INCEST=worng or not

Originally posted by TacDavey
Incest, particularly parent child incest, can cause a number of psychological problems. From what I've heard anyway.

20 out of 29 children developed birth defects from the study I talked about earlier. It isn't like the chance is so remote that it isn't worth considering. They are putting children at risk. That is unacceptable. Let me ask you before this goes to much farther. Do you think incest couples should be allowed to have children? Even those in favor of allowing incest relationships admit that they should not be allowed to have kids.

And you didn't really answer my question. What happens when the birth control fails? As it does do.

Since when have we based our laws and regulations around what will or will not make people angry? I'm sure murderers and thieves would like it a lot better if both those things are legal.

And whom you have a relationship with is already regulated to some degree. You can't have a relationship with a child, either. I don't see that "limited freedom" as you put it, as a bad thing at all.

I don't know what you mean when you said I'm not really talking about incest itself. That's all part of it. The consequences and the action go together.

As for the drunken parent and cancer part, yes that can be damaging to a child. And as I said before, it probably SHOULD be outlawed. It almost sounds like you're saying "Well, we already allow psychologically destructive actions towards kids, why not allow one more?"

Can you quote that study again please, i want to read it. I would say that for freedoms sake, its their decision, unless their uneducated they would likely care and fear about harming their own child far more than you anyway, if it were up to me I wouldnt let incest go on between siblings or parents to children etc.

Then you have a "chance" of a defect, also, does your source state what the defects were exactly? You cant automatically assume its a life ruining defect, just like how making a pair of lovers unable to be together could be life ruining.

Thats logical though isnt it, its not an adult and therefore does not understand whats going on, and may not necesserily consent either but ime talking about two consenting adults in incest.

Well you just said we did not stop smoking or alchohol based on "anger of people" so your contradicting yourself here. perhaps we should outlaw alcahol and all drugs that are not beneficial completly but until we do, it wouldnt make sense to do it to something less psychologically damaging.

Originally posted by TacDavey
http://family.jrank.org/pages/847/Incest-Effects-on-Victims.html

No one has suggested making sexual abuse legal.

Not yet...

Originally posted by inimalist
strawman

that article is talking about abused children, not consenting adults

I said not everything was relevant. I outlined the part I thought was.

Originally posted by inimalist
a) you steadfastly refuse to defend your position on incest without resorting to strawman arguments

When?

A strawman argument is when I try to misrepresent your argument as if you were saying something you weren't. I don't remember ever doing that at any point.

Originally posted by inimalist
b) your position on addiction can, at best, be described as the outcome of living in a naive fantasy world

This explained very little. It was really little more than an insult.

Originally posted by inimalist
I can't force you to change these things, but I've been in enough debates in my life that I have learned that such opinions toward mental health issues are pretty intransigent and I hope nobody you love ever is afflicted by one, because that will be a very rude awakening for you (and incredibly terrible for them by itself and I wouldn't wish that on anyone)

I don't know what you mean here. You seem to be leaping to conclusions about my thoughts on mental health issues.

Do you agree that there are differing levels of damage concerning psychological problems?

Originally posted by inimalist
do you also think people with clinical depression need to just feel better? people with social anxiety need to just learn to like people? people with adhd need to just settle down?

I guess I'm just not seeing the relevance here. Nor your point. This almost seems to suggest I claimed medication or therapy is ineffective or evil, which I never did.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Can you quote that study again please, i want to read it.

The study apparently came from:

"Baird, PA; McGillivray, B (1982). "Children of incest". The Journal of Pediatrics 101 (5): 854–7. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(82)80347-8. PMID 7131177"

Taken off wiki.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I would say that for freedoms sake, its their decision, unless their uneducated they would likely care and fear about harming their own child far more than you anyway, if it were up to me I wouldnt let incest go on between siblings or parents to children etc.

Freedom only goes so far, and it doesn't allow you to harm other people. I don't find it acceptable to put children at risk. Especially putting them at risk because of something like this.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Then you have a "chance" of a defect, also, does your source state what the defects were exactly? You cant automatically assume its a life ruining defect, just like how making a pair of lovers unable to be together could be life ruining.

It doesn't matter! You are risking the health of your child so that you can sleep with someone! How can you possibly see that as alright?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Thats logical though isnt it, its not an adult and therefore does not understand whats going on, and may not necesserily consent either but ime talking about two consenting adults in incest.

