Incest

[Sulkdodds]

I always hear the arguement that if gayness between two adults is allowed, then incest between two adults will be allowed.

Why shouldn't it be?

1) Is it actually morally wrong?
2) What should be the law's response to it?

My opinion: as to the first question, obviously not, at least in any fundamental way. The shiver of revulsion one might feel at the prospect of having sexual congress with one's own family is in no way an indication of its moral (rather than sexual) deviancy. Disgust has never been a justification for very much. Most of us are agreed that what two consenting adults do to each other is quite their own business, unless it harms someone else. Here, however, is where problems develop. While any argument claiming that incest itself is immoral is likely to fall flat on its face, there's rather more reason for objecting to the act of procreation within family. Because of the great genetic risks involved it seems dangerous, and perhaps unfair, for parents to deliberately conceive a child with great risk of congenital disorder.

This leads us to the second question. Should the law seek to prevent the conception of such children? Can it justifiably do so - is it any different, fundamentally, from having children when illness runs in one's family, or even from bearing children into terrible material circumstances? If it is, and the law should legislate against it, how? You can't practicall enforce the rule 'don't get pregnant' or 'always use contraception'; any statute prohibiting extra children would be pointless, because the child would be born and the damage would be done; meanwhile, I'd be extremely uncomfortable in the face of any situation in which people were legally obligated to have abortions. And simply prohibiting marriage wouldn't work either - people are born out of wedlock and marriages can exist without children. This is a question I don't know the answer to.

Discuss.

 

[kineaesth]

1) Is it actually morally wrong?

~~~~
But it's instinctively taboo. I think there's something to be said for what our body/evolutionary responses tell us about something.

2) What should be the law's response to it?

Not criminal charges, unless it's rape.

inb4 Vegeta

 

[Dinkleberry]

It is a bit lazy isn't it? ;-)

Also, I heard another argument against it being that if incest were legal, then sexual abuse cases would be harder to prosecute.

 

[Kadayi]

1) Is it actually morally wrong?
2) What should be the law's response to it?

I dread to ask

Principally it's an issue if inbreeding the gene pool, which can have a lot of issues esp in small communities if there is a lot it going on, over a few generations. I guess it's a cultural hangover of sorts from when people did live in smaller villages, etc. If you want to see the problems with it, look at pedigree dogs. Most of them are riddled with genetic weaknesses and are as thick as shit.

As long as your kids have no intention to shag each other as well, there probably isn't anything wrong with you slipping it to that first cousin of yours, though expect people to give you the stink eye.

 

[Raziaar]

If you want flipper children, go ahead.

 

[MJ12]

I was just using it as an arguement for Evil Milk.
I do not think it is morally wrong (of course it is strange/disgusting to me though, but whatever floats your boat)

The only thing I think would be morally wrong is to reproduce by incestuous means for obvious reasons.


But legality... that's a much tougher question.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Oh yeah, I was just using your quote as an occasion for discussion.

If you want flipper children, go ahead.

In all other sex-related discussions people seem to have successfully abandoned the prejudice that sex need necessarily be related to children. Let's maintain proper word definition. 'Incest', here, doesn't always mean 'incestuous procreation'.

Obviously when it becomes procreative that is where the moral problems begin to pop up, and many of the legal questions are related to how easily the law (a clumsy beast at best) can make distinctions between fucking your sister and having children by your sister.

 

[Kadayi]

Obviously when it becomes procreative that is where the moral problems begin to pop up, and many of the legal questions are related to how easily the law (a clumsy beast at best) can make distinctions between fucking your sister and having children by your sister.

I think ultimately you have to consider it from an end game perspective of 'there will be kids' rather than, 'if we use protection it's not the same'.

If your deviant buddies force the boy to f uck you in the ass, rather than the other way around does it not count as paedophilia?

If we use your rationale the answer is no.

 

[Krynn72]

I think, morally speaking, incest is fine, while inbreeding is not. What two consenting adults choose to do with each other is nobody's business, be they related or not. And therefore no laws should be made against it.

Inbreeding however has been proven to have negative consequences on the offspring, some of which are very serious. However, I still dont know how to think when it comes to legality. There are other couples, who are not blood related, that have just as high of a chance of making a child suffering from the same detriments as an incestuous couple would, but no laws are made to prevent their breeding. If inbreeding is illegal, I think that other couples who have just as high a chance to produce similarly at risk children should not be allowed to procreate either. But then that gets me thinking about what right the government has at all to decide what genes are passed on. Reproduction is the primary goal of our lives, to progress our evolution as nature would have it. But making laws on it would be putting gene selection into the hands of a government, and not the people. It should be natural selection's work, not the governments, right?

