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.
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, my opinion is that the government has no right to regulate against incest so long as it is consensual and between adultsadditionally, were the government to start regulating against relationships that cause psychological damage, potentially any relationship would be illegal. The last major relationship I had still causes me issues given how it ended.
further, the idea of the government regulating against disabled children being born strikes me as incredibly problematic
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.
Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: I'd still like your thoughts on the fact that an incentuous couple who use contraceptives have a much lower risk of having a disabled child than do two strangers who do not. Would you then suggest not using condoms or other forms of birth control should be illegal?
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.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
That doesn't really refute the comparison. Unborn babies can't really consent to anything. I would value the choices and wills of the living parents above that of their unborn, hypothetical offspring in any case.
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.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Wow it's like you didn't even read what I wrote.I don't think there should be a law lol. My whole argument is that there is no good reason to make a law against incest.
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?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Russian Roulette has a 1/6 chance of splattering someone's brains. Maybe higher depending on the number of bullets. Do not even try to force this comparison.
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.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Nope.
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.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not relating it, and as I said when I first broached the subject I'm not saying that this is your view either. What I'm saying is that you're essentially making an argument for eugenics which had its roots in racism as well as a large number of backward "sciences" and philosophies. Your basic argument is that breeding should be regulated by law. This is a dangerous path to go down.
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.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
You've refuted it? Where? This is news to me. Here I thought you were just flailing about and trying to move the goal post.Also I'll return to my poverty example which you failed to adequately address: should we also keep poor people from breeding to keep them from forcing their poverty unnecessarily on potential children?
I've already responded to the poverty example and explain the difference between the two.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I have been doing that the entire time. You're just flailing.I want to know why you would say that they have a right to be born if you're going to advocate legislation specifically aimed at ensuring they're less likely to be born?
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.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I understand that you'd prefer that people didn't have to suffer from disabilities, I share that concern. But at the same time I don't think the solution is to nip it in the bud by constraining the freedom of real, living people for the sake of double hypotheticals (the double part being that they might be born or might not be and if so they might or might not be malformed)
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.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
What's wrong about the act? The act it seems is only wrong because of consequences. My entire issue is that the act of putting your penis in your sister's vagina isn't immoral in of itself.
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.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Okay......deformed people being born=not wrong
...people creating deformed people=...not wrong?
...people increasing the risk of creating deformed people=WRONG
...risk increasing=WRONG because...?
What do you mean? How can you honestly see nothing wrong with increasing the risk that your child will be born physically deformed?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm insisting that there are plenty of forms of incest that carry next to no risk of conception. I want you to debate me on why incest is immoral independent of the issue of conception. You want to debate me on why incest should be illegal. I have no interest in the latter argument and you seem to have no interest in the former. But at the very least I'm humoring you.
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.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Nope, I'm stating that if we were to agree that increasing the risk of having deformed children should be something legally regulated (spoiler alert: I don't agree) then only that case where the parents are clearly not doing anything to minimize the risk would be at all reasonable to prohibit. It's the difference between drunk driving and just driving. One is illegal for good reason, the other is legal.
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.
Continued... Sorry for double post.
Originally posted by Existere
I would consider it acceptable to question more deeply why a couple who was placed in a ridiculous scenario where they could know with certainty that a child would 'love for 3 months in unimaginable pain and then die' would still want to bear a child.
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?
Originally posted by Existere
Every sexual activity between a healthy, heterosexual couple is potentially damaging to hypothetical unborn children. Genetic risks aren't unique to incestuous couples. Should it be illegal to have sex if you have any family history of mental illnesses, or if one of your parents died of cancer?
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.
Originally posted by Existere
You're suggesting prohibiting happy, loving couples from making love regardless of the precautions taken, type of sexual activity or ulterior reasons that prevent potential pregnancy. You want to discuss the morality of incestuous activity, that's a separate discussion, but there's absolutely zero precedent set to make the activity illegal.
I disagree. I have been laying out my reasons for thinking incestuous relationships should be illegal already.
Originally posted by TacDavey
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.
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.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
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.
...Or abortion.
Originally posted by inimalist
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 disabilitiesand 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
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.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
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.
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.
Originally posted by TacDavey
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.
Originally posted by TacDavey
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.
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, my opinion is that the government has no right to regulate against incest so long as it is consensual and between adults
sure, totally irrelevant to my position, because I don't define having a disabled child as abuse or harm
Originally posted by Bentley
So we both agree it's ethical to make a crossbreeding between humans and chimpanzees!
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.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
How is that any different?
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.
Originally posted by inimalist
sure, totally irrelevant to my position, because I don't define having a disabled child as abuse or harm
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.
Originally posted by inimalist
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.
You're right, is more like having disabled chimps mmm
Originally posted by Bentley
You're right, is more like having disabled chimps mmm
... FYI, chimps are just as evolved as humans are
they aren't a "lesser" human in any respect
Originally posted by TacDavey
And why not? The government already has several regulations in place aimed at protecting the physical health of children.
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
Originally posted by Bentley
I know that already 😄Even though "being as evolved" means very little. I mean, take my example, would an hybrid of a human and a chimp would be as evolved as them?
ah, I get you 🙂
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)
Originally posted by inimalist
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
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.