would warn people with hereditary diseases of the risks of passing them on to their children.
Though I also think sex between any two people who ever had a legal parent-child relationship (whether related by blood or not) should have a higher age of consent law, at least 18 if not 20.
Though I also think sex between any two people who ever had a legal parent-child relationship (whether related by blood or not) should have a higher age of consent law, at least 18 if not 20.
I may be talking rubbish here but I'm sure I remember reading that the risks of incest to the health of the baby is similar to the risks of a baby of a mother who conceives at 40 years of age. We don't exactly have a blanket ban on women over 40 having sex.
This is also not to mention that it is possible to have sex without trying to make a baby.
The odds of having issues between two family members relative to two unrelated is insignificant, proven time and time again. Many countries imbred and they are fine by the way, personally i couldn't give a **** who you want to ****.
The simple answers to this question are..
1) It offers no benefit to society and therefore anybody who does not adopt a liberal approach to their politics has no reason to support it.
2) It is morally putrid to de facto have the state encourage incest (when you make something legal you provide a de facto incentive) and therefore anybody that like me believes that the state should enspouce a moral code in its actions is naturally opposed.
Frankly, i'd have the OP sectioned for creating this thread if i could. It's a disgusting, decadent and morally putrid idea symptomatic of 'progressive' thought in the UK.
1) It offers no benefit to society and therefore anybody who does not adopt a liberal approach to their politics has no reason to support it.
2) It is morally putrid to de facto have the state encourage incest (when you make something legal you provide a de facto incentive) and therefore anybody that like me believes that the state should enspouce a moral code in its actions is naturally opposed.
Frankly, i'd have the OP sectioned for creating this thread if i could. It's a disgusting, decadent and morally putrid idea symptomatic of 'progressive' thought in the UK.
Original post by Rakas21
Frankly, i'd have the OP sectioned for creating this thread if i could. It's a disgusting, decadent and morally putrid idea symptomatic of 'progressive' thought in the UK.
Frankly, i'd have the OP sectioned for creating this thread if i could. It's a disgusting, decadent and morally putrid idea symptomatic of 'progressive' thought in the UK.
I'm suprised you are't in favour of it. How else to keep your fantasies of bloodline pure?
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I'm suprised you are't in favour of it. How else to keep your fantasies of bloodline pure?
Creating a range of tall, super intelligent and disproportionately healthy and long lived people requires only technology and a degree of selectivity coupled with the correct financial incentives from the state. It does not require porking your sister.
Fortunately society and biological science is moving slowly in the direction of liberal eugenics.
I agree that it's stupid and weird for the government to tell us where we can and can't stick our cocks, assuming those involved are consenting adults. I don't think they should be allowed to breed, not siblings anyway, just as I don't think downies and midgets should be able to breed. I know I sound like a crazy eugenicist but the human race has already been weakened by wars and changing social dynamics. We live in an egalitarian society where physically weak, femenine, fragile men have as much chance, if not more, of passing on their genes to the next generation in a strong family than traditionally masculine, robust men. Humans are devolving in a way. No point making it worse.
The last time I was in Normandy (which was ravaged by war), I noticed that 80% of everyone looked similar. They were short and slim with bad posture, weird ducklike faces and funny mouths, probably because their best men were killed in battle. I remember thinking to myself "and to think these guys were gangraping us left, right and centre back in the day!" One of my mother's Norman friends' sister died of complications resulting from incest. Seriously, it felt like something from 'The Shadow over Innsmouth'. Tbf, most of the locals where farmers but still. It's even worse if you go to Blackpool. I wouldn't be surprised if the locals sprouted fins and gills and dived into the sea when they get old enough
The last time I was in Normandy (which was ravaged by war), I noticed that 80% of everyone looked similar. They were short and slim with bad posture, weird ducklike faces and funny mouths, probably because their best men were killed in battle. I remember thinking to myself "and to think these guys were gangraping us left, right and centre back in the day!" One of my mother's Norman friends' sister died of complications resulting from incest. Seriously, it felt like something from 'The Shadow over Innsmouth'. Tbf, most of the locals where farmers but still. It's even worse if you go to Blackpool. I wouldn't be surprised if the locals sprouted fins and gills and dived into the sea when they get old enough
Original post by CoolCavy
So abortion isn't ok but incest is? Seems logical
That's a very liberal mentality. Look at it from the reverse and ask yourself why such a change would be needed rather than needless change.
Indeed there are some arguments for tightening abortion law.
Yes birth defect risk for first cousins rises from 3-4%(for unrelated people) to 4-7%(for first cousins). That's a jump, but if two people love each other, and are willing to accept that risk, it's no different than marrying anyone else with a genetic issue. Are you prepared to argue that people who have genetic issues shouldn't get married either? To me this argument is weak.