 

[Sulkdodds]

I think ultimately you have to consider it from an end game perspective of 'there will be kids' rather than, 'if we use protection it's not the same'.

That's correct if you're talking about an incestuous long-term relationship. But that may not always be the case*. And again, your argument would be based on the danger of children. By arguing that 'incest leads too easily to the immoral behaviour of conceiving risky children', then A) you're automatically as a corrolary arguing against any other behaviour that would lead to such conception, and B) you're still arguing that the act of incest is not fundamentally immoral, but immoral because of its relation to another act.

You're going to have to explain your example a bit more. If you were forcibly penetrated by a boy who was under the age of consent, I'm not sure you could reasonably be accused of 'paedophilia' (especially since that's not an act but an 'orientation', or anyway a preference). In any case I don't quite see how it relates.

*EDIT: I realise that realistically speaking very few people would get prosecuted for having a one-night stand with their sister. That relates to the second question (legal measures) rather than the first (ethics).

 

[Raziaar]

People who engage in incest don't believe in condoms or birth control. There will be kids!

 

[Kadayi]

That's correct if you're talking about an incestuous long-term relationship. But that may not always be the case*. And again, your argument would be based on the danger of children. By arguing that 'incest leads too easily to the immoral behaviour of conceiving risky children', then A) you're automatically as a corollary arguing against any other behaviour that would lead to such conception, and B) you're still arguing that the act of incest is not fundamentally immoral, but immoral because of its relation to another act.

I think you're entering the same grounds as the homosexual debate tbh. Whether the sexual act genuinely means anything unless it's results in reproduction is a questionable point in my view, but certainly from a male on female perspective one cannot ever rule out the probability of conception being a resultant where in both members are in good health regardless of whatever contraceptives may be employed. One has to take a world view on this, not a localised view.

You're going to have to explain your example a bit more. If you were forcibly penetrated by a boy who was under the age of consent, I'm not sure you could reasonably be accused of 'paedophilia' (especially since that's not an act but an 'orientation', or anyway a preference). In any case I don't quite see how it relates.

How would you define the act legally? The boy was forced into an act he wouldn't of naturally been inclined to undertake by adults. Surely a crime was committed, even if the boy wasn't physically penetrated himself no? What would be the difference say if he'd been forced to suck the man off? Does the only distinction as to what constitutes paedophilia lie within whom penetrated whom? Or is it purely in a matter of unwanted sexual congress between an adult & a minor?

That no children are conceived doesn't mean sex with your sister isn't incest.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I think you're entering the same grounds as the homosexual debate tbh. Whether the sexual act genuinely means anything unless it's results in reproduction is a questionable point in my view, but certainly from a male on female perspective one cannot ever rule out the probability of conception being a resultant where in both members are in good health regardless of whatever contraceptives may be employed. One has to take a world view on this, not a localised view.

Yes, but both participants may then agree to an abortion. Let's be clear: you are still arguing that incest itself is not the immoral act, but that conceiving, delivering and giving birth to a child is. Now, legally, it might be valid to forbid incest on the grounds that, as you say, any incestuous coupling may lead to a child. But then firstly that results in a situation where a behaviour that is not necessarily immoral becomes forbidden because of consequences that may be somewhat of a slippery slope (this would be somewhat like making anal sex illegal because it's more likely to spread AIDS, or something). Secondly, it raises the problem that surely, if you think a behaviour which leads to this kind of conception should be illegal, then any other behaviour which leads to similarly risky conception should also be illegal.

How would you define the act legally? The boy was forced into an act he wouldn't of naturally been inclined to undertake by adults. Surely a crime was committed, even if the boy wasn't physically penetrated himself no? What would be the difference say if he'd been forced to suck the man off? Does the only distinction as to what constitutes paedophilia lie within whom penetrated whom? Or is it purely in a matter of unwanted sexual congress between an adult & a minor?

Yes, obviously a crime is being committed - although, if the adult is taking part against his will, then he is not the one committing a crime. I gave a counter-example because I thought you were somehow claiming that intention wasn't a part of 'paedophilia'. I still don't understand the point of your example.

That no children are conceived doesn't mean sex with your sister isn't incest.

Precisely. And backwards: that sex with your sister is incest doesn't mean children are conceived.

Am I not being clear or something?