The point was that we already accept that people can't just do whatever they want sexually.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Well you just said we did not stop smoking or alchohol based on "anger of people" so your contradicting yourself here. perhaps we should outlaw alcahol and all drugs that are not beneficial completly but until we do, it wouldnt make sense to do it to something less psychologically damaging.

I said we didn't stop alcohol because of burning and rioting, yes. I never said I agreed with it.

And I figure most people didn't think alcohol should have been outlawed anyway.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No one has suggested making sexual abuse legal.

As I said, not everything in the article was relevant. I outlined the part I thought was.

Originally posted by TacDavey
As I said, not everything in the article was relevant. I outlined the part I thought was.

The whole article is about sexual abuse and children. None of this discussion is about sexual abuse or children (note the mentions in the section about "loss of childhood" in the section, they're talking about kids). We're talking about adults in a consensual relationship. This should not be new information.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The whole article is about sexual abuse and children. None of this discussion is about sexual abuse or children (note the mentions in the section about "loss of childhood" in the section, they're talking about kids). We're talking about adults in a consensual relationship. This should not be new information.

It isn't. The specific part of the article I was talking about was:

"Although one of the key aspects of incest is the difference in power between the perpetrator and the victim, sexual behavior between two siblings of equal power, where touching, looking, and exploring are mutual decisions, can still pose problems for the participants and/or parents. What Diana Russell (1986) calls the myth of mutuality in relation to sibling incest may put the victim in a psychologically and physically vulnerable position."

They aren't talking about child abuse here. In this example the sexual relationship is made between two consenting people. It goes on to say:

"...Approximately one-half reported sibling incest as extremely upsetting, and another one-fourth as somewhat upsetting."

This part of the study was also conducted with adult females.

Originally posted by TacDavey

The study apparently came from:

"Baird, PA; McGillivray, B (1982). "Children of incest". The Journal of Pediatrics 101 (5): 854–7. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(82)80347-8. PMID 7131177"

Taken off wiki.

Freedom only goes so far, and it doesn't allow you to harm other people. I don't find it acceptable to put children at risk. Especially putting them at risk because of something like this.

It doesn't matter! You are risking the health of your child so that you can sleep with someone! How can you possibly see that as alright?

The point was that we already accept that people can't just do whatever they want sexually.

I said we didn't stop alcohol because of burning and rioting, yes. I never said I agreed with it.

And I figure most people didn't think alcohol should have been outlawed anyway.

oh wiki, can you show me the wiki page and quote the text your reading from plz.

Children are always at risk every day, you cant outlaw cars because they can be a risk, you cant outlaw the use of electrical equipment, certain foods just because theres a risk they could choke, were you one of those kids who used to wear full body armour and fluorescent outfit every time you stepped outside?

Well it does matter because if the "defect" in question is something small like skin irritation from a young age or light eczema to dislexia which are fairly common anyway then you can hardly worry also, what child? your talking about something that does not exist, your comment would have been better put "your risking impregnating and giving birth, and risking a defect", again a lot of chances but more importantly if two people want ot be together and think its a risk worth taking then nobody is in their right mind to stop them because in this case you cant defend someone that does not actually exist or may never exist especially at the expense of two people that do.

If anything, get more effective contraception methods although tbh, the ones you have a fairly decent.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It isn't. The specific part of the article I was talking about was:

"Although one of the key aspects of incest is the difference in power between the perpetrator and the victim, sexual behavior between two siblings of equal power, where touching, looking, and exploring are [B]mutual decisions, can still pose problems for the participants and/or parents. What Diana Russell (1986) calls the myth of mutuality in relation to sibling incest may put the victim in a psychologically and physically vulnerable position."[/B]

Which it says is a myth . . . on account of them being children. Read the things you quote. It's actually in that paragraph.

Originally posted by TacDavey
This part of the study was also conducted with adult females.

Yes, they were asked about things that happened when . . . they were children. Read the things you reference.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I said not everything was relevant. I outlined the part I thought was.

the entire article was about children, published in the journal of pediatrics.

the specific line you are referencing is about sibling incest in children.

I wont accuse you of not reading the article, but the only other options are that you didn't understand it or that you are deliberately misquoting it to try and win the argument.... (for instance, the first time you posted the segment you think is relevant you left in the line about how it was adult women reflecting on their childhood abuse, the second time you left it out, suspicious to say the least)

Originally posted by TacDavey
When?

