Should incest be decriminalised?

[798686]

Inbreeding issues apply to cousin marriages too, and they're allowed. Its still quite a small risk. Do you think people with inheritable diseases should be legally forbidden from having children?

Are first cousin marriages legal? Didn't know that.

As far as I'm aware - the genetic risks of inbreeding aren't particularly small, it often happens even when cousins marry (didn't that happen to Darwin's kids?).

No, of course I don't think people with inheritable diseases should be forbidden from having kids - anyway, breeding (with other than family) would surely dilute the chances of picking it up as you went along? Whereas interbreeding increases those risks. Plus, banning incest doesn't remove ppl's chances from having kids altogether - there's plenty of ppl to choose from other than family.

Also, how do you reduce the risk of abuse if it's legal? Say a legal age girl is abused by father or uncle - surely it's much harder to penalise when 'consent' could be claimed?

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

This seems to be a recurring theme in American fiction, from the literary novel to the banal soap opera. I wonder why one culture is more obsessed with this activity than others. There is more than genetic health concerns that make this a taboo. Would you really want your father to be your uncle also, and possibly your brother too.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

PS

In the porch of every Anglican church is a notification of the 27 or so people you are not allowed to marry. Most cultures, including Britain, accept first cousin marriage - in certain immigrant groups it appears de rigueur and is clearly dysfunctional.

In France first cousin marriage is outlawed, however it tops the list in first cousin marriages in all of Europe. Though canon and civil law disapprove of it, if cousins wish to marry and apply to the local Roman Catholic bishop for dispensation it is socially acceptable, particularly in rural communities. This perhaps has more to do with keeping property, land and money within the same family rather than any psychosexual deviation. It is the same within Orthodox countries. Lets face it, this penchant for keeping it in the family has worked for the British royal family since the Hanovarians came over.

 

[luka82]

This seems to be a recurring theme in American fiction, from the literary novel to the banal soap opera. I wonder why one culture is more obsessed with this activity than others. There is more than genetic health concerns that make this a taboo. Would you really want your father to be your uncle also, and possibly your brother too.

But the OP is very British! oke:

 

[teutonicos]

Is it considered incest when I jack off with my brother,or uncle,cousin,father ? Where does incest start?Is the law just to protect women and children ?To make sure that we have healthy and sane kids ? Tell me !!

 

[Drifterwood]

To make sure that we have healthy and sane kids ? Tell me !!

I fear we may be too late. :tongue:

 

[xX_Sarah_Xx]

The risks of inbreeding are quite high (between first cousins I believe it's on average 6.25%). Something that weakens the human gene pool should definitely be illegal. (Then again... this should also be so for IVF, but that's a different story altogether)

Incest is something a lot of speciës naturally protect themselves against. Horses live in group and the stallion in most cases chases away young horses of both sexes. This behaviour prevents inbreeding and creates stronger horses compared to inbred horses. It's apparently an advantage to the speciës, so more horses with that behaviour were born. In essence it's the theory of Darwin. In humans, I think there's something alike called the Westermarck effect? Basically it means that people that lived together at young age have a much lower chance of sexually being attracted to each other. Not everyone expresses this behaviour, but it does explain why a lot of people feel aversion towards incest. Rightly so, in my opinion.

So no, incest should not be decriminalized.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

The risks of inbreeding are quite high (between first cousins I believe it's on average 6.25%). Something that weakens the human gene pool should definitely be illegal. (Then again... this should also be so for IVF, but that's a different story altogether)

Incest is something a lot of speciës naturally protect themselves against. Horses live in group and the stallion in most cases chases away young horses of both sexes. This behaviour prevents inbreeding and creates stronger horses compared to inbred horses. It's apparently an advantage to the speciës, so more horses with that behaviour were born. In essence it's the theory of Darwin. In humans, I think there's something alike called the Westermarck effect? Basically it means that people that lived together at young age have a much lower chance of sexually being attracted to each other. Not everyone expresses this behaviour, but it does explain why a lot of people feel aversion towards incest. Rightly so, in my opinion.

So no, incest should not be decriminalized.