EDIT: I guess you were trying to draw a comparison; paedophilia is "purely a matter of unwanted sexual congress between an adult and a minor", and incest is purely a matter of sexual congress between two people who are cloely related. But I never said otherwise, and indeed the 'purely' in that sentence (which acts to distance 'incest' from procreation) suggests implicitly what I am arguing explicitly.

 

[Kadayi]

Yes, but both participants may then agree to an abortion. Let's be clear: you are still arguing that incest itself is not the immoral act, but that conceiving, delivering and giving birth to a child is. Now, legally, it might be valid to forbid incest on the grounds that, as you say, any incestuous coupling may lead to a child. But then firstly that results in a situation where a behaviour that is not necessarily immoral becomes forbidden because of consequences that may be somewhat of a slippery slope (this would be somewhat like making anal sex illegal because it's more likely to spread AIDS, or something). Secondly, it raises the problem that surely, if you think a behaviour which leads to this kind of conception should be illegal, then any other behaviour which leads to similarly risky conception should also be illegal.

I would of thought by now you'd of realised I'm not a particularly moral person Sulks, or does it interest me argue about it (I see it largely as an irrelevance tbh). I prefer to deal in absolutes. Breeding with family members will ultimately result in genetic disorders, this is a given based upon the abundant evidence of hereditary disorders that mark small isolated communities (god knows how messed up the Sentinelese are genetically) I'm sure you will concede to this yes? It is probably fair to say that although hereditary disorders are passed throughout the wider gene pool, the probabilities (risk) are that much greater when inbreeding occurs over generations. Now it's important to recognise that from a long term survival perspective inbreeding is a genetic dead end. So incestuous behaviour even if it doesn't necessarily result in procreation in the individuals, isn't something that any society is likely to want to encourage in case it becomes as acceptable social norm, because it will ultimately weaken the bloodline (for want of a better expression) rather than reinforce it, especially in tightly knit communities. The needs of the individual are less important that the needs of the collective from a survival perspective.

EDIT: I guess you were trying to draw a comparison; paedophilia is "purely a matter of unwanted sexual congress between an adult and a minor", and incest is purely a matter of sexual congress between two people who are cloely related. But I never said otherwise, and indeed the 'purely' in that sentence (which acts to distance 'incest' from procreation) suggests implicitly what I am arguing explicitly.

More highlight the social perception regardless of the mechanistic nature of the activities.

 

[Sulkdodds]

My only morals come from the suspicion that human liberty is valuable (I'm very aware that all human thought is a cultural and historical product. That is something we have to work with). And that being so I'm less concerned about 'weakening the bloodline' than about the quality of life of those children born to incestuous couples who, quite aware of the dangers, went forward anyway.

From this perspective I can appreciate your concern and I see precisely where you're coming from. To me also, an incestuous, childbearing relationship is ethically questionable; the behaviour is problematic because it leads to a bad circumstance. But what I'm asking you relates to the relationship between the behaviour and the circumstance. I've already made these questions clear. Is it reasonable to outlaw the act of incest simply because it might maybe lead to the outcome of a child, even though that outcome (which the law is designed to avoid) is already entirely avoidable by the participants?* And if it's the outcome (rather than the act itself) which is undesirable, shouldn't then the implications be considered - and shouldn't we then outlaw all other things that lead to that circumstance?

*Compare all sex; being irresponsible with it is a very bad idea, and can harm others as well as yourself.

EDIT: We're talking about morals here but the reason this is in politics is mostly because A) people here are already willing to discuss things seriously, but mostly because B) since it seems obvious that having sex with your sister, while weird and possibly horrible, isn't necessarily wrong, the most interesting discussion would be of how the law should respond to this.

 

[Kadayi]

My only morals come from the suspicion that human liberty is valuable (I'm very aware that all human thought is a cultural and historical product. That is something we have to work with). And that being so I'm less concerned about 'weakening the bloodline' than about the quality of life of those children born to incestuous couples who, quite aware of the dangers, went forward anyway.

Surely to be born with rude health because you are the resultant of long term inbreeding does impact upon your quality of life no? I don't think you can assume that simply because a first cousins have children together they will necessarily be bad parents.

From this perspective I can appreciate your concern. I agree. To me, an incestuous, childbearing relationship is ethically questionable; I can see precisely where you're coming from. But what I'm asking you is whether you think all of that makes it just to hold incest illegal. I've already made these questions clear. Is it reasonable to outlaw a behaviour on the grounds that it might maybe lead to a dire circumstance if the participants don't take proper precautions, when the circumstance that the said law has been designed to avoid is already avoidable, already stoppable? And if it's that circumstance (rather than the act itself) which is undesirable, shouldn't then the implications be considered - and shouldn't we then outlaw all other things that lead to that circumstance?

