Why Incest Should be Legal

[ku]

The Australian media has attacked the LDP because of its policy of legalizing incest. The LDP claims incest is a victimless crime.

 

Suppose we were to adopt a capitalist system of morality. The reason why capitalists should believe incest should be legalized is the same reason why free trade should be legalized. Evident in the failure of communism, politicians are not good at running your life. Under a capitalist system, you as an individual choose what car to buy, what stocks to buy, or whom you have sex with. If a man decides through his own contemplation that buying a Ford is his choice, then capitalists believe in the consumer given the right to choose rather than having the government force a car brand on the people. Similarly, if a father decides through his own contemplation that having sex with his daughter is his choice, then capitalists believe in the consumer given the right to choose.

 

Of course, we are assuming the daughter is mature and old enough to consent to sexual intercourse.

 

When I said that the “consumer” should be given the right to choose, some people might argue that sexual intervourse is not a “business” agreement. Well, what is business? Business is trade. Trade is the exchange of goods or services between two trading entities. Sexual intercourse then is trade or business because it involves the exchange of sexual services between two people. Prostitution is trade because it involves an exchange of money for sexual services. But incestual sex between mother and son is also a business trade because it involves the mutual bilateral exchange of sexual service.

 

An argument can be made that incest can have a negative externality on any babies born because inbreeding among family members can increase the probability that heritable diseases may be expressed. The Royal Family’s decision to inbreed to keep the wealth inside the family led to subsequent births of weak children.

 

Because of this health problem that comes about from inbreeding, I recomment the LDP legalize incest but in order to neutralize any threat of negative externality the LDP should enforce the use of condoms if the father-daughter, father-son, mother-son, etc engage in intercourse that involves penile-vaginal penetration and possibly encourage sex that minimizes the risk of pregnancy, such as oral sex, anal sex, urine sex, and so forth.

 

The LDP is right. Incest is a victimless crime. If a father and son who are both over 18 decide to have sex then both of them are happy and no one else is worse off. What these two people (or three or more if they decide to engage in group sex) do is their own private business.

[CDarwin]

Insest isn't a victimless crime insomuch as society stands to suffer from genetic degredation in productions of couplings. Enforcing condoms is really no means to circumvent that, at least not one that any libertarian belief system like the one this decriminialization is based on could be comfortable with. I think there really is a point where even "modern" Western societies should be allowed to maintain some of their taboos, not for the sake of morality, but just for the greater long-term good of society.

[Mr Skeptic]

Suppose we were to adopt a capitalist system of morality.

 

By your system of morality, it would also be morally right to sell laws to the highest bidder. Then we could buy laws outlawing homosexuality, bestiality, and incest (since the people who find these repugnant will outnumber those that do not). Hence, it is likely that incest would be illegal with the capitalist system of morality.

[YT2095]

repugnant

 

THAT`S the word I was looking for!

[ghstofmaxwll]

I didnt think incest was illegal, I've never know anyone to be nicked for it in Britain anyway.

[YT2095]

it is as far as Legal arrangements are concerned with Marriage, and probably for the reasons perfectly outlined by CDarwin in post #2

[ghstofmaxwll]

Strangely, I've heard of arrest for bigamy, but not incest with a consenting party.

[Phi for All]

Strangely, I've heard of arrest for bigamy, but not incest with a consenting party.

Why is that strange? If the parties are consenting it would be strange if the police ever heard about it.

 

 

 

 

My argument is the same as all the other threads ku has started about incest (a definite obsession there). Consent doesn't mean a child is ready for sex. A child who is not emotionally ready may consent to a parent without understanding all the ramifications. Incest should not be legalized because it also throws open the doors to all pedophiles (another ku obsession).

 

I don't know why I bother with these threads. ku rarely comes back to defend his arguments.

[iNow]

Incest is a victimless crime.

 

You clearly haven't watched the move Deliverance recently, or perhaps episode #75 of the X-Files.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_%28The_X-Files%29

 

 

 

Joking aside, to claim this is "victimless" (much like your bestiality arguments) is a significant misrepresentation of the psychological literature and long term emotional impact.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Why is that strange? If the parties are consenting it would be strange if the police ever heard about it.

 

 

 

 

My argument is the same as all the other threads ku has started about incest (a definite obsession there). Consent doesn't mean a child is ready for sex. A child who is not emotionally ready may consent to a parent without understanding all the ramifications. Incest should not be legalized because it also throws open the doors to all pedophiles (another ku obsession).

 

I don't know why I bother with these threads. ku rarely comes back to defend his arguments.

 

I said "incest with a consenting party", I thought it went without saying that this implies "all parties involved are over the age of consent", but I guess we cant all be quick.

[YT2095]

but you Didn`t say it, and so his point is Valid, mind reading never Was or likely to ever Be, Part of Science.