That sounds like you advocate Eugenics? Presumably if you think incest should be illegal because it weakens the gene pool then anyone with defective genes should also be prevented from procreating no?


It's part of Social Darwinism to have the law prevent the passing on of bad genes.

 

[798686]

That sounds like you advocate Eugenics? Presumably if you think incest should be illegal because it weakens the gene pool then anyone with defective genes should also be prevented from procreating no?

We've been through this, Hil. I tried to respond to a similar question of Dandy's:

No, of course I don't think people with inheritable diseases should be forbidden from having kids - anyway, breeding (with other than family) would surely dilute the chances of picking it up as you went along? Whereas interbreeding increases those risks. Plus, banning incest doesn't remove ppl's chances from having kids altogether - there's plenty of ppl to choose from other than family.

Is it considered incest when I jack off with my brother,or uncle, cousin, father?

Yes! Between brothers may be more understandable in terms of experimentation - but why would you want to jack off with your father or uncle?! It also falls outside this site's allowable discussion topics.

 

[xX_Sarah_Xx]

That sounds like you advocate Eugenics? Presumably if you think incest should be illegal because it weakens the gene pool then anyone with defective genes should also be prevented from procreating no?


It's part of Social Darwinism to have the law prevent the passing on of bad genes.

Hmmm... no. =) It's just how I feel about it. Everyone has recessive alleles. The chance that a genetic disorder occurs is just bigger between family, cause then the chance that the same recessive alleles get combined is bigger. Someone that has two recessive alleles but procreates with someone that has the dominant allele might result in a kid that is a carrier but doesn't show. The kid could just as well be "weak" though. If you know this about yourself and know there's a chance to pass it on to your kid, would you be selfish enough to risk it?

So yeah, you have a point. It's not black or white. It's something I wonder about a lot. I'm studying pharmaceutical sciences, and the things we can do to cure people or keep them healthy or... are amazing. But I can't help but wondering if we aren't just really weakening ourselves by using all these drugs and letting people overcome their illnesses and procreate, "weakening" the gene pool. IVF is an extreme example of that.

Is that wrong? I don't know.
Is it normal we want to protect our beloved ones? Yes, I guess.
Is behaviour like that weakening "the human species"? Maybe, dunno, time will tell.

Is incest wrong? I personally feel like it is. That's where I draw the line.
As long as over 50% of the population draws that same line in a democratic country, law should prevent it. And as long as that Westerwick effect is the result of something in our gene pool (?), I guess it will stay like that ^^

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

We've been through this, Hil. I tried to respond to a similar question of Dandy's.

You're still taking a Eugenic approach to the law, if your argument against legalisation of incest between consenting adults is that it damages the gene pool. I must say I didn't make the point that if you ban incest you will be preventing people from procreating, that's a straw man.

The point isn't whether people would not be able to reproduce if they couldn't do so incestuously, since that would be an absurd point to make, it's that if you believe that people should be banned from procreating with family because there is an increased chance that they will pass on genetic defects then why don't you take the same view of allowing anyone with a genetic defect to procreate since by definition procreating with such a person implies an increased risk of passing on a genetic defect?

The reason this question has to be asked is that the Law can't be a slave to science, it should reflect both practical requirements for the functioning of a civil society and should presumably reflect the more abstract concerns of logic and ethics in doing so. In these terms it seems capricious to ban incest between consenting adults purely because many find it disgusting and then try to justify this ban on a spurious scientific basis which if it were applied properly would need to apply to a whole range of other people not just incestuous couples.

 

[luka82]

Sarah-you are one smart persona! I agree with you!

 

[798686]

Hil - you didn't, no - although it did sound as if that's what Dandelion was implying. I agree that the question (sort of) was whether all people with defective genes should be banned from procreating. However - banning incest wouldn't stop those ppl from procreating, they still could - with reduced risk of inherited illness. It's only part of the argument against incest anyway.

So, you think it should be legalised then? Or are there other arguments against it? What about the conflict of interests in terms of relationships? Where does caring for a relative turn into sexual interest, and is that a problem? Also...do you not think it would make abuse more likely?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

So, you think it should be legalised then? Or are there other arguments against it? What about the conflict of interests in terms of relationships? Where does caring for a relative turn into sexual interest, and is that a problem? Also...do you not think it would make abuse more likely?

