thats a tricky argument though, how is the mother doing it? we know, for sure, with no question, that it is her explicit desire to produce a disabled child even though the one she has is, 100% known, not disabled?
that seems like a really rare and specific scenario, and yes, I would probably agree with you.
but again, in that scenario we are talking about a real child that the mother is going out of her way to do something to. it is not a child that is just naturally disabled, it is not a potential child that might be disabled
I know, way too many people dress their rennaisance/medieval inspired arguments up and try to pass them as some sort of general truth. Specially in social sciences.
They are comparable in that they are both situations in which the government is stepping in to prevent the parent from harming their unborn child.
It isn't exactly the same as incest, since with incest there is not a 100% assurance that the child will be born disabled, but the odds are stacked much more in favor of it being disabled than not.
Besides that, however, I don't see that great of a difference between the two situations. At least not a difference that would make the government viable to step in on one but not the other.
I wasn't saying incest was an act bent on creating disabilities. I was simply providing an example to illustrate that the government can, and I would say should, step in if there is significant risk to the child's health.
So a parent is allowed to hurt their child as long as they don't mean to? You already admitted that you had no problem with the government stepping in if there was significant risk to the child's health. Now take the very same example. A mother doing all the things the last mother was, except she isn't doing it on purpose. That's suddenly acceptable?
That may be enough to consider one parent less of a criminal than the other, but it isn't enough to warrant stopping government intervention, since the very reason for the government intervention, namely that the child's health is at risk, is still very much present.
According to wiki, a study found that 20 out of 29 children born from parent-child or brother-sister incest had birth defects.
First of all one study with a sample size too small for the CLT to apply is not proof of anything.
Secondly you can also read their abstract if you follow the wiki link. It's a very bad study to cite for what you're referring to.
Eight of those kids were picked specifically because they had birth defects, which means they completely bias the sample and have to be thrown out. Of the remaining 21 (who were taken from families with a history of incest, so that's also going to be an influence) 12 had defects of which only 9 were deemed "severe".
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Oh, I followed that link, it's not making your case for two reasons 1) 21 of the subjects were chosen due to a history of inbreeding in the past (which is different to your general point of "every sibling relationship regardless of their ancestors history") and 2) the other 8 were solely chosen because they exhibited symptoms, so obviously you can't count those pre-picked cases. I'm not sure what this study is telling us, but it's definitely not telling us what you'd like it to tell.
But even so, you are incredibly, incredibly wrong with your general statement, as incest between cousins does have nowhere near 50% chance of resulting in defective offspring.
See this is why euthanasia should be an option. Couples can have all the incest they want, and if they accidentally create an aberration, just put it down. We can all have our freedom, and Tac can avoid the deformed monstrosity he so fears.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
In this article it is pointed out that the risk of a disease (cystic fibrosis) present in a child born from an unrelated relationship is 1 in 240 (though it changes depending on the disease) where as a child born from an incestuous relationship (sibling specifically) will have a 1 in 4 chance of contracting the disease.
The fact is that close family incest relationships have a high risk of causing problems to the offspring.
I don't believe I ever said it did. In fact, all of my points so far have been aimed at parent-child and sibling incest.
I know. But you are saying the government can only step in to protect the child if the parent is aware that they are hurting it. Which makes no sense.
The fact is, in both situations the child is in the same danger. Whether or not the mother is aware of the danger is irrelevant to whether or not the government should step in and protect the child.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Oh man do you just not read the things you use to support your claims or do you not understand them?
Alright, so there, again, is two things wrong with your claim 1)it's not saying that the chance of this particular disease in children of siblings is 1 in 4 it's saying it's 1 in 16 2) it's not saying that the chance of a child getting a disease is 1 in 16, it's saying if the disease is present in one parent the chance is 1 in 4.
Again though, even if it was 1 in 4 for what you claim, which it isn't, it's not "the odds are stacked much more in favour of it being diseased than not", 1 in 4 is already having the odds stacked in favour of it NOT being diseased.
No it isn't. She's having a child, just like the last mother, and she's doing all the things the last mother is doing, the only difference is that she doesn't realize she's hurting the child.
You seem to base the idea of whether or not the government should step in to protect the child around whether the mother in question realizes that she is doing harm or not. Which is completely irrelevant to whether or not the government should step in.
Very well, I will take back my wording on that specific part.
That doesn't change the fact, however, that inbreeding significantly increases the odds of birth defects. My point still stands.
If you read further down, the article says that the numbers come out to being 15 times more likely to produce a child with the disease than the couple who produces a child from outside the family.
The parents aren't 'doing' anything to it besides giving it life. Which is still a hypothetical.
(1) I don't think it's a moral problem. I agree that all other things being equal you'd want and indeed hope that a child would be born with everything working well, but I think there's insufficient cause to prevent people from even making the attempt because of the chance that something might go wrong.
(2) I don't think it's something that should be a legal issue either.
Morally? Yes. I see no problem with it. This is a moral debate, you're confusing morality with prudence. If I were a doctor I'd probably advise a sibling pair of the risks of having a child, but I wouldn't think they were being immoral if they ignored my advice.
