Legalization of Incest in some countries

My interpenetration? Yes, I'll note at the very start of your post I have to start making assumptions, as that isn't a word. As for "unintentionally costing the tax payer money", you should be put away for both drunk driving AND incest. Unless, of course, you find a country/state where people are cool with paying for the fact you couldn't keep it out of your sister. Thankfully, neither my home country or the country I live in now apply.

In my home country, when someone has had visibly over the limit, we DO ask for their keys, stop them from leaving to go to their vehicle, call a cab, etc. It's common practice. We also have police generally stationed close to bars to make sure the driving that is taking place is not of the drunk variety. This is not the case with every country, naturally, but just because it doesn't happen in yours, don't assume it doesn't happen anywhere. As for your connection - again - to drinking/driving and incestual marriage/incestual children, I would put a MUCH higher chance on a married couple producing - or trying for - a child than I would put on a drunk person trying to drive while intoxicated. Not the same thing.

In terms of your "lack of results" - you might be looking at human testing. There are plenty of incestuous animal relationships which show the risks involved, and while our genes are different, the effects of two people who have close genetic matches procreating are going to be the same. Disagree if you like, whine about me not providing links if you like. I really don't care.

As for the testing, it does not provide 100% readings. There are people who have had that testing (non-blood related), it showed there should be no danger, and the child ended up being born of a birth defect anyhow. In a country where I live - and thus pay taxes - I would not agree with a couple who has a statistically higher chance of producing birth defects BY DEFAULT having children.

Side note: Not terribly worried about how people view me on the Internet. Don't need to provide links and such because if you're capable of using Google, you can find whatever information you'd like. Unless you're trying to "put me in a bad light" because it stops you from being a lazy ass. Did you actually have to put in effort? Poor you.

People who have to pay for the inbred children that brings around and increased costs for medical and educational care should. I mean, people whine about the smallest things they have to pay for with their taxes now, and inbred children and the associated costs is NOT a small thing.

That being said, if there was a way to allow them to be together and have children if they want and the costs of those children not passed on to taxpayers - which also includes costs regarding protection for those involved, as even if they made incest legal you KNOW there would be attacks on them. However, legalizing it but not passing those costs on to the general public would be "immoral", so leave it as it is.

There's a link somewhere, and the information is available on the Internet. If you want to find it, though, put through the effort. I don't care to, this is your spare time. I won't ask you to make links for the "facts" you stated, either.

As for the "couple percent", depending on the coupling you're speaking of, the "couple percent" could be up to 50%. That's a whole lot of couple. There is a LOT higher chance of an incestual relationship producing an unhealthy and or mentally inhibited child. As I said, I'd be all for allowing those relationships if there was a way of making sure if the children needed support above the "average", given the fact the parents knew of the increased likelihood of their children having these problems, that the parents foot the bill. There is no way for that to happen.

It's not the raising of taxes I'm protesting, it's what the taxes are used FOR. I have no problems if my taxes are put towards improving roads, paying to keep fire engines and ambulances running, or other things that make the country better. I do have an issue with my taxes going towards paying for a child that has a significantly higher chance of being unhealthy and/or mentally disabled AND THE PARENTS KNEW DAMNED WELL. If two siblings want to have a kid and foot all the bill, or better yet, pay for their own clipping and cutting to make sure they CAN'T have kids, fine. Unfortunately, if that were enforced it would be "being unfair", so we have to settle for it being illegal altogether.

Do you think mandatory self-paid sterilizations or mandatory paying of "above average" childrens' health care is worse than going to jail for having the relationship? Even though my personal opinion will never be used to make laws in a country, I think what I'm offering lends a hand to those who want that type of relationship and those who don't want to pay for inbred children with their tax money. Best of both worlds.

I don't understand how you can't see the contradictions in your argument.
You think 1 in 10 people who drink won't go driving afterwards? I believe most would. i.e. I think more than 5 out of 10 would go driving after having a drink.
Are you aware that taking just one standard drink impairs your reaction time and alertness?
I have studied pathophysiology. Smoking, alcohol, bad diet, a sedentary lifestyle. These ridiculously common things have horrible effects on your body, probably worse than you realise (almost definitely, if you haven't studied this). And when they require care, it's government subsidised.

Perhaps 1 in 10 who take a drink and drive won't get into an accident, but let's not look at percentages anymore. It's not as relevant as the actual number.
The amount of people who engage in the former debilitating health factors is far more than the number of people who would engage in incest if it were legalised. How many incestuous couple do you think there would be? 100? 1000? 10000?
In fact, you're already assuming that more people would commit incest if it were legalised. Why assume that legalising it would increase the amount of people who start feeling attracted to their immediate family?
The Westermarck Effect won't suddenly vanish thank to our artificial laws. People won't suddenly be oblivious to every potential mate outside of their household.