I think it should be decriminalised, which is slightly different from legalised, I don't think two consenting adults in full possession of their faculties should be made in to criminals for doing things which are none of my business or your business or anyone else's business.

I don't know of any relationship in which conflicts of interest don't exist in one form or another, the law has always been subtle enough to cope with them thus far, I'm confident that we have the wit and wisdom to be able to cope with what would in any case only be a very very tiny amount of instances of these kinds of relationship.

I don't presume to know the vagaries of the human heart, so I can't speculate about any of the simply multitudinous reasons why people may be in relationships with one another, it's none of my business if two people love each other because they're co-dependent or not nor is it my business to speculate about the health of that relationship unless it directly effects me, and logically speaking neither is it any of society's business. This applies to an incestuous relationship as much as every other kind of relationship between consenting adults.


Erm you question about abuse is an enormous one. We have currently absolutely no idea about the true prevalence of a variety of kinds of sexual, mental, and physical abuse. The figures we do have represent reported cases, which may represent either the tip of a gigantic iceberg or a percentage from which it might be possible to extrapolate, frankly we just don't know.

I don't think it would be fair to blame adult incestuous couples for peadophilia any more than I think it would be fair to blame adult Sado-Masochists for spousal abuse.

One of the old arguments against legalising Homosexuality used to be based on a similar confusion, i.e. that because Gay men are attracted to other men legalising it would encourage greater levels of abuse of male children. The problem with that is that it confuses superficially similar details and then presumes outcomes from them without realising that the the details which have been confused are in fact crucial to understanding what is being discussed.

Legalising homosexuality means legalising sex between adult men, not sex between adult men and male children, and in fact the two are fundamentally different.

In reverse a similar argument used to be used by extreme feminists against marriage, that by marriage being a legal institution which traditionally had seen women as subservient to men (the whole "love, honour, obey" thing) that marriage itself encouraged men to see women as objects, therefore increasing the instance of rape.

What that argument failed to realise was that rapists are normally pathological, as are paedophiles (paedophilia being strictly speaking, and legally speaking, a form of rape) and that instance of both rape and paedophilia will probably always only be as prevalent as the pathology which causes them is.

I don't think decriminalising adult incest will be any more likely to cause more instances of incestuous child abuse than legalising homosexuality is to increase instances of men abusing boys, because the pathology which causes child abuse of any kind has nothing to do with the feelings and attractions which two adults have for one another.

 

[Northland]

Incest not bad? Try to tell that to a person who was forced into it by a parent or sibling.


The only time I could even begin to entertain the idea of incest being acceptable; would be after a nuclear holocaust. If the only survivors were a half dozen or so family members, and the future of the planet depended upon them creating a new generation, then maybe, though I'd be inclined to let the reign of terror of our species end, then and there.

ironically, and somewhat tragically, given the events of the last few wks, and really most of the last decade, I'd say we've reached the point where the future of the planet might be more secure if the human species DID die off completely.
homo sapiens are the kryptonite in EVERY eco-system.

True, very true.

What good would the planet be then? Just a rock circling the sun with no intelligent life on it, like the other useless planets in our solar system. That's just silly. What point is there in a future if there is no one to enjoy it and partake of it? What kind of earth do you think we'd have if it was overtaken by nature without intelligence, beautiful maybe, but worthless if you ask me.

There'd be plenty of intelligent life- destructive humans would not be a part of it. :smile:

Let's take a look at humans- destructive, primarily concerned only for self-gain regardless of how it ruins the planet in terms of plants, animals and natural resources. The air becomes thick and ugly, the sun is blotted out, trees are cut down, forests destroyed, mountains and hills shorn for the blasted strip mining, wildlife (animal and plant) eliminated- all for the sake of the almighty currency and the right to prance around proudly proclaiming grand wealth.

People will always be populating the earth whether you want to or not. I think there comes a point on either side of this argument where not everything can be left to be a self containing eco system without human interferance nor can it all be taken up with skyscrapers. You take advantage of many things provided to you in the modern world thanks to this "imbalance" of the eco system and then complain its all bad out of the other side of your mouth.

