Should incest be decriminalised?

[mitchymo]

Soooooooooooo, forget about that 30 something uncle and send him my way!

But Lukie, me and my 30 something uncle????? that would suggest a really weird family considering i'm 30something myself, and besides it would'nt lead to a baby now would it? You can have my uncle if you really want tho......he's over 60!

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.

Thanks Rouge, informed and understood.

 

[thadjock]

But Lukie, me and my 30 something uncle????? that would suggest a really weird family considering i'm 30something myself,
.

not that weird, i went to school with two guys who were uncle and nephew and they were in the same year and the same age.

in big catholic families there are often siblings that are old enuff to be the parent of the youngest few, and are often married before the last of their brothers/sisters are born

 

[dandelion]

The risks of inbreeding are quite high (between first cousins I believe it's on average 6.25%).

This subject came up in the news recently with regard to high prevalence of cousin marriages in some groups. The person interviewed admitted that the risk was only twice as much as amongst unrelated people from the same ethnic group. So not really significant on a personal level, only on a population health (eugenic) level.

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)

No it isnt a different story. It is the same story. You are saying all fetuses with inherited defects ought to be aborted and their parents sterilised if they have highly heritable traits. In some situations thats a 100% chance of passing something on, which is way worse than the random pairing of siblings.

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.

If you are going to legislate to copy nature, then you will legislate that people should not normally marry their siblings, only occasionally. Which is precisely what would happen if there was no law. Why make a law banning what would happen naturally?

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 else has already raised the point that all modern breeding of better domestic animals relies on interbreeding closely related animals. Yes, you can amplify bad traits, but you also amplify good ones. The williams sisters tennis stars come to mind. If one was a brother and they had children, what do you reckon would be the chances that some of the children would also be exceptional athletes? If you are going to ban bad matches on eugenic grounds, then logically you will also mandate some sibling matches to improve the gene pool.

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.

The answer is that we are adapting the species to a new environment. It is evolution in action where we take advantage of the existence of technology which boosts reproduction rates. If the technology continues to exist, then it is likely a good adaptation- we no longer need high sperm counts. If the technology suddenly disappears we may too.

Is incest wrong? I personally feel like it is. That's where I draw the line.

So what you are really saying is that you have a particular opinion and you believe others must be forced to obey your view for no other reason.

As long as over 50% of the population draws that same line in a democratic country, law should prevent it.

Oh god no! As i once said to an Irishman, 60% of those in N. Ireland are protestant and want to be part of the Uk. 40% are catholic and want to be part of the republic. 1% feel strongly enough to fight over it, so we had war.We has 50years of civil war because the majority view was respected. We would have had 50 years of war if the minority view had been respected. The war was halted by compromise. It is never possible in a democracy simply to enforce the will of a majority against a determined minority.With incest what is the result? Most couples just quietly get on with it, and now and then some get sent to jail. How does this help anyone? Its really stupid.

 

[xX_Sarah_Xx]

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.

Totally off topic... but...

Depending on how that fallopian tube was damaged... you have a point, if it was not by birth but say, trauma, then indeed it could be a perfectly healthy baby.
However, the low sperm count is exactly my point... It could be because of various reasons, a too high bodytemperature that kills off sperm cells or just a low production count or... Thing is, this is genetically coded for. And allowing someone to reproduce who, in nature, wouldn't have been able to get offspring, is messing with natural selection.
I'm not saying this is a black/white thing... someone with a low sperm count might just have had a lower chance of getting a child, and might have gotten lucky and naturally procreate. But then this kid has a big chance of being less fertile too, and his/her chance of reproducing might be much lower because of this. This *is* "weakening" the gene pool. (Although that's probably not correctly said, you get the gist of what I mean?)

My cousin works in an infertility clinic, and we've had many discussions about this. But still I am convinced that improving the chance of an egg to be fertilized by concentrating semen near it, or even injecting it in, is essentially on a very basic level wrong.
It's horrible, terrible for a couple not to be able to have kids, and when a solution like that comes along and works and makes them deliriously happy, of course I understand why people would do it.
It concerns me however that no one looks past that, and thinks about the fact that the child, although perfectly healthy, could possibly (a higher risk of) have problems with fertility itsself later on.

 

[Mem]

Following on from another thread. Now we are in the 21st century do you think that the illegal status of incest should be removed?
If you think its not so simple as a yes or no then feel free to elaborate.

