Should incest be banned?

[Tiberius]

He can't even define "the order of nature" for us.

 

[nnmartin]

Have a look at the other thread currently running on this 'order of nature' topic.

But I agree with Zoe, there are one or two other new debate possibilities being raised here.

The birth defects issue is an interesting one and maybe a new thread could be started regarding that.

 

[Tiberius]

Why don't you post a simple and clear definition of "Natural Order" for us over here, Martin? and as has been mentioned countless times, most acts of sex between Humans that occur do not result in pregnancy because of a little thing called contraception.

 

[nnmartin]

Most acts don't result in pregnancy but some do - this is the main point.

So in order to avoid the possibility of these births we must ban incest.

(as for Order of Nature I will keep that within it's own thread - but please feel free to join in)

 

[Zoe Doidge]

Most acts don't result in pregnancy but some do - this is the main point.

So in order to avoid the possibility of these births we must ban incest.

So presumably you'd therefore advocate banning sex (protected or otherwise) between anyone with inheritable diseases or genetic defects?

Also, what if a lack of reproduction could be guaranteed? Would that be sufficient to allow incest or those with inheritable issues to have sex?

 

[McBell]

Have a look at the other thread currently running on this 'order of nature' topic.

But I agree with Zoe, there are one or two other new debate possibilities being raised here.

The birth defects issue is an interesting one and maybe a new thread could be started regarding that.

Oh, you mean the one where you do nothing but try to justify why you should be allowed to randomly pick and choose what is and what is not against the order?

Good idea sending people to that thread.
Then they can see just how self serving your whole order actually is.

 

[nnmartin]

So presumably you'd therefore advocate banning sex (protected or otherwise) between anyone with inheritable diseases or genetic defects?

That would depend on the nature and severity of the disease or defect.

But in some cases, a ban on reproduction would be prudent.

So yes, reproduction would be banned in certain cases.

As for protected sex, that would be allowed.

Also, what if a lack of reproduction could be guaranteed? Would that be sufficient to allow incest or those with inheritable issues to have sex?

Incest - No.

Inheritable issues - Yes.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

That would depend on the nature and severity of the disease or defect.

But in some cases, a ban on reproduction would be prudent.

So yes, reproduction would be banned in certain cases.

As for protected sex, that would be allowed.

Incest - No.

Inheritable issues - Yes.

If your argument is solely about birth defects, then protected incestual sex should be allowed.

How long until you admit you just find it icky?

 

[nnmartin]

I've already answered that question.

Let's do it again:

Protected incestuous sex should be banned because of the risk that it may cause birth.

Clear now?

 

[Tiberius]

Most acts don't result in pregnancy but some do - this is the main point.

One can say the same thing when it comes to the risk of other birth defects outside incestuous relationships, but I doubt you think that this very same point means anything there.

So in order to avoid the possibility of these births we must ban incest.

So you are saying that if a sexual act of a particular nature carries the risk of birth defects, then that particular kind of sex act should be banned?

And let's say that, for whatever reason, the people in a particular incestuous relationship are sterile. Incapable of producing offspring. What do you say to that?

I've already answered that question.

Let's do it again:

Protected incestuous sex should be banned because of the risk that it may cause birth.

Clear now?

No. As women age, they have a greater risk of having children born with Downs syndrome if they get pregnant. Should women approaching menopause be banned from getting pregnant due to this increased risk of having children with Downs syndrome?

 

[Rhadamanthus]

If you banned Incest there be no British Royalty

 

[McBell]

No. As women age, they have a greater risk of having children born with Downs syndrome if they get pregnant. Should women approaching menopause be banned from getting pregnant due to this increased risk of having children with Downs syndrome?

It seems to me that he is saying all sex that might possibly end up with an undesirable baby is to be banned.

 

[nnmartin]

So you are saying that if a sexual act of a particular nature carries the risk of birth defects, then that particular kind of sex act should be banned?

No, I am saying incest should be banned.

And let's say that, for whatever reason, the people in a particular incestuous relationship are sterile. Incapable of producing offspring. What do you say to that?

It should be banned for moral reasons.

No. As women age, they have a greater risk of having children born with Downs syndrome if they get pregnant. Should women approaching menopause be banned from getting pregnant due to this increased risk of having children with Downs syndrome?

Only if they are performing incest.


any more pointless off topic questions?

 

[nnmartin]

It seems to me that he is saying all sex that might possibly end up with an undesirable baby is to be banned.

actually, no - I am saying that incest should be banned.

Birth defects caused by other methods need to be looked at separately.

 

[nnmartin]

If you banned Incest there be no British Royalty

that is another pointless red herring.

Firstly we are talking about close family members only (not cousins) and secondly we are dealing with the present day.

 

[Tiberius]

No, I am saying incest should be banned.

And the reasons that you cite also apply to other forms of sex. So why not ban those too?

It should be banned for moral reasons.

Yes. everyone in the world should live according to nnmartin's morality!

Only if they are performing incest.

You just don't get it, do you?

any more pointless off topic questions?

My questions were quite on topic. You are revealing yourself to have a double standard.

 

[Tiberius]

actually, no - I am saying that incest should be banned.

Birth defects caused by other methods need to be looked at separately.

Then it seems that you actually don't give a rat's arse about the birth defects themselves, just what caused them.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

That would depend on the nature and severity of the disease or defect.

But in some cases, a ban on reproduction would be prudent.

So yes, reproduction would be banned in certain cases.

As for protected sex, that would be allowed.

Incest - No.

Inheritable issues - Yes.

Then it should be obvious to you that your reasons for supporting a ban are not about inheritable issues. You've even clearly stated above that in the case of inheritable issues banning reproduction (as opposed to sex) would be sufficient.

You claim moral reasons, natural reasons etc but you never really defined what they are or why we as a species should be forced to follow them.

 

[nnmartin]

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.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

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.

Um, yes they do. If your reasoning is not to ban incest for simply being incest, then you are not banning incest alone. If the birth defects could arise from something else, and your reasoning is that incest should be banned for the sake of lessening birth defects, then this ban should also be expanded to all actions which could lead to birth defects (especially if the risk of birth defects is equal or greater than incest), otherwise you're just being a hypocrite masking your bigoted ideals in illogical reasons.