INCEST=worng or not

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not at all. I think it should be illegal because it's immoral. And I think it's immoral because of my points, which you neglected to respond to.

You didn't explain what's immoral about incest that doesn't result in conception or psychological damage. And it's just silly to suggest that all incest will result in psychological damage and/or conception.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not at all. I think it should be illegal because it's immoral.

Originally posted by TacDavey
. I only used the beating child example to illustrate the difference between physically harming a child, and [something else]

If you get that, we can talk about whether it's immoral to have sex if you put a potential unborn theoretical child at risk for a vague defect of some sort.

Originally posted by jorgea
I have two relatives who are first cousins and got married many years ago. Their first born child was born without one ear. Now you tell me if incest is such a great idea?

I don't think pregnant women should drink booze or stay in the hottub too long, but I don't think that the logic of avoiding such activities for the sake of an unborn child should follow through to arguing that certain couples in love should never fornicate in any manner.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Which points didn't I respond to? The one where your whole argument seems to be hinged on birth defects resulting from some instances of incestuous coupling?

You didn't explain what's immoral about incest that doesn't result in conception or psychological damage. And it's just silly to suggest that all incest will result in psychological damage and/or conception.

Keeping perfectly healthy humans from spawning children and keeping future generations from their genes because of their short-sightedness of sleeping with their close family.

... Would be a ridiculous argument that you could use.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not at all. I think it should be illegal because it's immoral.

That's a very problematic position.

Certainly all illegal things should be immoral things. But there are lots of immoral things that shouldn't be illegal even before we get into differences of opinion about what is and isn't moral.

Personally, I consider not holding the door open for someone to be immoral. Refusing to do it should be illegal.

What a horrible method of determining legality.

Originally posted by TacDavey

Are you still defending one risk by claiming there are others? Yes, every birth comes with some chance that things will not go as planned. That doesn't mean it's okay to up the odds that something bad happens.

What are far more immoral? Punishing parents? That's more immoral than risking the health of a child?

Or are you still trying to claim that I said people with disabilities don't deserve to live? Because once more, I never said that. I've explained this too many times already.

Their still in the same boat though, theres a risk in all sexual encounters, so lets just stop them all? by your logic. Everything should be halted, we should have everyone need to sign legal forms before being able to have their children "made" in tube to make sure everything is safe?

Its far more immoral to take an already physically damaged child and telling it, its parents were taken away and that its now up for adoption.

Its the same thing, you cant seem to understand that saying stopping incest is the same as stopping the chance of any of these people being born. I think your making more of a fuss around the problems that could happen than necessery and making more problems than answers. By your logic, my friend who is now perfectly fine and leading a happy life may not have had his chance (assuming your aganst all defected births).

Depending on the culture it could be. Personally I'm appalled by the idea, but I couldn't care less for most people's sexual activities.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Which points didn't I respond to? The one where your whole argument seems to be hinged on birth defects resulting from some instances of incestuous coupling?

20 out of 29 cases, in fact. It isn't like the chances are really that remote.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You didn't explain what's immoral about incest that doesn't result in conception or psychological damage. And it's just silly to suggest that all incest will result in psychological damage and/or conception.

I don't understand what you are confused about. Psychological damage and birth defects are the two things I am claiming are wrong with incest. They don't always happen, but they happen enough to be considered a problem. Again, you cannot say that simply because an act doesn't produce negative effects 100% of the time thus it should be legal. Because almost every illegal action can fall into that category. The fact is that the act of incest has a high chance of producing negative effects both psychologically and physically in children.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's a slippery slope. Highly subjective.

You're right. I shouldn't have said I think it should be illegal because it's immoral. Since there are obviously actions that are immoral that aren't and shouldn't be illegal. What I should have said is the same reasons I think it is illegal are the reasons I think it is also immoral.

Originally posted by Existere
Right, I get that. What you don't seem to understand is that conceiving a child while knowing potential health risks in your genes is not physically damaging in the sense of punching that child in the face.

I never said it was. It IS physically damaging, however, and as such shares that difference from poverty. Which is what I was trying to explain. I never said it was the same as beating your child.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Their still in the same boat though, theres a risk in all sexual encounters, so lets just stop them all? by your logic. Everything should be halted, we should have everyone need to sign legal forms before being able to have their children "made" in tube to make sure everything is safe?

Again, another misrepresentation of my position. I never said that. Nor does it logically follow from my stance at all.

I'm not arguing that sex is wrong if there is even the tiniest chance that something will go wrong. Since, again that risk is always there. I am arguing that sex that produces a much higher risk of complications is wrong.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Its far more immoral to take an already physically damaged child and telling it, its parents were taken away and that its now up for adoption.

When did I say we should take the child's parents away?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Its the same thing, you cant seem to understand that saying stopping incest is the same as stopping the chance of any of these people being born. I think your making more of a fuss around the problems that could happen than necessery and making more problems than answers. By your logic, my friend who is now perfectly fine and leading a happy life may not have had his chance (assuming your aganst all defected births).

Again, you were just criticizing me for apparently talking about "possible or theoretical children". You don't see how you are doing the exact same thing here?

With this logic, you would have to claim that any sexual activity that does not produce children is wrong. Because you are stopping all those children from being born. From having a chance.

Do you honestly not see how this line of reasoning is flawed?

Think of all the people in the world who are not having children with one another. That's a child that isn't being given the chance to live, right? So, by not having children with one another, are you claiming they are doing something wrong?

Originally posted by TacDavey

Again, another misrepresentation of my position. I never said that. Nor does it logically follow from my stance at all.

I'm not arguing that sex is wrong if there is even the tiniest chance that something will go wrong. Since, again that risk is always there. I am arguing that sex that produces a much higher risk of complications is wrong.