Just tell your dad and brother to keep their mouths shut.



j/k :wall:

 

[mitchymo]

Just tell your dad and brother to keep their mouths shut.



j/k :wall:

You a bad man Mem! :wink:

 

[Bbucko]

All this talk about weakening the gene pool is fascist, IMO, and has no place here.

I agree with Hilly 100%.

 

[798686]

All this talk about weakening the gene pool is fascist, IMO, and has no place here.

I agree with Hilly 100%.

It's not really about weakening the gene pool - it's about whether you want to inflict the likelihood of genetic illnesses on your kids, when you have the choice of breeding with people other than your family.

I don't think the different views on this are going to be reconciled. I, personally, don't think incestuous relationships are particularly ethical, and that's the way the law seems to see it too, at present. The results of this poll would also seem to indicate that the prevailing view is against decriminalising it.

 

[Mem]

Growing up my friend had about 8 dogs. I guess it was 2 and they were brother and sister and bred and all the resulting dogs had some kind of problem. Some were blind, some were deaf and they were all very ugly.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

It's not really about weakening the gene pool - it's about whether you want to inflict the likelihood of genetic illnesses on your kids, when you have the choice of breeding with people other than your family.

So by this logic Azkenazi jews who may be carriers of Tay-Sachs disease Mount Sinai - Center for Jewish Genetic Diseases - Department of Human Genetics should all be screened and prevented from procreating by law, and people of African descent with sickle cell anemia, or indeed anyone who may be a carrier of a genetic disorder since by definition these people expose their offspring to the increased possibility that they will inherit these diseases.

The fact of the matter is if we started to criminalise relationships based on the fact that potential offspring of these relationships might be more likely to inherit genetic disorders a truly vast number of people would suddenly find themselves criminals.

And this even though two parents carrying a defective gene may not even pass on a disease to their children?

And to be clear two people related to one another carrying a defective gene are no more or no less likely to pass on that gene than to people who are unrelated to each other who both carry the same defective gene.

I don't think the different views on this are going to be reconciled. I, personally, don't think incestuous relationships are particularly ethical, and that's the way the law seems to see it too, at present. The results of this poll would also seem to indicate that the prevailing view is against decriminalising it.

Ultimately though what's really unethical is me and you and anyone else telling two consenting adults what they may or may not do to themselves and then criminalising them on the basis of our personal views of their behaviour.

 

[Mem]

and honestly how many adults are being arrested for this? It's about as much prosecuted as ripping off the tag on a mattress.

 

[Bbucko]

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 behaviour like that weakening "the human species"? Maybe, dunno, time will tell.

I'm not saying this is a black/white thing... someone with a low sperm count might just have had a lower chance of getting a child, and might have gotten lucky and naturally procreate. But then this kid has a big chance of being less fertile too, and his/her chance of reproducing might be much lower because of this. This *is* "weakening" the gene pool. (Although that's probably not correctly said, you get the gist of what I mean?)

It's not really about weakening the gene pool - it's about whether you want to inflict the likelihood of genetic illnesses on your kids, when you have the choice of breeding with people other than your family.

I wasn't referring to your posts, necessarily, Joll: rather the ones quoted above. However, if you sleep with dogs you wake up with fleas.

I don't think the different views on this are going to be reconciled really. I, personally, don't think incestuous relationships are particularly ethical, and that's the way the law sees it too, at present.

Though I have no sympathy for incest at all, I am very sensitive to legislating the private behavior of consenting adults. Though it's abhorrent to me personally I have no wish to criminalize it. I believe that social standards are much more effective than legislative efforts when it comes to sexual issues, for the better and the worse.

 

[Mem]

How much is you bail Mitchy?













j/k
:sad6:

 

[798686]

I wasn't referring to your posts, necessarily, Joll: rather the ones quoted above. However, if you sleep with dogs you wake up with fleas.

LOL! *scratches*

Though I have no sympathy for incest at all, I am very sensitive to legislating the private behavior of consenting adults. Though it's abhorrent to me personally I have no wish to criminalize it. I believe that social standards are much more effective than legislative efforts when it comes to sexual issues, for the better and the worse.

I do see where people are coming from - if decriminalising won't increase the amount of incest, or cause more abuse (which is still arguable) then why make people criminals for doing it? I'm still deeply uncomfortable with it tho - it seems to be creating more problems than it solves (in terms of possible abuse, or avoidable illness/weakness in offspring). Interesting debate tho.