I have no concerns, only observations, however you seem to be delving into the realms of the nebulous there a bit tbh Sulks. Provide me with some examples as to what you mean and determinations accordingly. It's hard to discuss abstracts tbh.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Surely to be born with rude health because you are the resultant of long term inbreeding does impact upon your quality of life no? I don't think you can assume that simply because a first cousins have children together they will necessarily be bad parents.

I have no concerns, only observations, however you seem to be delving into the realms of the nebulous there a bit tbh Sulks. Provide me with some examples as to what you mean and determinations accordingly. It's hard to discuss abstracts tbh.

Surely it's fairly simple. I accept that "to be born with rude health because you are the resultant of long term inbreeding does impact upon your quality of life". Incest, the definition of which includes banging your sister while wearing a condom, is not necessarily harmful to anyone. But going forward with having a child in such a relationship is a bit more problematic, for reasons we've just gone over. In such a situation, one is aware that there's an increased risk of producing a child with congenital disorders, and yet one goes forward anyway.

So let's tentatively suppose we can reasonably call it an immoral action to have such a child. We're not saying incest is immoral - or if we are, it is only insofar as it is likely to lead to the more truly immoral act of having such a child (the latter argument doesn't stand up because an incestuous couple could always find ways to avoid conceiving). However, such a child is something we want to avoid and therefore something we want to legislate against.

One option would be to make incest totally illegal because it's likely to lead to stunted offspring. What we're proposing is that liberty should be restricted, ultimately by use of force, to stop a certain outcome from occuring. But I don't think this is valid because there's no truly necessary connection between the action legislated against and the outcome the legislation wishes to prevent. A man could screw his sister one time, and never again, but he would be guilty in the eyes of the law. Similarly, a cousin couple could deliberately never have childen, and again, they would be worthy of prosecution. There's not enough of a connection; the act doesn't necessary lead to the outcome; it's too slippery a slope. It's like saying that sex before marriage should be outlawed because it's likely to spread sexual disease. It's quite possible to have loads of sex before marriage while taking precautions to avoid being irresponsible - it's possible to perform the act without causing the bad outcome. So the law, this restriction of liberties, just doesn't seem to be necessary. It would be unjust.

However, that then raises the question of what the law should do, if anything, to avoid the bad outcome (a child with high risk of congenital disorders or whatever). Should it outlaw marriage between first cousins? Again, this doesn't make much sense. The cousins could produce a child without marrying, or marry without producing a child. Or should there be a law against carrying a child to term with one's cousin? Well, how the hell would you enforce that? DNA testing? Mandatory abortions? It's absurd.

And the question of whether the law should do anything at all leads to the other question I asked you. If the outcome is immoral, and if the law should prevent the outcome, then surely the law should prevent all the acts that lead to such an outcome. That means couples where one of the partners has HIV, or couples including a person with a long family history of bad health. If these couples have children, the outcome is similar to if a cousin couple does. Then must the law prevent this as well? We're getting dangerously close to eugenics. And we're also approaching an abyss which makes surety very difficult. What about all the other circumstances in which a child's quality of life would be reduced? Poverty, or a young mother? Surely it's both impractical and ridiculous to make this illegal too. And anyway there's a basic biological imperative against incest, which results in an automatic repulsion at the concept; it's unlikely to become too common no matter how far society accepts it. Indeed, for 'society' to 'advance' far enough to actually make major changes in attitudes to incest, then there would have to be societal and historical continuity that would probably also include a technological continuity, which might eventually make the problem of gene stock irrelevant. So it seems like legislating specifically against the unethical circumstance might be impossible - or even undesirable.

Where are we now? To my mind we've entered a problem zone. The act of incest may not be immoral. But it can lead, like many other things that we don't ban, to immoral acts. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to come up with a reasonable, practical, legal solution to prevent only unethical acts without also restricting acts which should not, justly, be restricted. It appears we can either be too authoritarian, prohibiting behaviours that aren't fundamentally destructive to anyone's liberty, or we can abandon the project entirely, and permit the unethical bits to happen (if indeed they are unethical). That's what most interests me about the subject: is there a reasonable third way apart from these two alternatives? And if not, which alternative do we choose?

