Should incest be banned?

[Zoe Doidge]

Now, what do you think of the idea that we not only ban incestuous conception but also ban it in other cases in which birth defects would be likely?

Ok well here's an example, take a woman who's a carrier of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. This particular disease tends to only affect males, but females will become carriers (although sometimes they get symptoms too).

This is a genetic problem, so it's inheritable with 50% odds, which is far higher than the odds of first generation incestuous offspring having problems, and far more debilitating. Thus serving as a useful example.

Just so you know some details, symptoms tend to appear before the boy is 6 (although it can be earlier) and what happens is the muscles basically get weaker and weaker over the years. By the time they hit their teens, they're confined to a wheelchair. If they live long enough it gets so bad they're actually paralyzed.

By the time they hit their 30's, well, actually they generally don't. Life expectancy is about 25.

There’s no cure.

So, here's a basic list of some potential solutions to this problem, ranging from the most extreme to the least. If you support one that I've missed feel free to bring that up:

1) Execute her.
2) Ban her from having sex at all.
3) Forcibly sterilize her (but allow her to have sex, not sure whether this should be 2 or 3 to be honest).
4) Ban her from having children but allow sex on the condition that she’s sterilized.
5) Ban her from having children but allow sex on the condition that she consistently uses contraception.
6) Ban her from having children with no particular conditions.
7) Have no laws regarding her situation at all.


Enjoy!

 

[nnmartin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by nnmartin
And where do we draw the line between freedom and protecting the public?

At the point where their mistakes directly cause physical harm or loss to others. .

..........No I'm not referring exclusively to incest, although other issues might have additional reasons I find that's a decent guideline.

Like what?

- Necrophilia
- Viewing child pornography
- Drug abuse

How about those 3 for a start.

You need to show how these things cause direct physical harm in order for your clause (in bold) to be effective.

 

[nnmartin]

So you propose to ban all sex or just all conception?

the typical Mestemia style of answering a question with a question.

Is that all you can do?

 

[nnmartin]

So, here's a basic list of some potential solutions to this problem, ranging from the most extreme to the least. If you support one that I've missed feel free to bring that up:

1) Execute her.
2) Ban her from having sex at all.
3) Forcibly sterilize her (but allow her to have sex, not sure whether this should be 2 or 3 to be honest).
4) Ban her from having children but allow sex on the condition that she’s sterilized.
5) Ban her from having children but allow sex on the condition that she consistently uses contraception.
6) Ban her from having children with no particular conditions.
7) Have no laws regarding her situation at all.

An interesting question but this is clearly new thread material.

How about starting one?

 

[Zoe Doidge]

- Necrophilia
- Viewing child pornography
- Drug abuse


How about those 3 for a start.

Works for me!


Drug abuse and viewing child pornography is fairly easy, because although I don't care if people abuse drugs and obviously viewing child porn doesn’t directly physically harm the child both work on a supply and demand basis. If nobody wants to take the drugs then dealers quickly cease to exist, and if nobody wants to view child porn there’s no reason to make it.


I could also argue that although drug abuse doesn’t directly harm anyone else in and of itself (and therefore shouldn’t be prosecuted) you could still go after the dealers, and you could go after the users once their addiction reaches the point where they’re turning to other crime to support their habit. Same argument for viewing child porn, use it as a means to trace where it’s coming from and take action against the source. But that’s just a tangent, the first argument is fine.


I have no particular problem with the act of necrophilia itself, but having sex with a corpse is likely to violate trespassing/theft laws (or possibly even public health laws depending on the state it’s in).

An interesting question but this is clearly new thread material.


How about starting one?

First of all using comparisons to related subjects (related by the concept of banning sex due to possible biological issues from reproduction) is not an invalid argument in debate, and second:

Now, what do you think of the idea that we not only ban incestuous conception but also ban it in other cases in which birth defects would be likely?

You brought it up dude. I just gave you a specific example to work with.

 

[nnmartin]

Looks like your clause is in some need of modification then.

 

[nnmartin]

Who believes in Evolution?

because, if you believe in this scientific theory then you should realise that incest is wrong.

Humans feel a sense of disgust with incest.

This is because, over time, we have realised that incest diminishes the gene pool and leads to lower quality offspring. Most people due not have the scientific knowledge to wade through the genetic ramifications of this kind of behaviour but they can see the results.

Thus over time, we have evolved socially to discourage this type of behaviour, one that actually threatens the species.

