Jump to content
Pangloss

Why is incest illegal?

Recommended Posts

Women capable of conceiving at age 40 can still legally have children even though the risk of birth defects is greatly increased. And any risks of genetic illnesses can be circumvented by birth control methods, which the state might legitimately require for incestuous sexual relations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2010 at 10:29 AM, Marat said:

The whole genetic exuse for forbidding incest is a non-starter, since people with severe genetic diseases have a full legal right to have as many children as they want, and in their case, the risk of transmitting serious illness is much greater than the risk of genetic problems from incest. I know a patient with polycystic renal disease, which is a horrible and deadly renal disease which 50% of the children of someone with the disease inherit, who nonetheless decided to have a child because she cheerily said "I guess I'm a glass-half-full-type of person!" I felt like asking her how she knew her child would have that same attitude, but I bit my tongue. Unfortunately, most people with polycystic renal disease decide to have children because of the same murderously idiotic cruelty, and the law can do nothing about it.

that may be true but there are way for family to allow incest if the law allow but people only think of the bad so it unlikely law will be change first off Sperm bank because family member may fall in love dont mean they will have a kid together or they can't have a kid at all since sperm bank got many healthy people dna to chose from and if the law say something like god say it a sin that not true tell me if god only make two human how many time incest use to make all of us. i thought about learning how to heal gene but all my answer to it need more info like cloning and mixing human and other life form  to see the dna info because so far what i can find on the internet is so little and when i say mixing life form they dont need to have a kid only change some of there dna learn more about what wall in our dna and speed up the human adapt to sick, heat, and aging. sorry sometime my mind think of too much but my point is incest is ok as long the baby dna is ok that mean why do it need to illegal they can change to giving birth to incest wrong and as people who in-love with one of there family member allow to date but use sperm bank to have a kid or kids and sperm can help a people pick the sperm that will increase the kid dna making the kid more likely to be born safely into this world without worry

and yes i know incest mean sex with a family pull out take pill safe sex

Edited by jonathon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2010 at 3:58 AM, Pangloss said:

A professor at Columbia University has been arrested and charged with having a sexual relationship with his 24-year-old daughter. Some info may be found here: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2010/12/10/professor-david-epstein-charged-incest-his-daughter

 

Ok, it's kinda scummy and I'm sure some would say disgusting, but why is it illegal? They're both adults. Seems to me that it's just another example of the government sticking its nose into people's private business.

 

This is also creating an interesting ruckus in media circles. Some info on that may be found here (comments invited):

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/12/abc-news-asks-on-facebook-if-incest-should-be-legal-slate-says-incest-is-cancer.html

 

On 12/17/2010 at 4:02 PM, Marat said:

Since probably 99.9% of intercourse today occurs with contraceptive protection, why should genetic concerns be the determining factor in prohibiting incest? It is technically a criminal assault to have sex with anyone if you have AIDS, but if you wear a condom and have sex with someone even though you have AIDS, it is not an assault. So if the criminal law can make this distinction for people with AIDS having sex, then why not just require incestuous couples not to have children? Or why not allow incest after one of the partners has passed the breeding age? In any case, the genetic risk of consanguinity is not that great, since even though the Egyptian ruling family, in order not to dilute the royal blood by marrying outside the immediate family, for a long time required brothers and sisters to marry, the genetic problems in that group were minimal, as far as history records.

 

Obviously incest is forbidden simply because the majority of people find it disgusting, not because it is actually harmful. This violates John Stuart Mill's famous 'harm principle,' which states that a liberal society cannot make anything illegal unless it causes some demonstrable physical harm.

 

This thread touches on some of the same themes as my earlier thread on the harm of sexual relationships between adults and children. Society dislikes the idea so much on the basis of its sense of values that it simply assumes it must also somehow be physically or psychiatrically harmful, even apart from the panicked way that society would react to such encounters and traumatize the children involved, but it is difficult to pin down exactly what the harm consists in, especially when it was practised in Ancient Greece for so long and managed to produce people who grew up to be among the greatest and most creative geniuses the world has ever seen, rather than producing the shattered lives we would expect from today's perspective.

 

On 12/17/2010 at 2:34 PM, ParanoiA said:

 

Oh, then you're also "all for" denying procreation rights for anyone with potentially genetically inheritable mental and physical afflictions then, right? No mating for those with Down Syndrome or Haemophilia, right?

 

Not to mention, I could use that logic to make a case against every cancer victim that procreated after they were diagnosed. Or hell, for that matter, everyone with cancer in their family that procreates is assaulting people not yet conceived.

 

And that's just breaking the surface of inheritable disease. And we still have non-disease related inheritable physical and mental afflictions too.

 

Inbreeding increases the *chances* of afflictions, just as cancer victim procreation increases the *chances* of afflicting their offspring with cancer.

 

No, laws on this are silly and the subsequent violation of principle is far more damaging to a free society than the potential achievement of prosecuted weirdos.

 

This is the job of culture, to provide the appropriate level of shame and keep it on the fringe. Nothing to see here.

 

On 12/17/2010 at 5:08 PM, swansont said:

 

Oner might say the same about prostitution or bigamy, and it depends on your definition of harmful. Or, one might merely conclude that the US is not a liberal society under John Stuart Mill's definition.

 

On 12/19/2010 at 1:15 PM, Dak said:

 

 

 

What's the justification for criminalizing homosexual incest?