I hope this is suitably comprehensive, whether it's you or me that's been preventing effective communication. Took long enough to write. :dozey:

 

[Kadayi]

Surely it's fairly simple. I accept that "to be born with rude health because you are the resultant of long term inbreeding does impact upon your quality of life". Incest, the definition of which includes banging your sister while wearing a condom, is not necessarily harmful to anyone. But going forward with having a child in such a relationship is a bit more problematic, for reasons we've just gone over. In such a situation, one is aware that there's an increased risk of producing a child with congenital disorders, and yet one goes forward anyway.

It's getting late and I've work in the morning so I can't address everything now (more tomorrow) though it's proving to be an interesting discussion. I think the question I would have to raise with what you've said above is simply whether it's fair to say that simply because no pregnancy was caused no harm was done?

 

[swan_song1973]

its gross and it ****s up your children. look at england (no offense, you guy produce some great musicians).

 

[Sulkdodds]

It's getting late and I've work in the morning so I can't address everything now (more tomorrow) though it's proving to be an interesting discussion. I think the question I would have to raise with what you've said above is simply whether it's fair to say that simply because no pregnancy was caused no harm was done?

Not a problem, as I have work to do myself - I may not be able to respond to the thread again for a few days.

As for the latter point: if you're talking about emotional harm to the individuals involved I can only say that it's up to those individuals what they do to themselves, and as what we problematically call 'consenting adults' they have minds enough to make their own decisions. Other than that, I can't imagine what "harm" you might be thinking of. Changing society's attitudes for the worse? Talk about "realms of the nebulous".

 

[PvtRyan]

I wouldn't criminalize it, not even with children involved, simply because it's a non-issue. The consequences of an authoritarian approach (policing people's sexual behavior) are greater than the consequences of a liberal approach. It's because the first one is a slippery slope: indeed, where does it end, should we 'allow' people with hereditary diseases to procreate, will we demand everyone gets a genetic screening before they are given a license to procreate? While the intention is good, the outcome could be awful.

Will the liberal approach, doing nothing, create lots of mutant babies? No, like I said: it's a non-issue. I doubt you'll suddenly see a boom in the birth of four legged babies simply because consensual incestuous relationships between two adults that also want kids are so rare. There's a huge aversion to it with most people, one that appears to even be biological in nature. And for those that would actually like to bang their brother/sister the social pressure against it is probably enough to stop them from doing it.

The authoritarian approach however will probably do very little to prevent it. The people who would actually consciously produce kids whilst being related are not very likely to care much about the legality of it in the first place. That's ignoring the babies that are produced in the 'heat' (ugh) of the moment where law has zero influence.

 

[Wanted Bob]

I gotta agree with PvtRyan on this one. Its difficult to crack down exclusively on incest, because it is one of many ways that children can inherit genetic diseases.

Saying that, cracking down on ALL sexual activity isnt wise either, because as it has been said, given instinctive and social incentives not to do it, there are probably not that many people out there that this law would affect, compared to the rest of the population.

 

[Geogaddi]

I feel slightly guilty for interjecting a one sentence opinion into what was created as a full on debate, but...

Incest, like abortion, certainly isn't a culturally desirable thing, but it hardly makes sense to attempt to legislate against it...

Pre-Edit: What PvtRyan said

 

[Eejit]

Isn't the current law fairly adequate in this case?
It's illegal for a closely related couple to get married pretty much everywhere. The institution traditionally most geared around child-rearing is closed to incestuous couples.


Also it is different from procreating with inheritable diseases in a few ways. Firstly, when one is diagnosed with such a disorder or disease the medical practitioner will make the patient aware of the risks posed to any children. Very few people will then be callous enough to make the decision to have children once they know this.
With incest there is not necessarily anything apparently wrong with either individual, and those ignorant through lack of education or understanding may thereby be completely unaware of the risks involved to any resulting children. Incestuous marriage being illegal however may get the message through to them that it is indeed a 'bad thing' to do, especially as those ignorant enough to be unaware of the consequences would likely associate marriage strongly with children (I'm thinking here of isolated rural backwaters with poor education standards and 'traditional values') and probably stigmatise childbirth out of wedlock.
As for the other side, an undiagnosed heritable condition would be no more subject to control by law than by a person's morality.

 

[Kadayi]

Talk about "realms of the nebulous".

Cut the attitude. You weren't being clear.

 

[Darkside55]

I'm not going to get into the legality of the issue, or the morality of it, but I just wanted to poke my head in here to say that I found out earlier this year it's legal for first cousins to marry in California.


This information came to me seven years too late.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Cut the attitude. You weren't being clear.