Incest should be banned because it disgusts us, it disgusts us because evolution has made us feel this way about it.

This is Natural Law in action.

Using condoms does not change this law.

We can use the rape analogy here.

Rape disgusts us too for many reasons , one of which is the production of children from the wrong seed.

But even if the rapist were to use a condom , the act would still be rape; and a wrong action at that.

So we must ban all forms of rape, in the same way that we ban all forms of incest.


got it yet?

 

[nnmartin]

The destruction of sibling love

if a brother and sister (or brother and brother) to have improper relations then they would no longer be brother and sister - they would now be lovers instead.

This is a psychological change that cannot be reverted.

Most of us have had that awkward encounter when we made out with a 'friend' that ultimately undermined the friendship and led us to drift apart.

So, in this manner , this is what happens with incest.

Brother and sister go against their biology and destroy their naturally given sibling love.

A psychological and familial tragedy.

Yet anther example of the wrongs of incest.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Feh. I've already explained why you can't really use the whole, "it's a danger to our society" thing. There are to many of us, unless everyone starts buggering family members, this will NEVER be an issue. As for the brother sister thing, who cares? You yourself said that it's okay for a stepfather and daughter to have sex, even if it is distasteful. If that is so, than no psychological argument you bring forth means anything. It would still apply in that scenario, but you are okay with it. Next.

 

[nnmartin]

'the danger to society' equates to our natural disgust of incest , down to evolution.

If incest were not wrong, then this mass disgust would not exist.

do you not believe in Natural Law?

I have said that stepfather and stepdaughter is also wrong (though not to be made illegal due to genetics).

so a psychological case is very valid indeed with incest.

 

[rageoftyrael]

No, it's not. If you are arguing that incest should be banned, or made illegal, and then decide that it should be legal for a stepfather and daughter to have sex, that literally nullifies every argument except for your genetics argument. Essentially you are saying that psychological damage and social decay are bad, but aren't bad enough to warrant making something illegal. That is what you are saying because all of these "problems" except for genetics still come into play. So, again, if it is okay, legally, for a stepfather and daughter to have sex, only because their shouldn't be an issue with genetics, then clearly you don't think the other so called issues are important enough to warrant attention. am i wrong?

Oh, and just to say this. Homosexuality could very easily be compared to incest. The average person finds the idea of having sex with someone of the same sex repugnant, and yet homosexuality appears in nature, though it is obviously most predominant amongst humans. You are mistaking what is not normal, for wrong. Essentially, if their are people born who are able to overcome, or simply don't have a distaste, for incest, then clearly it isn't wrong. It just isn't normal, or common.

 

[nnmartin]

am i wrong?

Yes

Essentially, if their are people born who are able to overcome, or simply don't have a distaste, for incest, then clearly it isn't wrong. It just isn't normal, or common.

I am glad you are at least admitting that you think incest to be abnormal.

Looks like we are finally making some progress.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

Who believes in Evolution?

because, if you believe in this scientific theory then you should realise that incest is wrong.

Humans feel a sense of disgust with incest.

That is true, but back then other than abstaining from incestuous sex we had no other realistic method for preventing children from being born of it.

Evolution works very slowly compared to how fast our civilization has advanced. For that reason our inbuilt distaste for something is at best a warning, because our inbuilt desires can now be horribly out of date. Therefore, so too is any concept you might have of "natural law".

This is Natural Law in action.

Using condoms does not change this law.

We can use the rape analogy here.

Rape disgusts us too for many reasons , one of which is the production of children from the wrong seed.

But even if the rapist were to use a condom , the act would still be rape; and a wrong action at that.

So we must ban all forms of rape, in the same way that we ban all forms of incest.

got it yet?

Yeah rape is wrong, but not for the reason you've outlined. Rape is wrong because it's a physical violation of a persons right to not be raped.

 

[McBell]

the typical Mestemia style of answering a question with a question.

Is that all you can do?

If you dislike the precedent you set for your threads, don't blame those who have followed your example.

I understand that you are making this all up as you go along since you ran out of cookie cutter answers.

Just goes to show that perhaps you are not nearly as godly as you want everyone else to think you are.

