Legalization of Incest in some countries
0
I have no problems with incest. As Kestrel said it can cause mutations in the human genome. I think that the law needs to be a bit clearer on the definition of incest. Since, by law, I'm related to my family but, being adopted, I'm not genetically related to my family. As a hypothetical is its illegal if I slept with one of my biological family? I don't actually know my biological family, so I would not be able to tell if I'm related to them. Since this hypothetical, a VERY slim chance, is an example of incest is it illegal?
Personally I have no attraction to my family, but I don't have anything against incest being legalized.
Personally I have no attraction to my family, but I don't have anything against incest being legalized.
0
The ONLY arguing point anti-incest protesters have is the possible deformations the child can suffer from. With this same logic, we should also prohibit anyone with a large history of cancer, or diabetes to breed as well. Let everyone do whatever the frak they want as long as they don't bother anyone else
0
I love the statement "the only thing anti-incest protesters have" being the higher likelihood of deformities or diseases in the event of childbirth between the two. That is not a small problem. Keep in mind that in the case of most countries, yes, everyone has to pay a small part in the upbringing of your children, and can easily be upset that you decided to roll the dice in a loaded game of genetics.
I say if the people wanting to have incest are willing to have - and pay for, not have it funded by the health care of their respective country - sterilization performed on both parties, then by all means. Even then, they need to be on computer systems and logged should either party be involved with a newborn so a proper investigation into the newborn's genetics can be run.
You shouldn't be willing to ask the rest of your society to foot the bill because you can't look outside your own family for love.
I say if the people wanting to have incest are willing to have - and pay for, not have it funded by the health care of their respective country - sterilization performed on both parties, then by all means. Even then, they need to be on computer systems and logged should either party be involved with a newborn so a proper investigation into the newborn's genetics can be run.
You shouldn't be willing to ask the rest of your society to foot the bill because you can't look outside your own family for love.
0
The thing is, it's something that CAN and SHOULD be controlled. While other couples may have a higher chance of having a child with heart issues or something like that, it's nothing compared to the chances of you having a problem child with someone you're related to.
You're doing a disservice to your country - but obviously you don't care about that.
You're hurting the people in your country - but apparently you don't care about them.
You're very likely ruining the life of your offspring.
But, you got to have sex with your sibling/parent. Congratulations?
So selfish.
You're doing a disservice to your country - but obviously you don't care about that.
You're hurting the people in your country - but apparently you don't care about them.
You're very likely ruining the life of your offspring.
But, you got to have sex with your sibling/parent. Congratulations?
So selfish.
0
any child born of incest would probably have some issues but hey...its not my life. people can do what they want. I just hope they are ready for the consequences.
0
SolidShark wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
Spoiler:
Don't you think a lot more money goes on war, vandalism, and countless other crap than just two people who take a mere fifty percent chance of a healthy/damaged child? Doesn't abortion exist? There are millions of children with retardation who weren't the result from incest, you know? Many people have mentioned that the chances of genetic failures are the same of that of a forty year old woman, and you don't see the government sterilizing milfs.
Not to mention, just because it is legal doesn't mean people will be willing to do it, you know?
All your points are very moot.
"Other worse things cost more money, so let people fuck their sisters to make children that have a higher chance of producing sick/mentally challenged children that will leech money from everyone's pocket through taxes because two people couldn't be bothered to look outside their own family. But vandalism and war exist! Incest should be okay because of that!" Um, garbage.
"Retardation can occur outside of incest! Let incest happen!" The chance is a lot HIGHER with incest than with the pairing of any normal pair of people when the mother doesn't drink or smoke or do drugs during childbirth.
"Just because it would be legal, doesn't mean people would do it, you know?" If it's allowed, it introduces the possibility that my taxes would have to be put towards a child produced from incest that has genetic/mental issues even though they should know better. Like the government doesn't waste enough of our money already, now you want them to toss it out by the barrelful because people can't find love outside their own family? Making them sterile and giving them the option to adopt would be acceptable. I refuse to pay just because you and your sister want to get it on.
0
SolidShark wrote...
1: When was the last time people could decide whee the tax money goes? Countries such as Argentina and Spain, and Russia had difficult financial problems which are not from incest.
2: Something called contraceptives, ever heard of 'em?
3: I seriously think it is wrong to sterilize others. I see it on par with mutilation.