Not trying to be bitchy. Just nicking your terminology; If I wasn't being clear it was because I sounded like I was talking about generals when I was actually talking about specifics; in this case, even with the specifics, we may be getting into cloudy territory if you're trying to quantify the extent of the 'harm' that an individual (childless) cousin couple does to anyone else.

Yeah, I used a dozey smiley to you. Suck it, bitch, etc.

 

[Raziaar]

I've always wondered what it would be like to have a sister.

 

[Darkside55]

I've always wondered what it would be like to have a sister.

Me too, man. Me too.

 

[CptStern]

...it's much like having a brother except you'd both be better dressers/have something more than 0 insight into women









I kid, dont kill me

 

[Darkside55]

I think if I had a brother incest would happen just the same, provided we looked at least 85% like each other. Any less than that and it's up in the air.

 

[Kadayi]

Not trying to be bitchy. Just nicking your terminology; If I wasn't being clear it was because I sounded like I was talking about generals when I was actually talking about specifics; in this case, even with the specifics, we may be getting into cloudy territory if you're trying to quantify the extent of the 'harm' that an individual (childless) cousin couple does to anyone else.

Yeah, I used a dozey smiley to you. Suck it, bitch, etc.

Well I was going to write a full response to the original post, covering the realities of 'liberty' Vs social responsibility rather than the pipe dream of 'liberty' as the right 'to f ucking do whatever I like buddy' and draw a comparison with the childish (and wholly unrealistic) desires of the ID Vs the governing & parental roles of the ego & superego, putting some time in discussing the golden rule as well as tying into the good points made by Pvt Ryan and Eejit, but as it seems you've thrown in the towel I guess there doesn't seem much point.

 

[Sulkdodds]

"Thrown in the towel"? I don't know what makes you think I wouldn't welcome such a post.

 

[Raziaar]

...it's much like having a brother except you'd both be better dressers/have something more than 0 insight into women



I kid, dont kill me

I have insight into women. I just don't care to deal with them.

 

[Darkside55]

Fuck dude I think I'm starting to love you.





gaaaaaaaaay

 

[CptStern]

I have insight into women. I just don't care to deal with them.

knowing how to tie an escape proof knot doesnt count

 

[Sulkdodds]

"Thrown in the towel"? I don't know what makes you think I wouldn't welcome such a post.

To elaborate on this, though:

If you made such a post you'd quickly find I agreed with most of it, from the disdain for a libertarian conception of liberty to the credence leant to freud. But I think it would be difficult to convincingly show that quantifiable harm to anybody could be ascribed to the social effects of an absence of incest law, or even to show that there would be much of a social effect from the absence of incest law.

 

[Raziaar]

knowing how to tie an escape proof knot doesnt count

I never enlisted in the boy scouts.

Fuck dude I think I'm starting to love you.


gaaaaaaaaay

I'm at a loss for words.

Other than those.

And those.

And those.

And those.

 

[Kadayi]

Surely it's fairly simple. I accept that "to be born with rude health because you are the resultant of long term inbreeding does impact upon your quality of life". Incest, the definition of which includes banging your sister while wearing a condom, is not necessarily harmful to anyone. But going forward with having a child in such a relationship is a bit more problematic, for reasons we've just gone over. In such a situation, one is aware that there's an increased risk of producing a child with congenital disorders, and yet one goes forward anyway.

So let's tentatively suppose we can reasonably call it an immoral action to have such a child. We're not saying incest is immoral - or if we are, it is only insofar as it is likely to lead to the more truly immoral act of having such a child (the latter argument doesn't stand up because an incestuous couple could always find ways to avoid conceiving). However, such a child is something we want to avoid and therefore something we want to legislate against.

It might not be immoral (if you follow the dictionary definition), but it's certainly grossly socially irresponsible, in exactly the same manner if you went ahead and had a child knowing that there was a strong possibility you were likely to pass onto them a debilitating condition that either you or your partner carry. If you really want a child, there are plenty of unwanted healthy babies out there looking for homes. Why bring a child into the world, knowing full well that it was likely to suffer from an inherent genetic disorder or another? Is your personal joy at having your own offspring worth that Childs potential life long suffering? A brother/sister pregnancy has a 50% risk of resulting in a disabled child; those are some bold odds to go up against.