In fact for a 40-45 year old woman the risks for birth defects are 6-8% - higher than that of incest. Should we forbid women over 40 from having babies too?
So yes, marrying your cousin is a huge taboo. Yes, it's icky. Yes, historically it's been frowned upon because even historically people knew there were issues.
However, I'm not sure it makes sense to criminalize it, because like other odious behavior, it happens, and are you really gonna tell two cousins who love each other no just because it feels gross to you? Well then why don't you tell gay people they can't marry? It's just a slippery to me when it comes to love. In my mind people who love each other should be allowed to get married.
My person opinion is that if to adults want to have sex with each others concet then i really dont see the isue with it.
From Jack_Willliams02
In fact for a 40-45 year old woman the risks for birth defects are 6-8% - higher than that of incest. Should we forbid women over 40 from having babies too?
So yes, marrying your cousin is a huge taboo. Yes, it's icky. Yes, historically it's been frowned upon because even historically people knew there were issues.
However, I'm not sure it makes sense to criminalize it, because like other odious behavior, it happens, and are you really gonna tell two cousins who love each other no just because it feels gross to you? Well then why don't you tell gay people they can't marry? It's just a slippery to me when it comes to love. In my mind people who love each other should be allowed to get married.
My person opinion is that if to adults want to have sex with each others concet then i really dont see the isue with it.
From Jack_Willliams02
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I may be talking rubbish here but I'm sure I remember reading that the risks of incest to the health of the baby is similar to the risks of a baby of a mother who conceives at 40 years of age. We don't exactly have a blanket ban on women over 40 having sex.
Yeah, though I think that's a reference to cousin incest, which I don't think is illegal in the UK.
Basically, for cousins risk of abnormalities is about 5%, for half-siblings about 10-15%, and for full siblings 20-30%.
Original post by Rakas21
when you make something legal you provide a de facto incentive
Don't be absurd. The absence of disincentives does not make an incentive, any more than a lack of enthusiasm for something means you actively disliked it.
It's perfectly possible for the state to legalise something yet nevertheless actively work to discourage and disincentivise it. For example, smoking.
Frankly, i'd have the OP sectioned for creating this thread if i could.
Which demonstrates that you are a far greater social danger than they are.
Original post by faith43211
Lol you think nothings wrong with a brother or sister, mom or son, dad or daughter having sex just because it’s consensual gtfo
That isn't a reason to ban something. The genetic abnormalities risk is negligible to begin with.
Original post by CoolCavy
So abortion isn't ok but incest is? Seems logical
Well, one consists of cutting a human being up into little pieces, and the other is two family members having sex. Different kettle of fish, no?
Original post by anarchism101
I don't think it should be a crime, but I think people should be made very aware of the risks, as we would warn people with hereditary diseases of the risks of passing them on to their children.
Though I also think sex between any two people who ever had a legal parent-child relationship (whether related by blood or not) should have a higher age of consent law, at least 18 if not 20.
Though I also think sex between any two people who ever had a legal parent-child relationship (whether related by blood or not) should have a higher age of consent law, at least 18 if not 20.
Yeah, I agree with that.
Original post by The Radiographer
Thats just disgusting. You’re telling me you’d shag your mum/dad/brother/sister?
I personally wouldn't, but didn't we already clarify that it being disgusting isn't a justification for the banning of it?
Original post by iAngely
It's because it's unnatural. When you grow up with your siblings you form a bond that should stop you from seeing each other sexually; there's something that happens in the brain that causes this but I can't remember exactly what. So going against this is not normal.
If it's your cousin however then the issue of babies born with abnormalities is at a higher rate. The gene pool should be mixed to provide stronger children so if you inbreed you are doing the opposite of this. You might keep a certain characteristic, blue eyes and light hair for example, but genetic anomalies start to pop up after a while.
Purebred dogs for example are usually inbred to keep the characteristics of the breed but that creates a host of problems for the animals that are born with genetic defects; the same thing happens with humans. You are more likely to survive and be stronger if your genes are mixed with someone who isn't closely related to you.
If it's your cousin however then the issue of babies born with abnormalities is at a higher rate. The gene pool should be mixed to provide stronger children so if you inbreed you are doing the opposite of this. You might keep a certain characteristic, blue eyes and light hair for example, but genetic anomalies start to pop up after a while.
Purebred dogs for example are usually inbred to keep the characteristics of the breed but that creates a host of problems for the animals that are born with genetic defects; the same thing happens with humans. You are more likely to survive and be stronger if your genes are mixed with someone who isn't closely related to you.