A strawman argument is when I try to misrepresent your argument as if you were saying something you weren't. I don't remember ever doing that at any point.

actually, a strawman is when you produce an argument nobody is making, then refute it

in this circumstance, nobody is saying (and we have clarified this many times) that the sexual abuse of children should be allowed in any case. For you to then post an article that talks about the negative outcomes of childhood sexual abuse is creating a strawman.

you are right, you have not misrepresented my argument, what you have done is provided evidence against an argument nobody was making.

Originally posted by TacDavey
This explained very little. It was really little more than an insult.

I don't know what you mean here. You seem to be leaping to conclusions about my thoughts on mental health issues.

you basically framed addiction in a way that shows you feel it causes no psychological distress to people. my point is, if you think someone with alcohol addiction's only distress comes from needing a drink, I can't force you to become more enlightened about the issue. I tried to explain it, though not very thoroughly, a few posts back, and you essentially said, "gee, alcohol costs money, so that could be a problem, but they don't suffer anything else, dur".

If I'm leaping to conclusions, you might want to make a little more effort to seem like you aren't dismissing the mental anguish addicts suffer.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Do you agree that there are differing levels of damage concerning psychological problems?

yes, do you agree that you have yet to provide a shred of evidence that incest in a non-abusive context between consenting adults causes any harm or distress at all?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I guess I'm just not seeing the relevance here. Nor your point. This almost seems to suggest I claimed medication or therapy is ineffective or evil, which I never did.

you are right, my mistake, let me correct:

since you characterize addiction as "needing a drink", would you also characterize depression as "being sad", social anxiety as "being shy" or adhd as "being fidgety"

if we are talking about an ecumenical scale, then no it is not morally wrong imo. it ultimately depends on the subjective morals of the individual which is based on the culture in which they were raised. being raised in the western world, i would throw up at the thought of intimate relations ,but whatever floats your boat......or sinks it 😛

Originally posted by Burning thought
oh wiki, can you show me the wiki page and quote the text your reading from plz.

Sure.

"A 1994 study found a mean excess mortality with inbreeding among first cousins of 4.4%.[53] A study of 29 offspring resulting from brother-sister or father-daughter incest found that 20 had congenital abnormalities, including four directly attributable to autosomal recessive alleles.[54]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

Originally posted by Burning thought
Children are always at risk every day, you cant outlaw cars because they can be a risk, you cant outlaw the use of electrical equipment, certain foods just because theres a risk they could choke, were you one of those kids who used to wear full body armour and fluorescent outfit every time you stepped outside?

Are you saying it's okay to put children at risk because there are dangers for children already? Because that does not even remotely follow.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Well it does matter because if the "defect" in question is something small like skin irritation from a young age or light eczema to dislexia which are fairly common anyway then you can hardly worry also, what child? your talking about something that does not exist, your comment would have been better put "your risking impregnating and giving birth, and risking a defect", again a lot of chances but more importantly if two people want ot be together and think its a risk worth taking then nobody is in their right mind to stop them because in this case you cant defend someone that does not actually exist or may never exist especially at the expense of two people that do.

A risk they are willing to take? It isn't THEIR risk to take! It's the child that will suffer, not them! It is not okay to put your child in harms way for pretty much anything. I can't believe you are defending someone's right to potentially harm a child so they can have sexual intercourse. That is extremely unethical.

Originally posted by Burning thought
If anything, get more effective contraception methods although tbh, the ones you have a fairly decent.

Not perfect though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which it says is a myth . . . on account of them being children. Read the things you quote. It's actually in that paragraph.

I did. What do you think it is saying is a myth? I thought the "myth" it was referring to was the idea that sibling incest is the least harmful form. I don't see it as saying that emotional distress through incest is a myth.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, they were asked about things that happened when . . . they were children. Read the things you reference.

I do. Yes, it happened when they were children, but it wasn't child abuse. The first part in particular was talking about incest on mutual ground.

Originally posted by inimalist
the entire article was about children, published in the journal of pediatrics.

the specific line you are referencing is about sibling incest in children.

I wont accuse you of not reading the article, but the only other options are that you didn't understand it or that you are deliberately misquoting it to try and win the argument.... (for instance, the first time you posted the segment you think is relevant you left in the line about how it was adult women reflecting on their childhood abuse, the second time you left it out, suspicious to say the least)

I know it was about children. The part I quoted was concerning two consenting individuals, however. So it wasn't an instance of child abuse or forced sex.

