INCEST=worng or not

Originally posted by inimalist
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?

Now you are changing the subject. So are you now saying that you WOULDN'T stop the mother who was going out of her way to prevent her child from being born physically healthy? Because just a few posts ago you said that you would have no problem letting the government interfere as long as the mother was consciously trying to harm the child.

yes

but like, I don't think two mentally handicapped people having sex is "going out of their way to harm a child", whereas in any consistent definition you would be using, it is.

was it abuse for my parents to have me?

Originally posted by TacDavey

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.

There are two things wrong with the zoophilia comparison:

(1) It doesn't carry any risk of producing offspring healthy or otherwise. -Not comparable to your arguments
(2) One of the main objections to zoophilia is that it is almost impossible to get the animal to consent in an observable way (this is tricky, since this argument paints almost any use of animals by humans in an immoral light) Consent is possible in incest however. In fact consensual incest is what we're discussing. -Again not comparable.

We're talking about sexual activity that is being restricted because it is potentially damaging to other people. Which is exactly what incest is.

With your argument on incest (barring your unsubstantiated and nebulous "psychological damage" claim) the person we're protecting from "harm" isn't the partner but rather a hypothetical entity. And even so, the "harm" isn't the same as actual physical harm, it's the increase of the chance of the hypothetical entity being born with less than perfect traits.

There is an observable difference--at least for intelligent people--between destroying a 11 year old girl's insides with rough sex and "increasing the risk" of a child being born with deformities. So much so that I can't believe we're even discussing this.

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.

And being the child of sibling parents isn't "necessarily" damaging either. All that you've shown (and after many failed tries and attenuations at that) is that there's a heightened risk of it over non-incestuous couplings. Which is no different or more factual than saying that someone born in a shack in Cambodia with parents who can't afford shoes or clean water is more likely to suffer long term physical and psychological damage than someone born to Upper Middle Class parents in Sweden.

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.

And even so, what would be the motivation for creating such a device? We know the motivation of the incestuous couples is either pleasure or creation of a healthy baby.

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 really can't say for sure on that one, but I wouldn't say that the parent's are immoral unless we were dealing with strange, depraved people who wanted such an outcome for some reason.

I provided a quote and a link to an article many pages ago.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And I don't recall you supporting the claim once it was challenged by inimalist or the others. You sort of just insisted to it as you're doing now.

it was an article referring to minors that was making the point, essentially, that though children may "consent", they are actually unaware of the consequences of their actions. like actual minors, not 16/17 year olds who may only be minors in terms of legal status

/shocking

Originally posted by inimalist
yes

but like, I don't think two mentally handicapped people having sex is "going out of their way to harm a child", whereas in any consistent definition you would be using, it is.

was it abuse for my parents to have me?

I never said two mentally handicapped people having sex is an example of someone "going out of their way to harm a child". I provided the example of a mother doing that to determine just where someone draws the line in health risks to a child. Nor did I say that your parents where abusive when they had you.

Which is the question I want to get to the bottom of at the moment. How far should the parent be allowed to go before the government intervenes? Because if you now say that the government shouldn't step in and stop a mother from actively attempting to harm her child, then I'd like to hear your justification of that stance.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Oh it's wrong. And that would be a great point, if the two examples were at all comparable. In your example the mother is intending to cause harm. Most (I would hope) incestuous couples don't try to have a baby because they desire to make an unhealthy child. At the worst they might be accused of being negligent, but then I don't know if I'd call that immoral so much as irresponsible. And no, tautologies aside those two things aren't the same.

Which seems to be a similar stance to the one inimalsit is taking. That the fact that act was wrong is determined by whether or not the parent realizes they are doing something wrong.

So, as I asked inimalist, I'll give you an add-on hypothetical. Say there is a parent that is doing everything the first parent is doing in terms of assuring the child will be born deformed. The only difference is, this mother doesn't actually know she's doing harmful things.