I wouldn't say that Russian Roulette is immoral either. Stupid yes. But again the differences between the odds in Russian Roulette and the current topic are...massive. The plane example is likely closer.
It's not harming a person. It's increasing the possibility that a hypothetical child might develop undesirable traits. I don't believe laws or morality should hinge on that many subjunctives.
See, I really don't see how those two things are comparable at all. How does sex with animals harm people? If you were going to try to find immorality in zoophilia the right way to start would be the other end: how does it damage the animal?
As for pedophilia that's a horribly forced comparison. We're talking about consensual incest, not child molestation. And in either case, I fully believe that age of consent laws are arbitrary but that's another subject entirely.
I don't recall you explaining anything beyond your insistence that incest was comparable to beating a child. Or something to that effect. I remember being unimpressed.
That depends. Is the underaged girl consenting? Does she want to have the baby? I don't see anything immoral about it if its a mutually consensual affair, I would call it less than advisable for a number of reasons, but no, not immoral.
And lol are you trying to paint me as an extreme pro-lifer?
Lol, do you know that for certain? How do you take into account things like surprise infertility, the death of one partner, them changing their minds before they can succeed, etc? Theoretically they could both keep trying and trying until they can't do it anymore and never conceive. So it's still a hypothetical.
Lol. You need to substantiate your claims still.
That's still a consequentialist argument lol. Do you not understand the difference between act and consequence?
Increasing the risk of something=/=doing something. At all. You need to understand that.
Well as I understand it the prevailing attitude of anti-incest societal practices/beliefs is that incest is just plain wrong independent of consequences. That's the main thing I'm concerned with refuting.
That being said I'm unconvinced by your arguments that consensual incest is morally wrong for any reason. Saying that "it will increase the nebulously defined risks of such and such" isn't doing it for me.
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.
Ignored because you failed to substantiate it. How does consensual incest cause psychological damage?
I could say "flippity floopity flop" in the middle of a post and if it was ignored it would simply be because it isn't convincing in an argument.
I think its our moral responsibility to ensure that the chances of Wolverine being born are increased so we'll have a champion against alien invasions.
__________________
“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.
I don't know what you mean. One mother is doing everything she can to make the baby physically deformed. You said that you would agree the government should step in and stop it.
The second mother is doing exactly the same thing, the only difference being that she doesn't realize her actions are hurting the baby.
There is no "potential" anything. They are both having a baby, and they are both doing everything they can to make sure it is born physically deformed. The second mother just doesn't know she's doing everything she can to make the baby physically deformed.
In that case, I will provide the same question I posed to inimalist.
Take the hypothetical of a mother who is going to have a perfectly healthy baby. But she, for whatever reason, decides she doesn't want to perfectly healthy baby, and so goes out of her way to produce complications in the pregnancy that will ultimately cause her baby to be born with physical birth defects.
You see absolutely nothing wrong with this act?
With bestiality it is harming the animal. Not necessarily the person.
We're talking about sexual activity that is being restricted because it is potentially damaging to other people. Which is exactly what incest is.
The difference is that poverty is not necessarily physically or psychologically damaging in anyway. The simple act of being poor does not necessarily produce these traits. Being born physically deformed does. At least in the physical department.
Omega Vision, are you saying you see nothing wrong with pedophilia as long as the child "agrees" to do it?
Technically maybe, but with two healthy people trying to have a baby, it's almost certain it will happen. The odds of two perfectly healthy people not ever getting pregnant while they are trying to do so is astronomically low. So low that it really isn't even worth being called "hypothetical".
I do. And I never said the two were the same. I said the act of increasing the risk is wrong. Say there was a magical device that made cars sometimes swerve toward your children. You aren't making the cars hit your kids, but you're increasing the risk that they will. Which is almost just as wrong.
Then your debate lies with someone else. I don't think many people actually think incest should be illegal just because they think incest should be illegal.
Which I don't understand. You seem to have no problem with a parent putting their child's health at risk. If you honestly cannot see why that is wrong, then the debate might as well end here.
I provided a quote and a link to an article many pages ago.
I have pretty severe anxiety issues. anxiety issues are genetic. Should I be allowed to have children?
my parents both have severe anxiety issues. They had me. I inherited these issues from my parents, was it abuse for them to have me?
people who carry genetic diseases are at a heightened risk for having children with disabilities, should they not be allowed to have children?
oh, wait, let me guess, you think anxiety is as harmful as addiction, right? the only disabilities the government should regulate against are those that are the product of incest? there are countless situations where incest isn't involved where there are far greater chances of disabled children, and you have said, yourself, that even if there was a 0% chance of children, you would be against incest. You aren't making any consistent sense...
EDIT: also, just to clarify
real: there is a bagel in front of me that I am eating
potential: at some point in time I may have a bagel and then may eat it
in only one of those situations am I actually eating a bagel... simple no?
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Dec 9th, 2011 at 04:43 PM
KMC Community Forums
Dec 5th, 2011 04:58 PM