It seems to me, then, that incest must have played some degree in the problems spoken of in the article, since if the point of the paragraph was simply that sex at a young age can lead to problems, an article concerning incest and it's effects on people doesn't seem the appropriate place to put it.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, a strawman is when you produce an argument nobody is making, then refute it

in this circumstance, nobody is saying (and we have clarified this many times) that the sexual abuse of children should be allowed in any case. For you to then post an article that talks about the negative outcomes of childhood sexual abuse is creating a strawman.

you are right, you have not misrepresented my argument, what you have done is provided evidence against an argument nobody was making.

I never made the claim that you thought child abuse was acceptable. Nor was my quote made in order to combat such an argument. The quote I provided states in the beginning that even incestuous relationships between two people of equal power where both partners are consenting can lead to problems. It is only later on that the problems concerning abusive relationships is brought up.

Originally posted by inimalist
you basically framed addiction in a way that shows you feel it causes no psychological distress to people. my point is, if you think someone with alcohol addiction's only distress comes from needing a drink, I can't force you to become more enlightened about the issue. I tried to explain it, though not very thoroughly, a few posts back, and you essentially said, "gee, alcohol costs money, so that could be a problem, but they don't suffer anything else, dur".

No, I never said addictions cause no harm whatsoever. And I will admit that alcohol has a bigger risk of psychological damage than, say, cigarettes. But not enough psychological damage to warrant outlawing it. My sister is addicted to cigarettes. She is perfectly fine. Most people who are addicted to cigarettes are perfectly fine. At least in the sense that they are perfectly able to lead productive, happy lives.

Originally posted by inimalist
If I'm leaping to conclusions, you might want to make a little more effort to seem like you aren't dismissing the mental anguish addicts suffer.

I do think you are going a little far with calling it "mental anguish." Like I said, I know quite a few people who are addicted to cigarettes and none of them would describe the addiction as "mental anguish." And while I'm not dismissing the fact that there is potential there for serious harm. I will say that I don't think it is the norm.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, do you agree that you have yet to provide a shred of evidence that incest in a non-abusive context between consenting adults causes any harm or distress at all?

The beginning of my quote says that even incest between two people of equal power where both partners are consenting can lead to problems.

Originally posted by inimalist
you are right, my mistake, let me correct:

since you characterize addiction as "needing a drink", would you also characterize depression as "being sad", social anxiety as "being shy" or adhd as "being fidgety"

I know the problem is more complex than that. I was talking about the pain that they have to go through. In most cases, addicting to cigarettes or alcohol simply means the person is prone to feeling cruddy if they don't have one or the other.

And as I said before, I know at least three people just off the top of my head writing this right now who are addicted to cigarettes and none of them are experiencing any problems outside of needing to smoke. I realize there is a risk with any addiction of it doing far more damage than that, but I don't think reaching that level is the common outcome of people becoming addicted to cigarettes or alcohol.

Tac: I'll respond more fully... but seriously, read the study, there is nothing in it that isn't specifically in relation to children.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Sure.

"A 1994 study found a mean excess mortality with inbreeding among first cousins of 4.4%.[53] A study of 29 offspring resulting from brother-sister or father-daughter incest found that 20 had congenital abnormalities, including four directly attributable to autosomal recessive alleles.[54]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

Are you saying it's okay to put children at risk because there are dangers for children already? Because that does not even remotely follow.

A risk they are willing to take? It isn't THEIR risk to take! It's the child that will suffer, not them! It is not okay to put your child in harms way for pretty much anything. I can't believe you are defending someone's right to potentially harm a child so they can have sexual intercourse. That is extremely unethical.

Not perfect though.

I am listing counltess things that are a risk and that are not even counted as something we would argue about outlawring, your throwing the word "risk around" for something that may or may not happen and I am listing things that are solid and real risks. Something being a risk does not mean you can or should just outlaw it.

Yes it is their risk because their looking after said child and would no doubt be more affected by the childs afflictions than the child itself. The rest of your post here is talking about some "child" that does not exist. Its more unethical to believe outlawring some forms of love that these couples may be interested in just because of beings that dont exist.

Also you dont seem to know what "defects" they are, if you can find some of the common ones it could be useful but as I said, if your talking about little things then who are you to say this "future" child of yours shouldnt even be given the chance to live? your probably even more of a monster by your own logic than the people willing to have said child, not even allowing it a chance to live.

Good enough unless your an idiot and do not know how to use the contraception in question, you could just have an abortion if you dont want to give birth. If you do, then you cant damage their freedom for "chances", you could say the same for any birth, as i said earlier you cant slap on a pregnancy testing kit "you have a chance of giving birth to a defected child!"

this is a trollololo thread.

my mind says incest causes genetic defects as in mutations and the inbred person becomes susceptible to infections/lack of blood defense/phagocytes to fight off virus or bacteria or foreign pathogens that gets into blood stream.

worst comes to worst watch harry and kumar go to guantanamo bay. watch the redneck family.