And I did notice how you are all about ignoring questions you dislike or cannot answer.
Rather revealing, I must say.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Come on nnmartin, you can do better than that. I know for a fact you've gotten irate with people who gave one word answers to questions. How am i wrong? As for admitting incest isn't normal, of course it isn't normal. Admitting something isn't normal isn't nearly the same as admitting it's wrong. I think you may be under the perception that everyone hear arguing that incest shouldn't be illegal, want to have sex with their relatives, which is funny, because i think most everyone has clarified they don't. I don't want to have sex with other men, but i think that if two men want to have consensual sex, they ought to be able to!

 

[InformedIgnorance]

OK, regarding the birth defects as you have pointed out in non incestuous unions - yes, they should be banned as well.

So we ban incest on abnormal offspring grounds.

And we also ban abnormal offspring production through other unions too.

So , now we have cleared that up - what do you have to counter the claim of incestuous births being wrong?

Wow.... eugenics huh?

Well I am rather ambivalent about such an approach in terms of if such legislation were targeted PURELY at preventing conception of children with some predetermined probability of a predetermined level of significant genetic abnormalities... of course then you have to be careful about ensuring that 'abnormalities' does not simply become a tool by which to implement societal genetic engineering or 'purification'... the eugenics route is not one that will be appreciated and comparisons to those that have attempted it in the past are unavoidable. In such a situation however, it may indeed be possible for some incestuous unions to have the legal right to bear offspring.

But in any case, I personally do not believe them to be 'wrong' per se, not unless they result from undue influence or are not the result of informed consent from all parties involved.

I do however believe that all prospective parents (regardless of their partner) have the responsibility to investigate whether or not their children are likely to have genetic abnormalities and to minimise any chances in that regard. If they do not, then personally I do not believe they are responsible parents - however I do not believe it should be legislated.

 

[Enlighten]

There are many ways people enter incestious relationships, it is not as black and white as you paint it at times martin, take this for example:

Stuebing, who was convicted of incest and spent three years in prison, did not meet his natural sister until he tracked down his family as an adult.
He had been adopted as a child and only made contact with his natural relatives in his 20s.

He didn't know his natural family therefore the same family bonds that would be in a brother and sister who were brought up together were not there at the time of meeting.

They went onto have children together and yes some of the things mentioned throughout this thread have materialised

Two of the couple's children do have disabilities.

The couple state that their love for one and other does not differ from any other loving couple. So who are we to tell them any different? Can we be 100% sure that it was due to them being brother and sister that they had disabled children or...... are there other factors that should be taken into account?

BBC News - German incest couple lose European Court case

 

[Zoe Doidge]

The couple state that their love for one and other does not differ from any other loving couple. So who are we to tell them any different? Can we be 100% sure that it was due to them being brother and sister that they had disabled children or...... are there other factors that should be taken into account?

There is insufficient information in their case to tell us if the problems were caused because they were related or not. The article only says that two of them were disabled, which is a rather generic term. I suspect no real studies can be done on the issue simply because there's not enough of a sample size, or if there is people aren't willing to admit it.

In truth, it doesn't matter much. The fact that they had children would be enough for me to lock them up (although the girl's personality disorder might keep her free depending on exactly what it is).

 

[Enlighten]

There is insufficient information in their case to tell us if the problems were caused because they were related or not. The article only says that two of them were disabled, which is a rather generic term. I suspect no real studies can be done on the issue simply because there's not enough of a sample size, or if there is people aren't willing to admit it.

I do agree regarding lack of information available in this article. This thread just sprung to mind while reading that atricle so I initially thought it could provide a specific talking point rather than scenarios that have been used throughout. Taking the children out the equation I see no harm in their relationship due to being consenting adults who met as adults in life.

In truth, it doesn't matter much. The fact that they had children would be enough for me to lock them up (although the girl's personality disorder might keep her free depending on exactly what it is).

This I have found myself surprisingly able to see both sides of the coin, which I never thought I would do. They see themselves as a "normal" loving couple so they saw no harm in reproduction. However my mind and soul is agreeing with you, as they knew 100% they were natural brother and sister they should have refrained from having children period.

I tried to find an article which I read a few years ago regarding a couple who found out later (years later) in their relationship that they were siblings and had healthy children, this muddies the waters as they did not know they were siblings.

 

[nnmartin]

(from this article)
BBC News - German incest couple lose European Court case

It noted that German courts did not convict Stuebing's sister because she has a personality disorder and was "only partially liable" for her actions.

This highlights the type of people that engage in incest.

The sister had a personality disorder - now why am I not surprised here?

do normal people usually engage in such activity? - no , they don't!

Even the supporters of legalising incest, on this thread, seem to agree on this point.