 

Specifics Bob, Specifics!

[ghstofmaxwll]

But it was clear my contention wasnt about whether I thought paedophilia is legal in my country, it was whether I thought incest of a non-paedophile/rape nature was policed in my country. Jesus Christ! Only a dick would think I was including paedophilia in my doubts of legality in Britain.

[YT2095]

now now, there`s no need to Blaspheme!

 

do you see Me getting my Lab coat in a bunch? NO, so chill!

[Phi for All]

I said "incest with a consenting party", I thought it went without saying that this implies "all parties involved are over the age of consent", but I guess we cant all be quick.

Notice all the extra spaces I put between my reply to you and my thoughts on ku's OP? A quick person would know I was trying to separate them so they wouldn't be confused.

 

I wasn't lumping pedophilia with incest, I was merely saying that, if both incestuous parties are consenting, why would anyone ever be arrested for it? I don't think it's strange that you've never heard of an arrest for incest with a consenting party. If both people agree they're not going to report it to the police.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Well child molesting is often kept quiet also. The police still investigate it. The reason you hear about ''the crime of child molesting'' is because it is a crime, not because it may or may not have been hushed up.

[Phi for All]

Well child molesting is often kept quite also. The police still investigate it. The reason you hear about ''the crime of child molesting'' is because it is a crime, not because it may or may not have been hushed up.

I'm pretty sure incest with a child, consenting or not, is still illegal under pedophilia laws. If a wife reported to the police that her husband was molesting their underage child (even with the child's consent) he would most likely be arrested for pedophilia, not incest.

 

I brought up pedophilia mainly to show that relaxing incest laws could lead to an increase in pedophilia (a Slippery Slope argument, I know, but in law the SS arguments are often valid). I don't want us to stray off-topic though, so let's try to focus on the OP's question on incest.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Well in this country there is no such thing as a child consenting to sex. Its basically assumed that consent to sex implies the consentee is over 16.

[YT2095]

I don't want us to stray off-topic though, so let's try to focus on the OP's question on incest.

 

in case it wasn`t quite Clear.

[John Cuthber]

I rather suspect that quite a lot of incest is brother/ sister and as well consented as youngster's sexual relations ever are. If they are roughly the same age then paedophillia doesn't eneter into the debate.

How in the name of comon sense anyone is going to enforce condom use is beyond my imagination. A policeman in the bedroom? Another for the back of the car and the kitchen table?

Since the contraception is unenforceable there will be children born. The excess risk of genetic defects in these children makes them the victims.

[Pangloss]

If you want to make a case for parents and their ADULT offspring having relations, fine, but underage? No way.

[DrDNA]

Ugh...

Stick to your farm animals you pervert.

[mooeypoo]

Insest isn't a victimless crime insomuch as society stands to suffer from genetic degredation in productions of couplings. Enforcing condoms is really no means to circumvent that, at least not one that any libertarian belief system like the one this decriminialization is based on could be comfortable with. I think there really is a point where even "modern" Western societies should be allowed to maintain some of their taboos, not for the sake of morality, but just for the greater long-term good of society.

 

This is a good point, but there are so many other things that hurt society in a biological and genetic manner, like food consumption and air polution and even - some may claim - evangelical homeschooling, that rejects scientific advancements and raises a society that has no value for advancements.

 

I don't see incest as a good thing at all, but I think this is a valid argument as to what should be an issue of law and not.. If the people involved are concenting adults, then their problem is ignorance not criminal. I don't see why these should be sent to prison - we will benefit our societ MUCH MORE if we stop stamping these sorts of 'crimes' as unlawful and start *educating* society to understand the consequences.

 

Those are my two cents, anyways.

 

~moo

 

p.s:

Suppose we were to adopt a capitalist system of morality.

You should read "Jennifer Government". It's awesome.

[ecoli]

It most certainly legislating morality. I don't think it's healthy for a government to do that.

 

If it weren't for the fact that the baby would be genetically flawed, I would say government should stay out of it completely.

 

But, hey, if we use that logic, than why can't the government prevent people with predispositions for genetic diseases from procreating, you know, for the good of the child. In fact, why don't require mandatory genetic testing before one can reproduce. Either submit to the tests or get castrated. The illusion of freedom is still there.

 

Ok slippery slope fallacy, but can we really use the genetics argument against incest for this reason.

 

p.s:

 

You should read "Jennifer Government". It's awesome.

 

one of my favorite books.

 

It shows what happens when the government doesn't have the power to enforce its own laws.

 

though, remind me, in that book, are there any state powers left?

[Pangloss]

You should read "Jennifer Government". It's awesome.

 

Great book.

[PhDP]

I really doupt making incest illegal had any effect.