At this point, the question isn't so much should she be treated as a criminal or is she evil. It's should the government step in and stop her actions. Because if you say they shouldn't, you'll have to explain to me why the simple fact that the mother isn't aware of her actions somehow determines whether the government should step in to protect the child.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You said harming the person.

There are two things wrong with the zoophilia comparison:

(1) It doesn't carry any risk of producing offspring healthy or otherwise. -Not comparable to your arguments
(2) One of the main objections to zoophilia is that it is almost impossible to get the animal to consent in an observable way (this is tricky, since this argument paints almost any use of animals by humans in an immoral light) Consent is possible in incest however. In fact consensual incest is what we're discussing. -Again not comparable.

You're missing the point. The point wasn't that bestiality is the same as incest. The point is that bestiality is a sexual practice that is banned because it is harmful.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
In the case of pedophilia the reasoning is twofold: firstly the thought that people under the age of 18 can't consent to anything and that when they turn 18 they magically gain free will and the power to make real choices where you know they're not automatically coerced by wicked older people into sex. Secondly with children (especially girls, most especially very young ones) they can be injured by intercourse with adults.

Exactly. Pedophilia is a sexual practice that is not allowed because it is harmful. Incest is a sexual act that is not allowed because it is harmful. Which was my point.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
With your argument on incest (barring your unsubstantiated and nebulous "psychological damage" claim) the person we're protecting from "harm" isn't the partner but rather a hypothetical entity. And even so, the "harm" isn't the same as actual physical harm, it's the increase of the chance of the hypothetical entity being born with less than perfect traits.

Switching "birth defects" with "less than perfect traits" is just you trying to use word play to make something bad sound harmless. Cystic fibrosis is not an example of "less than perfect traits". We aren't talking about someone being born a little shorter than we would like. We are talking about potentially serious health risks.

And your "hypothetical" refutation doesn't really work, because your stance on incest is such that even if it was 100% assured that a couple would be able to have a child, they should still be allowed to.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There is an observable difference--at least for intelligent people--between destroying a 11 year old girl's insides with rough sex and "increasing the risk" of a child being born with deformities. So much so that I can't believe we're even discussing this.

There are differences, obviously. I wasn't attempting to imply that the two were, in fact, completely identical. It's the similarities I'm focusing on. Both acts pose risks to a child's health.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
We're not talking about being born with deformities being right or wrong for starters, we're talking about incest being right or wrong. Now you're just affirming the consequent.

We're talking about whether or not parents increasing health risks on their children is right or wrong.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And being the child of sibling parents isn't "necessarily" damaging either. All that you've shown (and after many failed tries and attenuations at that) is that there's a heightened risk of it over non-incestuous couplings. Which is no different or more factual than saying that someone born in a shack in Cambodia with parents who can't afford shoes or clean water is more likely to suffer long term physical and psychological damage than someone born to Upper Middle Class parents in Sweden.

Are you are talking about a child being born into a family that has absolutely no way to feed or take care of it? Because in that case I WOULD consider that wrong. You shouldn't be having children if you cannot take proper care of them. In such instances, the government will step in and remove the child from a household that cannot care for it properly. In the same way the government steps in with incest.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yes, though it may offend your sensibilities to hear me say it. I think there are certainly cases where underaged people understand enough to consent. People over the legal age of consent get subtly coerced into sex all the time and are capable of making the same choices. I'm not arguing we lower age of consent laws (though I would advocate a more judicious case by case examination so that people who clearly are capable of choosing for themselves despite being underaged don't get their lovers sent to prison)

Truthfully, the question of whether pedophilia is acceptable or not is really off topic, so I'll leave that debate for another thread.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If there was a 98% chance of something happening it would still be a hypothetical. And no, the chances are not that high, you'll have to substantiate such a claim.

Let's make a hypothetical in which a parent was 100% assured they could have children. Your stance, as I understand it, is that this couple should still be allowed to have children, correct? So your "hypothetical" refutation doesn't really hold up, since you are saying incest should be allowed regardless of whether or not the child in question is "hypothetical" or not.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The intent is completely different. There is no good outcome that can result from such a feature whereas in the case we're discussing there's a much higher chance that a healthy baby will result or that no baby will result at all and it will just be pleasurable for the partners.