I don't know, I mean incest is practised in the animal kingdom. Not to imply that anything animals do makes it somehow okay for us to also do, but the topic of whether incest is natural or not among humans seems, to me, to be a red herring. You could say homosexuality isn't natural either since the purpose of sexual intercourse is to have kids.
As we've already clarified, there are many examples of other people passing abnormalities on with no law to stop them. If you want to be consistent with this, then you'd have to support stopping a woman having sex who has a history of miscarriages, dwarves having sex, cancer, HIV, etc. Where do you draw the line?
Original post by Rakas21
Frankly, i'd have the OP sectioned for creating this thread if i could. It's a disgusting, decadent and morally putrid idea symptomatic of 'progressive' thought in the UK.
Frankly, i'd have the OP sectioned for creating this thread if i could. It's a disgusting, decadent and morally putrid idea symptomatic of 'progressive' thought in the UK.
It's a shame to think we were in the same party once. Your mentality is the very opposite of traditional conservatism. Sectioning someone for having a different opinion to your own? That's the definition of intolerance.
Like@anarchism101 stated, absence of a disincentive does not make an incentive.
Try googling Charles II of Spain. That’s a good reason for incest to be illegal.
Original post by Andrew97
Try googling Charles II of Spain. That’s a good reason for incest to be illegal.
Or just make the argument you want to make instead of making me work to understand what your argument actually is.
Original post by Joel 96
It's a shame to think we were in the same party once. Your mentality is the very opposite of traditional conservatism. Sectioning someone for having a different opinion to your own? That's the definition of intolerance.
Like@anarchism101 stated, absence of a disincentive does not make an incentive.
Like@anarchism101 stated, absence of a disincentive does not make an incentive.
Freedom of speech while generally a good thing does have its limits. I suggest you head outside and start singing the praises of ISIS for example. Some ideas are dangerous to society as is this one morally. Although i should probably say that my comment was simply hyperbole since if you were actually sectioned you'd be deemed mentally fit even if having unconventional ideas.
Anarchism's points are flawed..
1) While it is possible to take an indifferent view, in this case indifference from the state represents a step towards towards liberalisation since the status-quo makes the act illegal. Ergo removing a dicincentive does by its nature create at a minimum a relative incentive.
2) He uses the point of smoking to point how we can be legal and discourage. I don't think i need remind anybody that tobacco was made legal centuries ago and were it identified today, it would certainly not be. Additionally, it's a generally inefficient approach.
Hence i see no reason thus far to take the view that this is a change which will benefit British society.
Original post by Rakas21
Freedom of speech while generally a good thing does have its limits. I suggest you head outside and start singing the praises of ISIS for example. Some ideas are dangerous to society as is this one morally. Although i should probably say that my comment was simply hyperbole since if you were actually sectioned you'd be deemed mentally fit even if having unconventional ideas.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in the limitation of free speech to the extent where speech is used to incite violence, so ISIS would definitely fall under that criteria. I don't believe that my argument for decriminalising incest is either an incitement to violence or anything of the sort. Of course, I'm sure you have very different criteria to my own, which appears to be more restrictive than you put on. As Queen Elizabeth I once said, "I would not open windows into men's souls", which has always been the fundamental principle of this country. You cannot section, prosecute or invade someone's privacy unless they've incited to crime. It's regrettable that we're getting increasingly more restrictive towards what people can say or advocate for.
Original post by Rakas21
1) While it is possible to take an indifferent view, in this case indifference from the state represents a step towards towards liberalisation since the status-quo makes the act illegal. Ergo removing a dicincentive does by its nature create at a minimum a relative incentive.
1) While it is possible to take an indifferent view, in this case indifference from the state represents a step towards towards liberalisation since the status-quo makes the act illegal. Ergo removing a dicincentive does by its nature create at a minimum a relative incentive.
An incentive is to encourage a society to behave a particular way. Laws don't encourage, they only allow.
Original post by Rakas21
2) He uses the point of smoking to point how we can be legal and discourage. I don't think i need remind anybody that tobacco was made legal centuries ago and were it identified today, it would certainly not be. Additionally, it's a generally inefficient approach.
Hence i see no reason thus far to take the view that this is a change which will benefit British society.
2) He uses the point of smoking to point how we can be legal and discourage. I don't think i need remind anybody that tobacco was made legal centuries ago and were it identified today, it would certainly not be. Additionally, it's a generally inefficient approach.
Hence i see no reason thus far to take the view that this is a change which will benefit British society.
I don't believe it's necessarily a benefit to society to legalise incest, but more of a neutral one. First you have to assert that incest is somehow immoral to make the argument that it's the opposite of a benefit.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 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 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 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 ?