Practice what you preach and go move off and be a entirely self containing organism where you don't effect any part of this planet. It's nearly impossible.

First off, we have no proof that people will always be populating the earth. I am sure the dinosaurs thought they'd be around forever too, as well as several other now extinct species and various fauna which no longer exist. People level forests, leaving soil to erode, floods to occur, removing habitats for animals, causing innumerable side effects. People damn rivers (yes, I know so do beavers), people re-route rivers, deplete natural resources, destroy lakes, rivers, oceans, the sky, everything. At some point it will come back and bite us all, leaving an infection for which there is no cure and then- ta-ta, bye-bye to the human species.

People take and never replenish- that is what will kill us off- as we have killed so many different animal species and plant forms.

No, not everything will be fair and just and of an equal balance in the ecosystem; however, when people cut down a forest, they have the responsibility to the planet and the future to start new trees and a new forest- without that, we will lose. The same holds true for anything which we insist on using in its entirety, be it plant or animal.

 

[lopo2000]

I'm afraid it's the effect of modernization.

 

[deleted3782]

It should only be allowed in porn. Otherwise it's disgusting.

Whoa, there's moral leakage in porn?

Even if decriminalized, it should not be encouraged among blood relatives,

The English Royal Family is an example....

Most of European royalty should be in jail if incest is punishable. Interesting that the very thing some folks today argue against is what the royals have have sought for centuries...an exclusive bloodline.

Between heterosexual couples- no, it should stay a crime...Incestuous relationships between members of the same sex is a little harder to argue against- after all- no chance of pregnancy.

To that point...most of the arguments in this thread have voiced opposition to heterosexual relationships based on the morals and health of offspring. Moving beyond reproductive health, what are the moral and ethical issues of incest that can be applied equally to incestual homosexual relationships, or sterilized heterosexual couples? It seems that homo and hetero should have an equal playing field, and a universal truth found in their shared standards beyond reproduction. Is it only about children?

 

[mitchymo]

What is the evidence that in-breeding causes genetic defects? I know plenty of people with genetic defects born to unrelated people so how do i know that its not a myth and that specific examples have been cherry picked to back up the myth?
Curious.

 

[luka82]

What is the evidence that in-breeding causes genetic defects? I know plenty of people with genetic defects born to unrelated people so how do i know that its not a myth and that specific examples have been cherry picked to back up the myth?
Curious.

Yes, because recessive allels have greater possibility to match, and create illness.....The closer the relative, chances are bigger!
Soooooooooooo, forget about that 30 something uncle and send him my way!

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

Mitchy, for example, in cats, you can breed them in certain ways with family members. My 14 year old cat is a product of her mom and dad. She also bred with her dad in order to have about 8 litters of kittens. None of which had defects. But if you also bred her kittens with their grandfather, who is also their father, they will end up with defects. Ever seen a cat with 6 toes on each paw? Thats a common trait amongst cats that are allowed to inbreed with no supervision as to who is who.

We know that in aristocracy around the world in times past that it was considered highly upon to marry your sibling in order to keep the royal blood strong. There were catastrophic physical problems associated with this and now they like to see you marry royal blood in another family or very far removed from your own family.

And Sarah, i used to run an infertility website, I know hundreds of people who have had IVF babies, how is this diluting the gene pool? Some of these women merely have unexplained infertility, they ovulate, have a working uterus but say, they have a damaged fallopian tube that prevents the embryo from implanting. Or say, their husband has a low sperm count and its much easier to concentrate the sperm and actually inject one good sperm into the egg. This is called ICSI (or pronounced ixie) intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. And then this is allowed to fertilize for a few days and transferred to her uterus. There is nothing genetically wrong with either one of these people as far as not being able to get pregnant.

When a healthy egg or healthy sperm are put together without major genetic flaw, regardless if its done in a petri dish, you are producing the same quality of human being you would be naturally. In fact, it's probably a higher quality of embryo because the eggs are graded in a lab and the not so good ones are tossed out and not fertilized at all.