4: "Can't love outside the family". A family, is a basic social unit which amasses people, money, and influences. Homosexuality isn't repressed because it still makes profit gains. In incest, the materials stay the same, in primitive societies, this was an obstacle, and thus was considered taboo.
5: In America, in some states (Florida) people are allowed to insert their genitials or have an animals genitials in them, but can't mate with a human being which shares some blood with them. The animal might have a disease or hurt the human and cost insurance money, and yet the people give the blind side and say that those who oppose it. Note the hipocrisy in our society?
6: You don't live in Russia, Spain, Turkey, or Argentina do you? How does it affect you?
7: If there are still countries where people can find their happiness, let them be. The worlds gone mad and we keep having ridiculous laws forced down our throats. Let the people still have their small breaths of freedom in this unfree world, I say.
8: Do you expect me to change my mind? I am an aunt-con you know, so my thoughts are anchored to my lifetime crush and complex. I didn't really understand that we weren't blood related until eight, but I still liked her, regardless if we would have been related or not. Nothing happened, even if the law would have allowed incest, she wouldn't have been interested in me. Bringing us back to: Not everyone will do it, just a really small percent, it takes two people to commit incest, and people will always have a social repulsion to it or are just not interested in the family.
9: In some countries, relations between blood-unrelated people who are joined as family are still banned and labeled incest. What about legalization of that? There would be not a single genetic risk at all, so why is it banned? OP's question was vague, so we might as well include them.
1. People can choose whether their taxes go towards things like paying for people who go out of their way to buck against genetic odds. This is WHY incest is not accepted as a rule in society.
2. Contraceptives are not 100% guaranteed to work, and are not mandatory, and thus do not protect me against having my taxes go to support said offspring of siblings.
3. This was an option for those who want to have a relationship within their family so they could not be a burden on society. Don't want it? Fine, incest is not allowed. Fixed?
4. Homosexuality never created genetically inferior offspring my tax dollars had to go towards.
5. My society is NOT American society, and I certainly note the problems in their society. I can make statements online in my society without fear of being misunderstood and being put in a jail cell until it's all sorted out.
6. It affects me if you're talking about it happening in ANY country where the whole have to foot some of the cost for medical procedures. This happens in a lot more than the countries you listed.
7. "Oh, the world is unjust, let me fuck my sister." It's like you're not even trying here.
8. My arguments are just my opinions, and certainly not geared towards changing your mind, more than stating what I believe. I don't care who you have a crush on, and IF you live in a country where if you and your aunt - or whatever family member - had a child and the costs of raising that child were 100% your own - nothing coming from taxes AT ALL - which I am unsure, but fairly certain doesn't exist - by all means.
9. I am not including them as they are not the same as those related by blood. If you want to argue unrelated by blood incest being legalized in another thread, go ahead - I won't even enter it as I wouldn't care.
0
It was always a victimless crime. Anything between 2 consenting adults is alright...as long as they aren't doing Guro stuff like cutting eachother's limbs off.
0
SolidShark wrote...
SolidShark wrote...
Muh freedomeccihigaijin wrote...
Muh tax monehThis about covers our conversation for the next ten pages. Might avoid it by just pointing our main points., and let others decide for themselves. Every freedom has a price, and that one, I believe, is so insignificant that nobody will be bothered by it.
Sure. So much so that you won't see incest legalized, like, ever.
Try bringing this point up on a forum where a good percentage of the users don't at the very least read stories about incest on a regular basis, and the response you see will be a good indication of how likely it is ever to happen.
0
I could make a wall of text on this subject, but ill refrain from it..
As simple as possible, We love who we love, even if its family. Social norms are shit and should be ignored. We have no reason not to love (sexually) our family. Love is Love.
As simple as possible, We love who we love, even if its family. Social norms are shit and should be ignored. We have no reason not to love (sexually) our family. Love is Love.
0
SolidShark wrote...
1: My main point is that it should stay legal in the countrues that allow it.
2: I don't think I can chsnge the world, but I do state my opinions whenever I see fit.
3: Why force my ideals on a place where they wouldn't be seen in the same light? I prefer being with people with my same pesrspectives as me than those who oppose.
1) This is fine, seeing as the country I live in, and the one I am a citizen of don't condone this behaviour. I don't care which countries allow people to have to see their tax money go to genetically unfit children (that could easily have been predicted since the father and mother are blood related). To make it clear, I have issues with people who abuse the welfare system, for example, or other misuses of systems set in place to help people. This extends to people who should know that if they make offspring with their relatives, the chance of them making a greater strain on my tax money is increased extraordinarily.
