I'm with dudemon here; it's not like not having the children - i.e. not giving them life at all - is more moral.
There are inherent risks with a lot of things we do. Shouldn't make them illegal, or even morally objectionable, when there's nothing they can reasonably do about it. I'd sooner make drugs/alcohol/smoking illegal for the same reason, except this couple can control their intake. They can't control their genes.
...not an endorsement of incest, btw. Just commenting on this case.
The reported incidence of defects varies and I suppose I was simply going with the high end. Regardless it's much higher than that of non-related couples all other things considered. I also think that much older couples should consider adoption because of their hightened risk of having children with defects over the age of 40 or so.
The only slippery slope I see in it is with their children who would have an even higher risk of defects if they have children. It's going to seem a bit hypocritical of them to tell their kids that they can't be together if they choose to be considering that their own mother and father are an incestuous couple.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
The reported incidence of defects varies and I suppose I was simply going with the high end. Regardless it's much higher than that of non-related couples all other things considered. I also think that much older couples should consider adoption because of their hightened risk of having children with defects over the age of 40 or so.
Agreed, though none of this is grounds for making it illegal/immoral. We can advise caution while still allowing people to make risky decisions. Which, again, according to most philosophies and religions, is still better than them NOT having a life to live, regardless of its quality.
Adam and Eve's children were a bunch of incestuous butt****ers, so I don't see where anyone can bring in disapproval from a Judeo-Christian standpoint.
i think after a certain point (when survival of the species doesn't require incest) then it's considered wrong.
Personally, it's ****ing gross, there are at least hundreds (if we keep local to them) of other people these two could date. Come on.
it is gross but they say "you can't help who you fall in love with" or some crap like that. if they were just dating for the hell of it then yeah but this is "love" were talking about.
look at just about any romantic comedy 😄
Originally posted by dadudemon
And following the statistics to the letter would not result in a 2 out of 4 chance. It would be between 0 and 0 out of 4 chance...if you round down at .5 and below. If you were to follow the statistics to the letter, you would probably state the average and then the standard deviation. I believe the 6.8%-11.2% numbers represent 1 or 2 standard deviations.
wut?
ok, so, if you round down at .5, having one kid who has a 50% chance of getting a disease would be expected to produce a 0 out of 1 chance..., going by your logic. essentially you are saying someone who has a 50/50 chance of passing on a disease will never pass it on if there is only one child... like, it seems like you are saying, anything less than a 1 in 8 chance should just be ignored...
each child has a 6.8-11.2% chance, you can't change that by expressing it in a different metric, and especially, you can't "round down" a probability....
lol, just sayin'
Originally posted by juggerman
i think after a certain point (when survival of the species doesn't require incest) then it's considered wrong.
Where do you draw that line though?
This rationalization also supposes that procreation is the sole reason for sex. We're self-aware creatures - it may have been the case at one point, but certainly isn't anymore.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Regardless it's much higher than that of non-related couples all other things considered.
No it is not.
Unless, of course, you consider "much higher" to be a few percent.
Originally posted by inimalist
wut?ok, so, if you round down at .5,
This is where you may have gone wrong, from the beginning: round down FROM .499999...... round up from .5.
Also, it was a joke, man.
But here is what the actual result would be if you multiplied 4 by 11.2%: .448.
So how can I manipulate that result to be as douchy as possible? Round down from .5 and now I say "nya nya". That was basically the point.
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, just sayin'
This is what happens when you take a joke seriously. We can't have nice things.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No it is not.Unless, of course, you consider "much higher" to be a few percent.
This is where you may have gone wrong, from the beginning: round down FROM .499999...... round up from .5.
Also, it was a joke, man.
But here is what the actual result would be if you multiplied 4 by 11.2%: .448.
So how can I manipulate that result to be as douchy as possible? Round down from .5 and now I say "nya nya". That was basically the point.
This is what happens when you take a joke seriously. We can't have nice things.
.49999.... is .5 😛
Where do you draw that line though?
i just think thats the rationale for the "its ok that Adam and Eves kids did it but for you its wrong" crowd.
the line i guess is that now we have a choice not to bone our siblings to get married or have children at all
This rationalization also supposes that procreation is the sole reason for sex. We're self-aware creatures - it may have been the case at one point, but certainly isn't anymore.
well no it isnt the sole reason for sex but in order to "be fruitful and multiply" when there were only people of the same family they had no other option then to pork their kin.
now that there are billoins of people in the world its frowned upon since there are other options.
Originally posted by juggerman
well no it isnt the sole reason for sex but in order to "be fruitful and multiply" when there were only people of the same family they had no other option then to pork their kin.now that there are billoins of people in the world its frowned upon since there are other options.
At very few points in our history have we had but one choice of sexual partner.
Also, don't you see the double standard? It's ok...until it's not. If it's not morally objectionable at one point, how does it become so as soon as people start turning their noses up at it? This sounds more like bandwagon morality than anything resembling a coherent moral perspective.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But here is what the actual result would be if you multiplied 4 by 11.2%: .448.
that's not right though, or else, if you had 10 kids, the probability would be over 100%. I don't know the exact equation, but the actual probability of one kid being disabled (at a 10% chance each) is 34.39%.
At very few points in our history have we had but one choice of sexual partner.
twice if you believe the Bible (Adam and Eve's time and Noah's ark)
Also, don't you see the double standard? It's ok...until it's not. If it's not morally objectionable at one point, how does it become so as soon as people start turning their noses up at it? This sounds more like bandwagon morality than anything resembling a coherent moral perspective.
well pooping outside used to be ok too...
😛
Originally posted by juggerman
well pooping outside used to be ok too...
😛
We can point to public health and sanitation for this as justification. But again, it might be distasteful, but I wouldn't consider it immoral. You're really not providing enough justification for your stance on this being wrong.
We can point to public health and sanitation for this as justification. But again, it might be distasteful, but I wouldn't consider it immoral. You're really not providing enough justification for your stance on this being wrong.
oh i wasnt taking a stance on it being wrong at all. i was just stating why others (Juedo-Christians as Robtard put it) might think it was wrong while it wasnt considered wrong when Adam and Eves kids did the nasty