Originally posted by inimalist
Tac: I'll respond more fully... but seriously, read the study, there is [b]nothing in it that isn't specifically in relation to children. [/B]

I know. However, the specific part I quoted had both parties as consenting and in equal power. meaning, the only thing that could have caused the damaging side effects was the act of incest itself, since again, if the point of the paragraph was to point out that just sex at a young age was harmful, why would they choose to include that in a study on the affects of incest on people? It would be completely irrelevant. It seems to me it's the incest itself that is hurting them, which, I even think it says in the paragraph.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I am listing counltess things that are a risk and that are not even counted as something we would argue about outlawring, your throwing the word "risk around" for something that may or may not happen and I am listing things that are solid and real risks. Something being a risk does not mean you can or should just outlaw it.

Are you still defending putting children at risk because some risk already exists? So if I strap a child to a baby stroller and push it down some stairs, can I defend that with "Well, sure, there's a risk the child will be hurt, but have you seen cars? There's already risks out there anyway!"

And you act like regulating sexual activity is a monstrous and evil act. Which it isn't. We do it already. You aren't allowed to have sex with either children or animals. Why? Because it's harmful.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Yes it is their risk because their looking after said child and would no doubt be more affected by the childs afflictions than the child itself. The rest of your post here is talking about some "child" that does not exist. Its more unethical to believe outlawring some forms of love that these couples may be interested in just because of beings that dont exist.

I'm not saying we should outlaw it because of beings that don't exist. I'm saying we should outlaw it because of beings that WILL exist.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Also you dont seem to know what "defects" they are, if you can find some of the common ones it could be useful but as I said, if your talking about little things then who are you to say this "future" child of yours shouldnt even be given the chance to live? your probably even more of a monster by your own logic than the people willing to have said child, not even allowing it a chance to live.

Come now, Burning Thought. If we followed that line of thinking masturbation would be evil, since people are stopping that child from having a chance to exist. Or birth control is evil, because you are stopping a child from being able to exist.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Good enough unless your an idiot and do not know how to use the contraception in question, you could just have an abortion if you dont want to give birth. If you do, then you cant damage their freedom for "chances", you could say the same for any birth, as i said earlier you cant slap on a pregnancy testing kit "you have a chance of giving birth to a defected child!"

What are you saying here? That the chance of birth defects in children are the exact same in incest relationships as with normal ones? Because that would be blatantly false. I already showed you the study.

Or are you saying that because there is a small chance normally for children to be born with defects, that fact somehow means it's okay to increase the odds?

Neither of those two points are logically valid.

Frankly, putting a child at risk so you can engage in sexual intercourse is selfish, and horribly unethical. Anyone willing to do that to their child is not fit to be a parent in my opinion.

Originally posted by StarCraft2
harry and kumar go to guantanamo bay.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I know. However, the specific part I quoted had both parties as consenting and in equal power. meaning, the only thing that could have caused the damaging side effects was the act of incest itself, since again, if the point of the paragraph was to point out that just sex at a young age was harmful, why would they choose to include that in a study on the affects of incest on people? It would be completely irrelevant. It seems to me it's the incest itself that is hurting them, which, I even think it says in the paragraph.

but that would mean you think a child can legitimately consent to sex

Originally posted by TacDavey

Are you still defending putting children at risk because some risk already exists? So if I strap a child to a baby stroller and push it down some stairs, can I defend that with "Well, sure, there's a risk the child will be hurt, but have you seen cars? There's already risks out there anyway!"

And you act like regulating sexual activity is a monstrous and evil act. Which it isn't. We do it already. You aren't allowed to have sex with either children or animals. Why? Because it's [B]harmful.

I'm not saying we should outlaw it because of beings that don't exist. I'm saying we should outlaw it because of beings that WILL exist.

Come now, Burning Thought. If we followed that line of thinking masturbation would be evil, since people are stopping that child from having a chance to exist. Or birth control is evil, because you are stopping a child from being able to exist.

What are you saying here? That the chance of birth defects in children are the exact same in incest relationships as with normal ones? Because that would be blatantly false. I already showed you the study.

Or are you saying that because there is a small chance normally for children to be born with defects, that fact somehow means it's okay to increase the odds?

Neither of those two points are logically valid.