2) Of course, and everyone should. I'm just saying the likelihood of changing it is very unlikely. If there were no genetic factors that pretty much point out doing it is stupid (no offence), or if you lived in a country where not a damned red cent of whatever costs your child gathers (other than those a child with no genetic problems would need - your child needs normal schooling, for example, of course, fine, your child needs extra schooling DUE TO the genetic problems caused by incest - not by say, an accident where he got hit in the head after being born - you should pay the extra as the parent), I would have no issues, personally. But unfortunately, genetics are hamstrung in the case of incest, and as far as I know, there's no country that, if it allows incest openly - and thus children of incest - doesn't force the costs of a genetically inferior child on everyone in that country.
3) Where have you found a country that - even if they accept incest, are openly okay about it? From what I've read about the countries that are okay with it - LEGALLY - there are still tons of attacks on people who participate in such acts, be they verbal or physical. While those attacks are wrong, I think they express that while some politician up in the ranks may have been okay with incest (loves his mother/sister or something), the general populace is not so forgiving. If you live in a country, anywhere, where you could say you boned your sister last night and no one would treat you any differently than if you had been with someone outside your bloodline, by all means, for the people who are for incest in this thread - post your country's name!
0
Athio wrote...
Post above me explains my pov rather well, i get that the harm to the potential child is a price to pay, honestly i never thought about the taxes portion of it. The problem is the grey area that we are dealing with. Where do we draw the line and how defined is it. Can a brother and sister marry but not have kids, should they be cut of government spending to treat their child if they have a kid. Should they be fined substantially if they have a child together?Athio from what I understand if brother and sister have a child together that first generation is generally okay. If Brother and Sister A have two children who then have sex and have a child this is where the problems start occurring. The main problem with continuous incest is that it narrows the gene pool considerably which leads to problems like anemia or sickle cell disease (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Incest is not personally my cup of tea, but I'm not going to stop people who really care about each other from getting together. I do think there should be a considerable amount of discussion between the two involved however to try and decern if they are really willing to have sex/go all out with each other or are just viewing each other through the rose colored filter. Since I'm from America incest is generally viewed very negatively... I want people to be happy with themselves and the person they chose so although it is not my cup of tea I would support legalization of incest so long as they do not cause harm to others.
0
blackdragonflower wrote...
Athio wrote...
Post above me explains my pov rather well, i get that the harm to the potential child is a price to pay, honestly i never thought about the taxes portion of it. The problem is the grey area that we are dealing with. Where do we draw the line and how defined is it. Can a brother and sister marry but not have kids, should they be cut of government spending to treat their child if they have a kid. Should they be fined substantially if they have a child together?Athio from what I understand if brother and sister have a child together that first generation is generally okay. If Brother and Sister A have two children who then have sex and have a child this is where the problems start occurring. The main problem with continuous incest is that it narrows the gene pool considerably which leads to problems like anemia or sickle cell disease (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Incest is not personally my cup of tea, but I'm not going to stop people who really care about each other from getting together. I do think there should be a considerable amount of discussion between the two involved however to try and decern if they are really willing to have sex/go all out with each other or are just viewing each other through the rose colored filter. Since I'm from America incest is generally viewed very negatively... I want people to be happy with themselves and the person they chose so although it is not my cup of tea I would support legalization of incest so long as they do not cause harm to others.
This would be one of the problems witha free open law. We could bank on the fact that it would be rare to have two generations of incest. We could always make a law but as i said in an earlier post, there alot of moral laws which are hard to enforce. So we would just have to hedge our bets and let it go. It's not like we don't already do this. We allow the sales of alchol knowing full well it's going to lead to drunk driving acidents. What this entire isue boils down to me is what i have said. We could turn into the anti fun police totalitiarian types and regulate how sharp the edges of a table are or go off the assumption that if we educate people they will go off their best judgement.
0
blackdragonflower wrote...
from what I understand if brother and sister have a child together that first generation is generally okay.The percentages increase with the very first pairing. The only pairing producing a higher chance than a parent-child or sibling-sibling pairing is a very unlikely pairing, clone/clone. Of course a product of sibling incest having sibling incest is going to only make things worse, but this doesn't mean that those two first types of incest mentioned aren't doing the equivalent of tossing a coin.
