Should incest be banned?

[Tiberius]

You are the one who is doing that by saying that incests should be banned because it can cause birth defects. You are grouping incest in along with everything else that can cause birth defects.

If birth defects are so bad that you think that one of the causes of them should be banned, doesn't it make sense that you would want ALL causes of those birth defects to be banned as well?

Yet you have come out and said that this is not the case!

 

[nnmartin]

The birth defects specifically caused by incest are the ones we need to ban.

The merging of too similar types of DNA should be avoided.


They may well also be cases of other birth defect production that should also be banned.

Also people that are HIV+ should not be allowed to reproduce.

 

[nnmartin]

otherwise you're just being a hypocrite masking your bigoted ideals in illogical reasons.

Since when does opposing incest make one a bigot?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The birth defects specifically caused by incest are the ones we need to ban.

The merging of too similar types of DNA is to be avoided.

Why only the ones specific to incest? And what birth defects are specific to incest? Also, your reasoning does not extend to incestual relationships where the chance of bearing children is zero. If your reasoning is to prevent birth defects, why are these relationships to be banned?

Since when does opposing incest make one a bigot?

When your reasoning is obviously flawed and yet you continue to act as though it's common logic.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

What you and Tiberius are doing here is comparing incest to another issue and from that, attempting to form a justification.

Now, if I were to consider such a deduction then no doubt it would be pounced upon instantly as one of the so called logical fallacies in that rather silly list that exists somewhere.

Forget about linkage for one instant.

Incest should be banned for , amongst other reasons, giving rise to genetic abnormalities.

Whether other issues have similar considerations to bear does not make one bit of difference to this fact.

Yes, we are comparing it to another issue. I don’t believe doing so is a logical fallacy, because a couple with HIV (for example) would actually have a far greater chance of passing it on to any children than incest would have of causing defective genes. You’re saying they should be able to have sex but not children, which I see as perfectly reasonable.

But that means that the risk of passing on diseases is not itself reason enough to ban sex, just reproduction. The only logical conclusion is that you must have another reason to specifically prohibit incestuous sex.

 

[Tiberius]

The birth defects specifically caused by incest are the ones we need to ban.

The merging of too similar types of DNA should be avoided.

What makes the worse than other kinds of birth defects?

They may well also be cases of other birth defect production that should also be banned.

Like the well-established fact that women have a greater chance of having a child with Downs syndrome if they get pregnant when they are older?

 

[nnmartin]

But that means that the risk of passing on diseases is not itself reason enough to ban sex, just reproduction. The only logical conclusion is that you must have another reason to specifically prohibit incestuous sex.

Of course there are also reasons relating to morality and abuse as already discussed.

 

[Tiberius]

Except that you can't show that any moral argument is anything more than your subjective opinion, and you can't show that incestuous sex is abusive if both parties are consenting adults.

 

[nnmartin]

It's already been discussed that subliminal abuse issues leading to lack of true informed consent is a factor that would be very hard to prove.

However , this combined with the objective genetic issues add up strongly in favour of banning incest.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

It's already been discussed that subliminal abuse issues leading to lack of true informed consent is a factor that would be very hard to prove.

It is also entirely an assertion on your part, one which to my knowledge has never been researched in any meaningful way and realistically probably couldn't be given that incest is illegal.

If you can't provide any sources to back your claim then you've essentially just invented it out of thin air, Russell's Teapot comes to mind.

 

[nnmartin]

dare I ask what Russell's Teapot is?

 

[Zoe Doidge]

dare I ask what Russell's Teapot is?

It's just an analogy designed to show the burden of proof is always on the person asserting a claim. It's usually used in arguments about whether God exists but it's just as relevant here.

Have a look

 

[nnmartin]

only relevant in perhaps the vaguest way imaginable.

The chances of a teapot orbiting around the sun in space is a lot less likely than subliminal abuse issues arising with incest.

or was the teapot orbiting Earth? ......can't quite remember:areyoucra

 

[Zoe Doidge]

or was the teapot orbiting Earth? ......can't quite remember:areyoucra

I believe it was supposed to be between Earth and Mars.

only relevant in perhaps the vaguest way imaginable.

The chances of a teapot orbiting around the sun in space is a lot less likely than subliminal abuse issues arising with incest.

You have provided exactly the same amount of evidence for subliminal abuse within consensual incest as there exists for such a teapot.

None.

 

[nnmartin]

well not so long ago you were agreeing with me that it would be impossible to prove anyway so what gives now?

in fact, it appeared to me that you were in tacit agreement on this issue - yes/no?

but besides this issue there is the undeniable fact of genetic abnormalities and all you can come up with are off-topic analogies and use of the linking argument.

Linking one topic to another does not prove a point.

Different rules and laws for different subject fields is the only realistic approach othewise nothing could ever get done.

I mean alcohol is legal but it doesn't logically follow on that all other drugs must be legal too.

I suggest starting a new topic on the inheritable abnormalities issue.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

well not so long ago you were agreeing with me that it would be impossible to prove anyway so what gives now?

in fact, it appeared to me that you were in tacit agreement on this issue - yes/no?

I do agree it would be all but impossible to prove, either in specific cases or that it even exists (so I’m not really sure where you’ve even got the idea from). But without evidence the assertion should be considered as invalid as the idea that a teapot exists between Earth and Mars, and should be dismissed.

but besides this issue there is the undeniable fact of genetic abnormalities and all you can come up with are off-topic analogies and use of the linking argument.

Linking one topic to another does not prove a point.

Genetic abnormalities only come from reproduction, which we already agree should be banned. You haven’t provided any reason to ban incestuous sex at all, given that we have sufficient methods available in the form of contraception to virtually negate this issue.

Different rules and laws for different subject fields is the only realistic approach othewise nothing could ever get done.

I mean alcohol is legal but it doesn't logically follow on that all other drugs must be legal too.

Alcohol is legal with certain restrictions, because it’s only really dangerous in excess or when mixed with other things. Banned drugs are far more dangerous even in tiny amounts, so in most cases a blanket ban is reasonable. There are specific cases where arguments are made to legalise certain drugs but I think the law is more or less correct here.

Point is a standard is used based on how dangerous the drug is, which results in different rules for different drugs. Incest is not at all dangerous unless reproduction comes into play, so it makes sense to ban reproduction rather than the act itself.

 

[nnmartin]

so what do you think of the moral concerns then?

How would you feel about a female friend who regularly had sex with her brother - would you still remain friends for long do you think?

 

[Tiberius]

It's already been discussed that subliminal abuse issues leading to lack of true informed consent is a factor that would be very hard to prove.

Wouldn't this apply to any relationship in which two people are having sex?

John Smith has sex with his biologically unrelated wife, but how do you know she doesn't agree to sex because she's frightened that John will hit her if she says no?

so what do you think of the moral concerns then?

How would you feel about a female friend who regularly had sex with her brother - would you still remain friends for long do you think?

As long as both she and her brother are involved consensually, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

As far as I see it, if no one is getting hurt, then what difference does it make to me?

 

[nnmartin]

wouldn't it put an element of doubt into your mind that this friend of yours had some kind of personality disorder?

I mean seriously, would you really view the friend in the same way if this were going on?

I wouldn't for sure.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

so what do you think of the moral concerns then?

What moral concerns?

How would you feel about a female friend who regularly had sex with her brother - would you still remain friends for long do you think?

I'd be impressed with both of them if anything. Here in the UK that would mean they're explicitly defying an unjust law.