One option would be to make incest totally illegal because it's likely to lead to stunted offspring. What we're proposing is that liberty should be restricted, ultimately by use of force, to stop a certain outcome from occurring. But I don't think this is valid because there's no truly necessary connection between the action legislated against and the outcome the legislation wishes to prevent. A man could screw his sister one time, and never again, but he would be guilty in the eyes of the law. Similarly, a cousin couple could deliberately never have childen, and again, they would be worthy of prosecution. There's not enough of a connection; the act doesn't necessary lead to the outcome; it's too slippery a slope.

It's like saying that sex before marriage should be outlawed because it's likely to spread sexual disease. It's quite possible to have loads of sex before marriage while taking precautions to avoid being irresponsible - it's possible to perform the act without causing the bad outcome. So the law, this restriction of liberties, just doesn't seem to be necessary. It would be unjust.

You might as well be arguing that the government should remove speeding restrictions simply because most people drive sensibly. In practice all criminal acts are judged on the individuals actions and assessed accordingly. In the event that the judge feels the determinations of statute law do not adequately fit the situation (IE the defence has a reasonable argument for an exception) then it all likelihood the judge will make a determination that will become case law and set a precedent for all future adjudications that cover similar grounds (same situation as can occur when a case goes to appeal). It's not necessary to wholly repeal a law, it's only necessary to make a strong case to change(amend) it, based on an actual situation (not conjecture).

As regards present laws in relation to incest, it seems to me that legal action only ever occurs where children are the resultant (consider the recent German brother/sister case). Myriad what ifs that don't involve children are pretty much irrelevant in practice. It's not exactly something that's easy to prove otherwise, short of invasion of privacy, and it's not the sort of behaviour people are likely to be open about because of the social stigma attached to it. (If you got drunk and ended up slipping your younger sister a length one New Years Eve, that's your dirty little secret at the end of the day tbh).

However, that then raises the question of what the law should do, if anything, to avoid the bad outcome (a child with high risk of congenital disorders or whatever). Should it outlaw marriage between first cousins? Again, this doesn't make much sense. The cousins could produce a child without marrying, or marry without producing a child. Or should there be a law against carrying a child to term with one's cousin? Well, how the hell would you enforce that? DNA testing? Mandatory abortions? It's absurd. .

Incest in the UK doesn't relate to first cousins (I'm pretty sure only certain states in America still ban it tbh). Incest laws in the UK kind of tie in with UK laws regarding marriage, and specifically whom within your family you can't marry:-

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/family_parent/family/getting_married.htm#Who_can_get_married

Certainly the odds of children born to first cousins having genetic disorders exists, but the odds are significantly less than direct blood relatives, given the input of other non related genes. However the odds are still much higher than between non related adults:-

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/11/time-to-ban-marriages-between-cousins.html

Again it all comes down to social responsibility. The more you can refrain from impregnating your relatives, the less chance you have of breeding invalids (spread the seed far and wide).

And the question of whether the law should do anything at all leads to the other question I asked you. If the outcome is immoral, and if the law should prevent the outcome, then surely the law should prevent all the acts that lead to such an outcome. That means couples where one of the partners has HIV, or couples including a person with a long family history of bad health. If these couples have children, the outcome is similar to if a cousin couple does. Then must the law prevent this as well? We're getting dangerously close to eugenics. And we're also approaching an abyss which makes surety very difficult. What about all the other circumstances in which a child's quality of life would be reduced? Poverty, or a young mother? Surely it's both impractical and ridiculous to make this illegal too. And anyway there's a basic biological imperative against incest, which results in an automatic repulsion at the concept; it's unlikely to become too common no matter how far society accepts it. Indeed, for 'society' to 'advance' far enough to actually make major changes in attitudes to incest, then there would have to be societal and historical continuity that would probably also include a technological continuity, which might eventually make the problem of gene stock irrelevant. So it seems like legislating specifically against the unethical circumstance might be impossible - or even undesirable.

Where are we now? To my mind we've entered a problem zone. The act of incest may not be immoral. But it can lead, like many other things that we don't ban, to immoral acts. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to come up with a reasonable, practical, legal solution to prevent only unethical acts without also restricting acts which should not, justly, be restricted. It appears we can either be too authoritarian, prohibiting behaviours that aren't fundamentally destructive to anyone's liberty, or we can abandon the project entirely, and permit the unethical bits to happen (if indeed they are unethical). That's what most interests me about the subject: is there a reasonable third way apart from these two alternatives? And if not, which alternative do we choose?