And if you're nifty with paying for someone else tossing a coin to see if their child will be all right, and as a member of society having to pay for that child and all the medical treatment they will need above the norm, education they may need above the norm, then all the power to you, and I hope you find a country that allows this that is not the one I live in, nor the one I am a citizen of.
0
ecchigaijin wrote...
blackdragonflower wrote...
from what I understand if brother and sister have a child together that first generation is generally okay.The percentages increase with the very first pairing. The only pairing producing a higher chance than a parent-child or sibling-sibling pairing is a very unlikely pairing, clone/clone. Of course a product of sibling incest having sibling incest is going to only make things worse, but this doesn't mean that those two first types of incest mentioned aren't doing the equivalent of tossing a coin.
And if you're nifty with paying for someone else tossing a coin to see if their child will be all right, and as a member of society having to pay for that child and all the medical treatment they will need above the norm, education they may need above the norm, then all the power to you, and I hope you find a country that allows this that is not the one I live in, nor the one I am a citizen of.
Yet your still cool with people drinking iresonsibly when the trafic control after an inevitable drunk crash still comes out of tax payers wallets? I get what you mean when you say you don't want to dish up for other peoples mistakes yet as a society we already do its unavoidable in a non totalitarian society. The question should be is it really that much more a chance that we will have to cover compaired to something like drunk driving. Like what is the actual cance a child born from incest will require special attention.(i still havent seen this) Why do people who love eachother have less rights then some guy looking to get cold stone drunk? We let a person drink knowing full well they have a good chance of causing a car crash, yet we wont let two people be together because theres what i'd presume is a small chance for a birth defect in their child.
1
Besides theft, rape, and murder- let people do whatever the fuck they want.
Exceptions for theft if it's from people who can really afford it- rich fucking bastards.
Exceptions for theft if it's from people who can really afford it- rich fucking bastards.
0
Athio wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
blackdragonflower wrote...
from what I understand if brother and sister have a child together that first generation is generally okay.The percentages increase with the very first pairing. The only pairing producing a higher chance than a parent-child or sibling-sibling pairing is a very unlikely pairing, clone/clone. Of course a product of sibling incest having sibling incest is going to only make things worse, but this doesn't mean that those two first types of incest mentioned aren't doing the equivalent of tossing a coin.
And if you're nifty with paying for someone else tossing a coin to see if their child will be all right, and as a member of society having to pay for that child and all the medical treatment they will need above the norm, education they may need above the norm, then all the power to you, and I hope you find a country that allows this that is not the one I live in, nor the one I am a citizen of.
Yet your still cool with people drinking iresonsibly when the trafic control after an inevitable drunk crash still comes out of tax payers wallets? I get what you mean when you say you don't want to dish up for other peoples mistakes yet as a society we already do its unavoidable in a non totalitarian society. The question should be is it really that much more a chance that we will have to cover compaired to something like drunk driving. Like what is the actual cance a child born from incest will require special attention.(i still havent seen this) Why do people who love eachother have less rights then some guy looking to get cold stone drunk? We let a person drink knowing full well they have a good chance of causing a car crash, yet we wont let two people be together because theres what i'd presume is a small chance for a birth defect in their child.
What? Last I looked, drinking and driving is still illegal. Drinking is not illegal, driving is not illegal, so you can't block access to either. The likelihood of someone who drinks driving drunk is nowhere near as high as an incestual relationship producing a child that will need more medical attention or schooling than a normal child. Half of humanity would be dead on New Year's Eve if anywhere near as many people went drinking and driving as you figure.
Again, your presumption of a SMALL chance of a birth defect is WRONG. Look up the coefficients involved in incestual relationships. The only thing that provides a higher chance of defect than a parent-child or sibling-sibling relationship is a CLONE-CLONE relationship. Somewhat unlikely to happen. The familial fucking (and resulting handicap on society), we can stop.
I'll bring up the alternative that if the mother and father (of the incestual child) are willing to sign away all social insurance rights beyond that of a normal child, then by all means. But once that child requires something a normal child would not require, they either pay up personally, or the child doesn't get it. Same goes for educational. Or the incestuous pair can pay for their own sterilization (so neither of them can have children). If you ask me, it's a lot fairer than the judgement now (generally jail time).
0
ecchigaijin wrote...