Frankly, putting a child at risk so you can engage in sexual intercourse is selfish, and horribly unethical. Anyone willing to do that to their child is not fit to be a parent in my opinion. [/B]

Thats attempted assault on an actual living person.

Its impossible to truly regulate it, if people are going to have sex, their not doing it in front of a police station.

You dont know they "will" exist at all though, your making up a child from thin air then saying people shouldnt be allowed to risk harm to it....how can you make a law against that? makes no sense and I am sure there are people who think Masturbation is evil.

I didnt say the same, but your talking about risks and theres a risk in all births, we dont put out a label on everything thats a risk. We dont make it illegal for socially or academically uneducated couples to have children either just because there "may be" a "risk" of abuse.

Also you dodged a lot of my points, namely those that state that you shouldnt ever be a judge on who should or shouldnt be allowed to have intercourse because the belief that said child shouldnt be allowed to survive or have the chance to be born just because it may have a defect. Thats monstrously unethical. There are plenty of people with defects living happy lives.

Your argument is a lie because your pretending your protecting children when really, you just dont like the idea of incestuous couples tbh who also have feelings, not the non existent child and assuming it does get born, so what? if its unlucky enough to have a defect it may still have a happy life, with your law it would not even exist at all.....

Originally posted by inimalist
but that would mean you think a child can legitimately consent to sex

Consent in the sense it wasn't forced on them. And it wasn't a power play either, since they were both on equal levels.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Thats attempted assault on an actual living person.

You missed the point. Putting a child at risk cannot be defended by claiming risk already exists. It doesn't matter that risk already exists.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Its impossible to truly regulate it, if people are going to have sex, their not doing it in front of a police station.

This also is irrelevant. The law saying murder isn't allowed isn't going to stop all murderers. That doesn't mean the law is pointless or should be done away with.

Originally posted by Burning thought
You dont know they "will" exist at all though, your making up a child from thin air then saying people shouldnt be allowed to risk harm to it....how can you make a law against that?

I don't know why you think I'm making up a child. I'm not saying we should be protecting a specific child. I'm saying we should be protecting children in general.

Originally posted by Burning thought
makes no sense and I am sure there are people who think Masturbation is evil.

Are you one of them? because I'm not. So it seems pretty irrelevant over all.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I didnt say the same, but your talking about risks and theres a risk in all births, we dont put out a label on everything thats a risk. We dont make it illegal for socially or academically uneducated couples to have children either just because there "may be" a "risk" of abuse.

But you will admit that there are SOME risks that warrant outlawing actions? Such as pushing my child down the stairs. It's possible no harm will come to him.

Or look a pedophilia. Do you think that's okay? You know, it's possible no real harm will come to the child. Why should we deny pedophiles their ability to express their love just because of some risk? The ability to express love is more important, right?

Saying things shouldn't be outlawed just for being risks is true. I never claimed otherwise. On the other side of that, claiming things should be allowed simply because they are nothing but risks is equally faulty. Some risks deserve to be outlawed.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Also you dodged a lot of my points, namely those that state that you shouldnt ever be a judge on who should or shouldnt be allowed to have intercourse because the belief that said child shouldnt be allowed to survive or have the chance to be born just because it may have a defect. Thats monstrously unethical. There are plenty of people with defects living happy lives.

That's a misrepresentation of my stance. I never, at any point, said people who have defects shouldn't be allowed to live. I said people shouldn't be allowed to place the risk of birth defects on children.

As for not being allowed to judge who is allowed to have intercourse, I'm not actually saying certain people shouldn't be allowed to have intercourse. I'm saying people shouldn't be allowed to have intercourse with certain things, like animals, children, and family members.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Your argument is a lie because your pretending your protecting children when really, you just dont like the idea of incestuous couples tbh who also have feelings, not the non existent child and assuming it does get born, so what? if its unlucky enough to have a defect it may still have a happy life, with your law it would not even exist at all.....

This is an ad hominum fallacy. You're attacking me instead of my arguments. It would be the same if I said you are only debating this because you like incest and want a relationship with your sister and you like giving birth defects to children. Neither this claim nor yours can actually be defended, nor are they relevant to the discussion.

You're right, though. I don't like the idea of incestuous couples. Though, not for the reason you stated. I am thinking of children. I suggest you spend a little more time combating my arguments, and a little less time flinging baseless accusations.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Consent in the sense it wasn't forced on them. And it wasn't a power play either, since they were both on equal levels.

so then you do actually think children are capable of giving consent about sex?