I've already rejected the notion of it being immoral, more socially irresponsible. One can argue that there are many situations and circumstances that can equally be adjudged as socially irresponsible which aren't presently marked as illegal. However their present lack of illegality hardly seems a genuine point of justification for arguing that incest is rendered completely legal. Simply because you can kill yourself through alcohol poisoning hardly seems a valid reason to suddenly legalise crack cocaine, Heroin or fire arms. The legalisation of something must stand on it's own arguments first and foremost.

One of the fundamental issues that we haven't touched upon but I think is a major factor regarding the laws of incest is the rather uncomfortable subject of familial control and conduct and how that fits into the scheme of things. Much of the discussion regarding incestuous behaviour in the thread has centred on the slightly idealistic brother/sister or cousin/cousin scenario (which isn't actually illegal), but I think the likely and far more sinister predatory incestuous relationship is that of father/daughter or uncle/niece, and those are not the sort of relationships that should in anyway be encouraged in wider society. Determining consensual behaviour becomes a very tricky subject when you enter the realms of the family dynamic and how emotional control impacts upon behaviour especially went it comes to parents and siblings and the bonds of inherent and innate unconditional love that exist between them. It's fair to say based on the research that a large amount of child abuse of a sexual nature does occur between adults and children/teens. That the child/teen might actually become conditioned to enjoy the behaviour and in fact welcome and initiate it doesn't necessarily mean it's likely to form the cornerstone of a socially healthy relationship. Consensual incestuous paedophilia is perhaps the ultimate taboo, but almost certainly does exist ('Making Daddy happy makes me happy, and Daddy makes me happy too' insert opportunity to vomit here.. ).

As regards present laws in relation to incest, it seems to me that legal action only ever occurs where children are the resultant (consider the recent German brother/sister case). It's not exactly something that's easy to prove otherwise short of invasion of privacy, and it's not the sort of behaviour people are likely to be open about because of the social stigma attached to it. (If you got drunk and end up slipping your younger sister a length one New Years Eve, that's your dirty little secret at the end of the day tbh).

Having addressed your points I best I can, I've a question of my own: -

From your perspective what great social advantage is to be gained from repealing present incest laws? What benefit is it to society and the individual in the long term to allow fathers to marry their daughters, or Aunts to bear the children of their nephews? Bear in mind I don't consider broad appeals to individual personal freedom, or the present lack of legislation regarding poor people not having kids as substantive reasons to deregulate. I'm looking for a solid and convincing argument here and certainly one that tackles the point I've raised about the issues of familial control.

I don't mean this as confrontational post either, but in pondering my responses to your original posting I can't help but feel you haven't really been fully weighing up the issues from the perspective of a given reality but more from an idealistic one, where as distasteful and unpleasant as they are to consider at length, I most certainly have during the day. The thought that my (fictitious) brother might legally be allowed to marry and have a brood of (potentially physically or mentally disabled) children with my (fictitious) daughter isn't the sort of scenario I can personally sign up to in defence of a wider personal liberty I'm afraid.

Given the unrelenting amount of stupid that humanity throws up everyday on our news screens, my faith in other people innately knowing what is right and what is wrong and doing the right thing without the occasional form of legislature being in place to safeguard certain behaviours is fairly lacking tbh.

I recommend reading this:-

http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~leeey/stupidity/basic.htm

It possesses a jocular tone, but there is deep kernel of truth running through it.


All people who inherently hate my guts are more than welcome to roll in with tales of how they'd happily impregnate and marry their nieces given half a chance, simply to spite me :dozey:

 

[15357]

I live in where the legal system has it that adultery is punishable by law with jailtime (It's a long story, but to make it short, it's for women's rights, and feminist organizations actually support this idea), but not incest. This is damned weird.

I know its not for religious reasons, because religion is frowned upon by many, and the idea of religious laws would be tentamount to murder.


However, I think that since we live in the moral standards of our times, and our times generally forbid incest (except a few cultures, namely Japan), we should follow it. No, I'm not going to spout self-righteous moral verbatim at you (although I could, I suppose). Incest is counterculture. It's not accepted by society, not just yet. And a disruption of this moral zeitgeist would entail consequences. Dissent will grow among the ranks of the more conservative or 'moral', and the religious.

Seriously, I've seen people kill each other for less, we don't need another subject to fight over for. Better to let society take its course, without anarchy, chaos, or disorder. (And reap we shall)


As for #2, since we don't have laws that control mating between humans with known genetic disorders (it's an idea, though), I don't see why we should control mating between siblings. However, the very idea of siblings mating/marrying disgusts me. But that's just my opinion.