Athio wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
blackdragonflower wrote...
from what I understand if brother and sister have a child together that first generation is generally okay.The percentages increase with the very first pairing. The only pairing producing a higher chance than a parent-child or sibling-sibling pairing is a very unlikely pairing, clone/clone. Of course a product of sibling incest having sibling incest is going to only make things worse, but this doesn't mean that those two first types of incest mentioned aren't doing the equivalent of tossing a coin.
And if you're nifty with paying for someone else tossing a coin to see if their child will be all right, and as a member of society having to pay for that child and all the medical treatment they will need above the norm, education they may need above the norm, then all the power to you, and I hope you find a country that allows this that is not the one I live in, nor the one I am a citizen of.
Yet your still cool with people drinking iresonsibly when the trafic control after an inevitable drunk crash still comes out of tax payers wallets? I get what you mean when you say you don't want to dish up for other peoples mistakes yet as a society we already do its unavoidable in a non totalitarian society. The question should be is it really that much more a chance that we will have to cover compaired to something like drunk driving. Like what is the actual cance a child born from incest will require special attention.(i still havent seen this) Why do people who love eachother have less rights then some guy looking to get cold stone drunk? We let a person drink knowing full well they have a good chance of causing a car crash, yet we wont let two people be together because theres what i'd presume is a small chance for a birth defect in their child.
What? Last I looked, drinking and driving is still illegal. Drinking is not illegal, driving is not illegal, so you can't block access to either. The likelihood of someone who drinks driving drunk is nowhere near as high as an incestual relationship producing a child that will need more medical attention or schooling than a normal child. Half of humanity would be dead on New Year's Eve if anywhere near as many people went drinking and driving as you figure.
Again, your presumption of a SMALL chance of a birth defect is WRONG. Look up the coefficients involved in incestual relationships. The only thing that provides a higher chance of defect than a parent-child or sibling-sibling relationship is a CLONE-CLONE relationship. Somewhat unlikely to happen. The familial fucking (and resulting handicap on society), we can stop.
I'll bring up the alternative that if the mother and father (of the incestual child) are willing to sign away all social insurance rights beyond that of a normal child, then by all means. But once that child requires something a normal child would not require, they either pay up personally, or the child doesn't get it. Same goes for educational. Or the incestuous pair can pay for their own sterilization (so neither of them can have children). If you ask me, it's a lot fairer than the judgement now (generally jail time).
Your interpenetration of my argument is wrong i never said that drunk driving and incest had anywhere near the same number incidents, i was trying to compare they are both activities where the user can unintentionally cost tax payer money. Yet those that are drinking aren't as regulated as someone who wants to marry a sibling.
in this last comment you mention that relatives that get married should be required to get sterilized as not to have children, yet when someone orders a drink it's not common practice to ask for his keys in exchange. Why is it that we feel no need to take no extra steps to stop drunk drivers other then just saying it's illegal. But a Brother and sister in your opinion have to be sterilized before they they should be allowed to get married. We make the perfectly legal thing that leads to the illegal action illegal (marriage) because it could lead the illegal action. Yet we don't do that for drinking, and see no need to even take extra steps to stop the illegal action, such as taking the drinkers keys.
I looked it up and there is a more severe risk between brother sister yes, but the data is highly under developed for close relative relationships like brother sister. They place the rating for death at 30% over a normal birth and for birth defects at 10%, but the percentage for birth defects isn't actually from a test it's self but merely multiplied from the data collected in the first cousin test.The data for death compiled from only four cases which says there's a 31.4% excess chance of death. The four cases have very small test pools of only 213 children, with no clarification that the children died exclusively to a genetic defect. These four test boiling down to being simple assertions made on far too small a sample size, not proper testing.
But i also found something out that puts a twist into the entire argument. They can test a couple before hand to find out if they share a potentially dangerous recessive gene. So should we allow close relationship couples have kids if they show no signs of dangerous genes?
Side note: Telling someone to look it up themselves when you aren't visibly making an assumption leaves you in a bad light intellectually. Not being able to verify you facts directly is the same as saying nothing at all since they can find different facts and interpenetrate them differently.
Citations:
http://www.larasig.com/node/2020
http://www.genetics.edu.au/Publications-and-Resources/Genetics-Fact-Sheets/When-Parentsare-Relative-Consanguinity-Genetic-Testing-Screening-and-Prevention-FS16