Now that you've considered the amount of people who would engage in incest compared to the amount that smoke or drink or eat fatty foods or even remain seated in their waking life (yes, this is bad) hours a day, consider this:
How many of that former fraction would choose to have children knowing the possible side-effects? How many of that fraction of children would be born with a defect? How many of the fraction born with a defect would require the government to help in some way with costs?
And how many couples would choose to adopt instead, if they felt the need to care for children together?
Less than the number of people we have to care for thanks to their smoking habit.

You can't pick and choose and remain logically consistent. You have to go all or nothing. You don't want something as it's a causal factor of disease? You must advocate the removal of all the unnecessary ones.
I don't agree with incest. I just can't bear the contradictions in your logic.

Another couple of questions:
Do you want couples with recessive diseases such as cystic fibrosis to be sterlised?
If a fetus is found to have Downs Syndrome, do you want enforced abortion?
How about sickle-celled anaemia? It's an interesting one, you should look it up, it's effects depending on whether it's heterozygous or homozygous and especially it's relation to malaria.

In reply to OP, I feel the need to point out that those countries don't punish you for having sex, but they also do not allow you to marry incestuously. Seems illogical but I guess it's their way of showing their disapproval.

Perhaps I know a lot of responsible people, whereas you know a lot of dicks. I also am from a country where people who drink and drive are dealt with harshly (I currently live in Japan, and while they are not nearly as harsh, at least they aren't in the "drinking and driving is an acceptable HOBBY phase", and if we went into a list of things I would change about Japan if I could, we'd be here all day). Seriously, drinking and driving is one thing even the liberals won't argue against, so people who do that pay the price.

As for drinking, smoking, other horrible lifestyle choices? Drinking and smoking are taxed heavily where I am from (as my country has free healthcare - of course not free - it means the people who smoke or drink pay more and thus put more money into the healthcare system), so people who make those lifestyle choices pay more for the privilege of doing so. Children of an incestual couple get no such choice.

How many incestuous couples would have offspring? See, there's the kicker. You can't - or it would be very hard to - stop incest at having children, so it's best just to make the whole act illegal. As I mentioned, I'd be all for letting incestual couples be if there was no possible way for them to have children, because despite their honest wishes not to, accidents can happen, and the Western world is too strong against abortion of any kind to really argue that they can just fuck and if an accident happens, abort the fetus. Like I said, make them both infertile, then let them go at it.

As for normal couples who would have children that would be a burden on society? From what I know, we are not at the point where this test can be done with minimal cost for every couple looking to conceive. If we were, I'd be all for those people who have a risk EQUAL or higher to incest signing a waiver saying they'd pay for all excess costs involved in raising their child. We're not there yet.

I'm not making incest the only ones to pay excess costs, just the only ones who would have to by default, because by default, the rates of problems with incestual children are excessively high.

People don't drink and drive automatically, and they don't make the decision to sit on a couch all day long or smoke pot or what not from birth.

You see, as far as you've mentioned, this person you know who was born with multiple disorders did not have a huge warning ahead of time of a high likelihood of this happening. Incestual relationships do. And if you allow them to be together, then it's not very kosher to deny them the right to have offspring, and definitely not the type of political climate in most countries where if there is an accidental pregnancy that it would be cool to tell them to go get it aborted.

Aside from the obvious toll on taxpayer's dollars that doesn't need to be there - how ridiculous is that to force such a high rate of possible birth defects on a child? I mean, explaining to a child that isn't from an incestuous relationship why they are different is one thing. Explaining to a child that has birth defects that the reason they're different or suffering or what have you is because Mommy and Daddy are related, and although they knew that having a child together would have a much higher chance of that child having defects, they went ahead and did it anyhow. How selfish can you be?

As I've said before, I'd be fine with incestuous couples being allowed to be together if there was a way to ensure no incestuous offspring. But once you've allowed the relationship, not only would it be very hard to enforce the no offspring rule, but there would be a huge uprising against it. That's probably a main reason why it's just stayed illegal for as long as it has.

Let them get neutered by a government monitored department, then they can do whatever they want and not subject their would-be children to genetic issues. Win win. And it would take the people who REALLY, REALLY want to be in a relationship to go through with it. It would require bi-annual check-ins with a doctor (because even fertilization is not 100%), but if people are willing to go through with that, then by all means.

This of course applies only to incestual couples that can produce offspring.