And even so, what would be the motivation for creating such a device? We know the motivation of the incestuous couples is either pleasure or creation of a healthy baby.

The motivation behind an act is irrelevant to whether or not the act should be stopped. Let's say there was a person who got it into their head that killing 100 children would somehow save the world. The motivation is pure, but the act should obviously be stopped.

Continued... Again, sorry for double post.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well if they don't do it the child isn't born at all so there's no point in even discussing the child. It only becomes an issue at all retroactively if the child is born and has deformities. Then the question (and yes I apologize if this sounds horribly Utilitarian) is if it's better that the child had never been born at all.

I really can't say for sure on that one, but I wouldn't say that the parent's are immoral unless we were dealing with strange, depraved people who wanted such an outcome for some reason.

Again, you are basing whether or not an action is okay around whether or not the person performing it wanted to do harm. The person i my example above didn't want to do harm, nor did the parent in my first example. That doesn't mean their actions aren't wrong, and it doesn't mean they shouldn't be stopped.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And I don't recall you supporting the claim once it was challenged by inimalist or the others. You sort of just insisted to it as you're doing now.

Then, no offense, you did not read my posts. I defended the stance when it was questioned.

Originally posted by inimalist
it was an article referring to minors that was making the point, essentially, that though children may "consent", they are actually unaware of the consequences of their actions. like actual minors, not 16/17 year olds who may only be minors in terms of legal status

/shocking

As I said before, the study was about the effects of incest specifically on people. Not whether or not children having sex at young ages is psychologically damaging. If the point of that section was to illustrate that children shouldn't be having sex at young ages, then it had no real place being presented in a study on the effects of incest on people.

The thing is banning something is always harmful in itself. Just showing that something is harmful in some way or another is not enough, you need to show that the banning of it is not more harmful and that doing it is not more beneficial than harmful. If we just go by your "I have shown it can be harmful BAN!" logic every type of sex would be banned, both emotional harm from relationships and sex as well as the potential harm to the offspring is present in non-incestous relationships. So even if you had shown that say that incest relationships are 5 times more likely to have emotional harm and 10 times more likely to have genetic defects in offsping (hypothetically), from that alone it doesn't follow that and by ostracizing them, making them criminals and taking away their freedoms.

To people like me the harm done by taking away these freedoms of people mainly to protect themselves or potential offspring, as well as unintended consequences from such bannings, appear worse than the benefit of banning it, and I tend to err on the side of freedom, so I think things like incest, bestiality, taking drugs, etc. should be legal, but perhaps there can be other avenues to target the negative effects these things might have on people, that do not include making them criminals against themselves.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The thing is banning something is always harmful in itself. Just showing that something is harmful in some way or another is not enough, you need to show that the banning of it is not more harmful and that doing it is not more beneficial than harmful. If we just go by your "I have shown it can be harmful BAN!" logic every type of sex would be banned, both emotional harm from relationships and sex as well as the potential harm to the offspring is present in non-incestous relationships. So even if you had shown that say that incest relationships are 5 times more likely to have emotional harm and 10 times more likely to have genetic defects in offsping (hypothetically), from that alone it doesn't follow that and by ostracizing them, making them criminals and taking away their freedoms.

To people like me the harm done by taking away these freedoms of people mainly to protect themselves or potential offspring, as well as unintended consequences from such bannings, appear worse than the benefit of banning it, and I tend to err on the side of freedom, so I think things like incest, bestiality, taking drugs, etc. should be legal, but perhaps there can be other avenues to target the negative effects these things might have on people, that do not include making them criminals against themselves.

I don't see anything wrong with limiting what is legally allowed. We already do so with a number of certain things. Certainly you wouldn't think murder or theft should be legal.

I'm all for "freedom", don't get me wrong. But I don't think that means "You can do whatever you want to do."