 

On 12/19/2010 at 3:40 PM, Mr Skeptic said:

 

There is however a difference between telling someone they can't have a child with a very small subset of the population (close family) vs telling them not to have a child at all. Of course now with birth control, its a different story, and likewise it is possible to genetically screen children for genetic diseases before it progresses past the stage of being a few dozen cells or so. But incest is traditionally taboo/icky, and there is some legitimate concern about family problems or abuse that could result from allowing incest. For example, you can't distinguish between consensual incest turned sour and sexual abuse. Likewise a lot of people tell you not to have sex with your best friend since it could ruin your relationship.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Miss. Psycho said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Was there something you wanted to discuss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dunno28 said:

 Just because something is widely believed makes it untrue or it wouldn't be illegal. You're just parroting platitudes. 

Something being widely believed makes it untrue? This makes no sense. And if it's untrue, it wouldn't be illegal? WTF?

Anyway...

Effects of inbreeding are a matter of scientific fact, and not merely an instance of being "widely believed"

Try for a coherent argument, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dunno28 said:

You must think you're pretty clever that's opposite of the truth.

It's not about my alleged cleverness, it's about your incoherent argument.

6 minutes ago, dunno28 said:

People make it illegal because they want in on the action of someone else's siblings/whatever. 

And your evidence of this is...?

I mean, the evidence of the damage of inbreeding actually exists. So you need even more evidence that this is just being used as an excuse to horn in on this "action"

Not just a bald claim. That won't fly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's not about my alleged cleverness, it's about your incoherent argument.

And your evidence of this is...?

I mean, the evidence of the damage of inbreeding actually exists. So you need even more evidence that this is just being used as an excuse to horn in on this "action"

Not just a bald claim. That won't fly.

 

Given that any typical sexual relationship will fail with some degree of lasting animosity, the consequences of such actions in a familial situation would be catastrophic for the wider family. I think that is ample reason for it to be taboo.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer :  This is just a JOKE.

If inbreeding was legal in the US, then all states would vote like southern states currently do, and we'd always have Presidents like D Trump.
( who incidentally, has made comments about how sexy his daughter is; creeeepy ! )
That alone should make it illegal as it is detrimental to society.

                    This is serious.

Laws are not based on whether they do harm or not.
they are based on what society deems acceptable.
You can get fined for spitting on a sidewalk, even if there is no one around, and  every bar once had a 'spitoon'.
You can get fined for smoking in a public place ( sidewalk café ) with traffic ( car exhausts ) going by 2m away.
It is against the law to speed on highways which are safe at 20-40 km/hr over the posted limit.
Need I go on ?
Some things that were once common have become  'disgusting' to the majority of society; laws reflect that.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MigL said:

Laws are not based on whether they do harm or not.
they are based on what society deems acceptable.

And society usually finds an activity that causes harm to be unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And society usually finds an activity that causes harm to be unacceptable.

Well, I would rather say it is based on what society deems harmful which overlaps only imperfectly with things being harmful. There are plenty of laws that are actually harmful, but were not recognized as such, for example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/8/2020 at 6:55 PM, Curious layman said:

Something I posted in the 'what are you listening to right now' thread.

Edit: Just to note, the above video isn't posted with humour in mind. It just something I thought was appropriate given the thread title, and the fact people were discussing it. 

Edit 2: really sorry if I've offended anyone with this. I found the film really moving, and I'll admit, fascinating too. I don't think the film is made with bad intentions. 

Edited by Curious layman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it wasn't for inbreeding in the last X number of years...none of us would be here today...

(No doubt true but I wonder what number X is, assuming us refers to all 7.8 billion of us)

Over 10% increase since the start of this thread (December 17, 2010). I think we were under 7 billion at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If it wasn't for inbreeding in the last X number of years...none of us would be here today...

(No doubt true but I wonder what number X is, assuming us refers to all 7.8 billion of us)

Over 10% increase since the start of this thread (December 17, 2010). I think we were under 7 billion at that point.

I'm pretty sure I don't have X billion siblings/parent's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm pretty sure I don't have X billion siblings/parent's.

All you need is one ancestor from an incestuous relationship, less than or equal to X years ago. "X" is in years back, for all 7.8 billion of us. 

Edited by J.C.MacSwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

All you need is one ancestor from an incestuous relationship, less than or equal to X years ago. "X" is in years back, for all 7.8 billion of us. 

OK, then I guess incest is best... 😣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2020 at 6:18 AM, dimreepr said:

OK, then I guess incest is best... 😣

No, it's just relative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Janus said:

No, it's just relative.

Trust you to bring Einstein into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Trust you to bring Einstein into it.

Well, his 2nd marriage was to his cousin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Janus said:

Well, his 2nd marriage was to his cousin.

But they had no children...

And to make things complicated, Elsa, Albert's cousin:

Quote

Elsa Einstein (18 January 1876 – 20 December 1936) was the second wife and cousin of Albert Einstein. Their mothers were sisters, making them maternal first cousins, and further, their fathers were first cousins, making them paternal second cousins. Elsa had the surname of Einstein at birth, lost it when she took the name of her first husband Max Löwenthal, and regained it in 1919 when she married her cousin Albert.

Relativity theory is simpler than these family relationships... :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, incest is illegal because of potential imbreeding. But by that logic, we should steralize ALL people who have terrible genetic diseases, or imperfections, right? This whole making incest "felonious" is inconsistent and unfair. The real reason incest is illegal is because it's gross. There really is no logic behind it. Incest should be legal if passing on other retarded genes is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nelly3lseaspill90 said:

Incest should be legal if passing on other retarded genes is.

Please elaborate 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nelly3lseaspill90 said:

Yeah, incest is illegal because of potential imbreeding. But by that logic, we should steralize ALL people who have terrible genetic diseases, or imperfections, right?

These are not even remotely the same thing, so no.

 

10 hours ago, Nelly3lseaspill90 said:

Incest should be legal if passing on other retarded genes is.

Perhaps you could describe this situation in a less insulting manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.