When did I say we should take the child's parents away?

Again, you were just criticizing me for apparently talking about "possible or theoretical children". You don't see how you are doing the exact same thing here?

With this logic, you would have to claim that [B]any sexual activity that does not produce children is wrong. Because you are stopping all those children from being born. From having a chance.

Do you honestly not see how this line of reasoning is flawed?

Think of all the people in the world who are not having children with one another. That's a child that isn't being given the chance to live, right? So, by not having children with one another, are you claiming they are doing something wrong? [/B]

Yes it does, your saying we should reduce all risks when we can. This seems to be your stance, considering theres a risk in all births, we should by your logic halt them all.

Earlier you were making comparisons of crimes like murder, in which people are taken away. So your saying the "legal" punishment is what? a fine?

Well you still are, so instead of trying to get you to stop doing so which you are refusing to do, I thought I would bring it down to your level. Also thats not true either, your method concerns people who may want children, if you dont want a child and will not have sexual activity to have one then there is no chance is there that a child would have been born but in your case, you think incetuous couples should not even try, therefore these children would not exist. I wouldnt doubt that most people, if not all alive now from an incestuos coupling would wish they were never born.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't understand what you are confused about. Psychological damage and birth defects are the two things I am claiming are wrong with incest. They don't always happen, but they happen enough to be considered a problem. Again, you cannot say that simply because an act doesn't produce negative effects 100% of the time thus it should be legal. Because almost every illegal action can fall into that category. The fact is that the act of incest has a high chance of producing negative effects both psychologically and physically in children.

You really need to drop the "psychological damage" thing until you can substantiate it in any way.

Originally posted by TacDavey
20 out of 29 cases, in fact. It isn't like the chances are really that remote.

I don't understand what you are confused about. Psychological damage and birth defects are the two things I am claiming are wrong with incest. They don't always happen, but they happen enough to be considered a problem. Again, you cannot say that simply because an act doesn't produce negative effects 100% of the time thus it should be legal. Because almost every illegal action can fall into that category. The fact is that the act of incest has a high chance of producing negative effects both psychologically and physically in children.

Do you think a brother receiving a handjob from his consenting sister should be illegal?

If so why?

So because it's incest and because other forms of incest result in these aforementioned complications (even if this one doesn't) then for some reason the immorality/illegality is transferred by conceptual relation even if the nature of the separate acts are completely different?

Look, if you're saying that incest is wrong when it produces invalid children then that's a much more defensible position (albeit I still don't think its "morally" wrong or something that should be illegal) but if you're saying "all incest is wrong" and then arguing it's all wrong because of what happens in some of the cases then that's something I find completely indefensible on logical grounds.

You're the first person I've talked to who advocates eugenics while at the same time categorically opposing the atomic bombings. And no, this isn't a strawman. If you argue that certain people should be legally prohibited from breeding with one another then you are clearly advocating a form of eugenics, albeit not as comprehensive as the more (in)famous theories/campaigns of the past.

This is another slippery slope to your argument. I don't believe you would try to use your same argument to forbid miscegenation, but it's not as if the argument would have to be tweaked much to attempt to justify it...

(I'm totally going to end up back into this... /sigh)

I'm not sure I'm liking the ontology of disabled people here...

Because a child could have mental or physical disabilities people shouldn't be allowed to have sex? because it is so hideous and terrible to live with a mental or physical disability that you shouldn't be allowed to live in the first place?

Tac, do you then support a woman's right to abort a severely mentally handicap fetus? or infant euthanasia like is done in the Netherlands?

Originally posted by inimalist
(I'm totally going to end up back into this... /sigh)

I'm not sure I'm liking the ontology of disabled people here...

Because a child could have mental or physical disabilities people shouldn't be allowed to have sex? because it is so hideous and terrible to live with a mental or physical disability that you shouldn't be allowed to live in the first place?

Tac, do you then support a woman's right to abort a severely mentally handicap fetus? or infant euthanasia like is done in the Netherlands?

Labeling sex that could lead to disabled children as 'immoral' is an unfair way to paint the life of a disabled person, and to say that a disabled person has less of a right to be born than an able-bodied person. If Johnny's born without his right ear, he'll never serve in the army or go diving, but his life can still be completely fulfilling. That's why likening the damage dealt by beating a child to the 'damage dealt' by conceiving a disabled child rings so offensively.

At least, offensively to me. But I'm still sort of negotiating exactly what I think about all of this, I guess.

Originally posted by inimalist
Because a child could have mental or physical disabilities people shouldn't be allowed to have sex?

Originally posted by Existere
Labeling sex that could lead to disabled children as 'immoral' is an unfair way to paint the life of a disabled person, and to say that a disabled person has less of a right to be born than an able-bodied person.

If this is what Tac's getting that, then he's one utterance of 'sterilization' away from the Nazi eugenics program.

Did we cover why some societies make incest taboo and others don't?

Maybe. But perhaps you should recap, just in case?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Maybe. But perhaps you should recap, just in case?

The question was intended to be rhetorical.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Did we cover why some societies make incest taboo and others don't?

some suggest there is a biological predisposition against it, but maybe that is for too immediate of family. what societies allowed or encouraged brother/sister or father/daughter type relationships?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Did we cover why some societies make incest taboo and others don't?

Some evidence suggests most people have inborn avoidance of sexual relations with a sibling or parent or a person that holds similar position. If so it's probably evolutionary, sexual relationships up the odds of having kids, and children of incest tend to have genetic problems which is the kind of thing genes hate.

Though this raises the question: Why did we evolve such that incest causes so many problems?