And there are next to no "freedoms" I can see that that take precedence over the health of a child.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I never said two mentally handicapped people having sex is an example of someone "going out of their way to harm a child"

exactly my point

for your logic to be consistent in any manner, this HAS to be an extension of it, as there are numerous cases where incest isn't involved where the probability of a disabled child, the point you are using the justify government regulation, is far greater.

any other conclusion is a case of special pleading that you have not justified

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't see anything wrong with limiting what is legally allowed. We already do so with a number of certain things. Certainly you wouldn't think murder or theft should be legal.

I'm all for "freedom", don't get me wrong. But I don't think that means "You can do whatever you want to do."

And there are next to no "freedoms" I can see that that take precedence over the health of a child.

That's exactly what I'm saying though. We are balancing. With murder and assault it's clear. With incest and drugs it's obviously not nearly as clear.

And I don't think you've shown that you are consistent on that issue of endangering a child at all, nor have you explained what the line is. 50 times more is not okay? How about 2 times more? 10? What's the line, since you obviously accept the standard chance of a handicapped child.

My village is holding their annual incest competition.
I've entered my daughter.

Originally posted by inimalist
exactly my point

for your logic to be consistent in any manner, this HAS to be an extension of it, as there are numerous cases where incest isn't involved where the probability of a disabled child, the point you are using the justify government regulation, is far greater.

any other conclusion is a case of special pleading that you have not justified

I don't know why you think that my stance demands that I claim that disabled people having sex is them actually trying to hurt children. I'm not saying incestuous relationships are an example of a parent trying to harm a child either. I simply used the example of a mother purposely trying to harm her child as an example of a situation in which the government should step in to protect the child.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's exactly what I'm saying though. We are balancing. With murder and assault it's clear. With incest and drugs it's obviously not nearly as clear.

I disagree, but the debate about drugs is a discussion for another thread.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And I don't think you've shown that you are consistent on that issue of endangering a child at all, nor have you explained what the line is. 50 times more is not okay? How about 2 times more? 10? What's the line, since you obviously accept the standard chance of a handicapped child.

What do you mean I haven't been consistent? I don't have a set number or percent chance that is a cut off point. Given enough time or thought I suppose an exact number could be thought up, but really that's unnecessary to the debate here and now.

I was working late at the Carphone Warehouse last night when I received this text from my daughter:
'Dad,thespacebuttonisfaultyonthisphone.
Whenyougethomepleasegivemeanalternative.'

And as I eagerly rushed home, I couldn't help but wonder...

What the hell does 'ternative' mean?

My daughter has reached that age where she is asking embarrassing questions about sex.
Just this morning she asked, "Is that the best you can do?"

It's so awkward when you send a private text message to the wrong person.

The other day I wrote a message, "Hey babe, thinking of U makes my cock hard, can't wait to sex U up 2night" and sent it to my 10-year-old daughter.

Imagine how embarrassing it would have been if I'd sent that to the wrong person.

Little Johnny is in the bath with his Dad when he says, "Daddy, why is my willy different from yours?"

His Dad replies, "Well, for a start, son, yours isn't erect."

Hell yeah it's wrong, but it doesn't stop people from doing it. Just look at some of the offsprings that are produced from those relations. Even animals have enough sense to not indulge in such an act.

Originally posted by heru
Hell yeah it's wrong, but it doesn't stop people from doing it. Just look at some of the offsprings that are produced from those relations. Even animals have enough sense to not indulge in such an act.

Originally posted by The Alpha Male
Little Johnny is in the bath with his Dad when he says, "Daddy, why is my willy different from yours?"

His Dad replies, "Well, for a start, son, yours isn't erect."

That is gross dude.. eeew.

I would say its wrong hell yeah like he said. I knew someone once who kept on talking about his sister, it kinda made me feel weird and uncomfortable then I distenced myself. You have to be messed up to like your own in that way.

You often hear of stories of children who were seperated at birth and some how met and fell in love with each other; and find out too late. Well it can happen.