An apology is due for my previous post. Having read up a bit I see that incest IS illegal in many states...
...which...just makes me shake my head. I imagine TD would be one of the more cogent proponents for the laws, most would probably not even have the sense to debate it and just assume its one of those things like theft, murder, and rape that's "just bad".
Sort of like laws regarding prostitution.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
It isn't about government regulating against anyone being born. It's about government stopping children from being placed in a position where they are at risk of being born with disabilities. No one is saying disabled people shouldn't be born. Not me. Not you. Not the government.
No. Let's say that it is the case that incestuous people who use protection have a lower chance of having disabled children than those who don't use it. What does this mean? That incestuous couples should be allowed to have sex as long as they use protection? That doesn't seem to sink well with your stance on incest at all.
So if something can't consent or is unable to consent to something we can do whatever we want to it? And that hypothetical word doesn't really fit here. We are talking about very real risk.
Then why have you been using the argument that incestuous couples can use birth control to avoid getting pregnant? That seems to suggest that you accept that incestuous people having children is a problem, but that it can be solved by using preventative measures.
So do you think it is fully acceptable for incestuous couples to not only avoid using protection, but actively try to have children themselves, knowing that there is a better chance than not that their children will be born with birth defects?
It doesn't need to be forced. It works just fine the way it is. You have two different acts. Each one has the possibility of causing harm. Your argument was that there is no guarantee that a child will be born with disabilities. And that the act is alright, simply because it might not cause any harm. Which is a flawed line of reasoning. Because we can adapt that same reasoning to my example.
No you're not sure? Or no incest isn't illegal? Because I know for a fact that incest is, in fact, illegal. Though not everywhere.
I don't think so. Again, if breeding with a certain person will harm that person or another person I see no reason to allow it. in fact, I think it is our moral obligation to stop it. Which is why sex with children as well as animals is illegal. Because it is damaging to people.
I've already responded to the poverty example and explain the difference between the two.
You talk about malformed children as "them" as if they are a specific group of people that are waiting to be born. Which isn't true. Look at sex between underage individuals. technically they can get pregnant. So by restricting someone from having sex and impregnating an underage girl, would you say that all the "children born from underage girls" aren't getting a chance to live? Of course not. That's just ridiculous.
You have to be more clear on your stance here. You seem to be suggesting that incestuous couples should be allowed to have children if they so wanted. Which means the first part of your "hypothetical", namely the chance that they might or might not be born, doesn't even work. If you have an incestuous couple who wants to have children, they are obviously going to try until they get it right. And the odds are so stacked in favor of children being born with deformities, that the second part of your hypothetical is almost not even worth mentioning.
But the act itself is potentially inflicting harm on other people. By putting your penis into your sisters vagina you are potentially causing a child to be born with physical deformities.
What do you mean? How can you honestly see nothing wrong with increasing the risk that your child will be born physically deformed?
Independent of the issue of conception? The issue of conception is the problem. Are you saying "I want to debate what problems you have with it outside of the problems you have with it?"
As for it being illegal or immoral. My reasoning behind thinking it is immoral are the same as my reasons behind thinking it should be illegal.
Unless you are talking about sexual activity that has no chance to produce children, in which case I would still consider it immoral on the grounds that I think there is possibility for psychological damage being done. Which is a point that has been mostly ignored in this debate.
In that case, we should first focus on where or not risking deformities on your children should be something that is allowed. It's pretty clear why I think it should not. After all, we already regulate sexual activity if there is potential harm to those involved. I don't see this as being much different.
Because it's a hypothetical situation. If there was such a couple, and they found themselves in that position, would you think restricting them from sexual activity was wrong?
As I have said, the difference between incestuous relationships and non incestuous relationships is that incest has a much higher risk of potential damage than the others. A study done showed that 20 out of 29 children were born with deformities. Meaning that if you have a child from incest, it's a pretty good bet there will be problems.
I disagree. I have been laying out my reasons for thinking incestuous relationships should be illegal already.
so then you would necessarily be more against sex between strangers without contraceptives than you would against incest with, insofar as the government has the right to stop children from being placed in a position where they could be born with disabilities
and further, this justification just skirts the issue of non vaginal or non-heterosexual incest, as in those scenarios it is impossible for there to be disabled children as a consequence
I'll put up a more comprehensive response to your post tomorrow, Tac.
But I'll point out now from skimming your latest post that you seem to be begging the question as well as committing a reverse legalistic fallacy ("it's illegal because it's immoral", but as reasonable people know not everything that's illegal is immoral and not everything that's immoral is illegal).
"My reasoning behind thinking it is immoral are the same as my reasons behind thinking it should be illegal."
You haven't proven it's immoral. And even if you had you'd still have to prove that it's immorality is grounds for illegality.
And besides all that nonsense I don't really care to hear what things you think should be illegal. I figure this was an ethical debate not a legal debate.
But again, I'll address your other points tomorrow.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
Yes, but what does that mean? You say that non-vaginal sex won't cause the problems associated with incest. So does that mean you are suggesting we should allow only non-vaginal incest to take place?
Or do you think all incest should be allowed, even those who want to actively try to have children? Because if that is your stance, then the fact that there are forms of incest that don't get people pregnant seems ultimately irrelevant to your position.
You misunderstood me. I'm not saying that incest should be illegal because it's immoral. Nor did I say incest was immoral because it was illegal. I'm saying that the same reasons I think incest should be illegal are the same reasons I think incest is immoral.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
I'm not sure of my position on that issue specifically, however, I don't think there is any way in which disabled humans are akin to a cross between human and chimp. Biologically, ontologically, conceptually or morally.
Because in the first examples I was basing the idea that the act was immoral based off of the fact that it was illegal, and vice versa.
The second examples I was basing the idea that it was immoral not off the fact that it was illegal, but simply off of reasoning's that happened to be the same as the reasoning's behind viewing it as illegal.
To illustrate further. It would be like having two yellow balls. I'm not claiming that one ball is yellow because the other one is. I'm claiming one ball is yellow because light waves reflecting off of it, which happens to be the same reason the other ball is yellow.
And neither do I. I consider putting your child at higher risk of physical problems to be abusive and harmful.
For example, if a mother was going to have a perfectly healthy baby, yet went out of her way to complicate the pregnancy and cause the baby to be born physically deformed, I would consider that abusive and harmful.
I will also ask why you have been debating the idea that there is incest that doesn't produce children, when your real defense of incest seems to be that risking physical deformities on children isn't wrong.
few that I can think of that aim at protecting potential children, and those that do exist don't really conflict with the rights of actual living people
I thought you were saying something like "dur, chimps are just lesser humans", a sentiment held by far too many very intelligent people who should know better (ie: the entire field of comparative psycholinguistics)
Depends on what you would label as someone's rights. There is already a limit on sexual activity concerning children. I would argue that actual living people shouldn't have the right to risk physical deformities upon children.
Take the example I gave earlier. A mother who goes out of her way to make sure the child is born physically deformed. I see nothing wrong with the government stepping in and stopping her. In fact, I would say it's someone's moral obligation to do so.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 4th, 2011 01:43 AM