How much is you bail Mitchy?

Has he been locked up? :biggrin1:

 

[helgaleena]

I voted against because of the children. IMO anything that leads to children needs government proscription because we are far too many. Sterilize everyone over the age of thirty RIGht the Heck Now.

After that, maybe you will treasure the children we already have around and treat them as the gifts of the gods they truly are.

Sexual acts with non-children of our own species and inanimate objects too, are matters for cultural variance. They will change as fashions do.

 

[MalakingTiti]

What? Are you serious? Of course not. Incest should remain forever illegal. In fact I think it should be a capital offense, which is saying something for me since normally I don't even support capital punishment.

 

[Bbucko]

I do see where people are coming from - if decriminalising won't increase the amount of incest, or cause more abuse (which is still arguable) then why make people criminals for doing it? I'm still deeply uncomfortable with it tho - it seems to be creating more problems than it solves (in terms of possible abuse, or avoidable illness/weakness in offspring). Interesting debate tho.

Like all great topics, this one got me thinking things through. And the more I thought about it the less I was inclined to support criminalizing consensual sexual behavior between adults. This is a very gray area, though.

 

[mitchymo]

How much is you bail Mitchy?













j/k
:sad6:

Grrrrrrrr! Not guilty. :damnit:

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

I know im going to take great risk on pissing some people off when i say this, but i'd like to think people like Bbucko could see my point and why i think what i do.

There is no doubt a lot of "molesting" goes on between Male to female and Male to Male. When i say molesting- im indicating the psychological definition for molestation between atleast one underage person of 4 or more years apart. Not "sexploration" per se. But a person much older making a victim out of a younger person in the family. This is the most common type of sexual abuse that might be just petting, sexual-psychological abuse and obligitory behavior that is set up by the older person. This is NOT what im talking about.

I'm talking about two people who have found a way to get off BOTH of them get off sexually and not feel taken advantage of in anyway. I think this sort of behavior that indulges in sexual intercourse is much more acceptable between two men because the chances of offspring are nill. I've been to plenty of sexual websites and there is a little bit of a fetish you see on straight porn and amongst straight people in general every now and again. But it is nothing like what you see in the Male/Male gay community.

I think when this occurs it doesn't harm anyone because no one has to know whats going on because the end result could never be a pregnancy that could not just bring about physical problems but also the child would not have to be raised in the unusual situation of the parentage being close in genetic proximity.

I think same sex sexual behaviors have always been able to go on behind closed doors because no one would ever have to know what you are doing in your bedroom. This is the sort of adult consensual behavior that doesn't have the same concenquence we are talking about. It's the same idea of how i always played around with female peers family/friends because your parents never check on you when those people stay the night with you. It's a matter of convience but more than anything the risk of pregnancy and psychological damage goes down when it is amongst peers.

When family members who have been raised in close proximity or in the same household grow up to want to marry one another and raise children together....it comes off strange to like 98% of society because there should be a built in YUCK factor because you are raised with familial drama and issues that make you not want to just move in together some day. You shouldn't want to grow up to want to marry your sister or brother. But distant cousins can meet as adults and have entirely different homelives growing up and have a connection with one another that is highly unlikely to happen between you and your brother down the hall.

There is a thread somewhere about incest here where the trust factor that we have as elders in our family hold us to a responsibility to not take advantage of those we find attractive. This sort of boundary is built in to most of us for a reason. Maybe it is biological, maybe it is psychological but i think it is both and not by accident.

A Dad should see his daughter grow up and see her as a blossoming young lady he wouldn't want another person to take advantage of the way he would think of her if he was an unrelated teenage boy. I think the pre-destined moody, bitchy predictable teenage daughter behavior is designed to off-put any males in her household to find her attractive. But he might look at his bestfriends daughter and think, she has nice tits, but not think that about a related female that he lives in the same household with.

The chances of molestation goes up immensely with step parenting because its easier to sexually abuse someone you are not related to or helped bring into this world.

There is also a natural desire to NOT want to marry the kid that used to sit on you and fart on your head when you were kids.

 

[HazelGod]

When family members who have been raised in close proximity or in the same household grow up to want to marry one another and raise children together....it comes off strange to like 98% of society because there should be a built in YUCK factor because you are raised with familial drama and issues that make you not want to just move in together some day.

This has actually been studied and is known as the Westermarck Effect. Children raised together undergo a sort of reverse psychological imprinting that makes them averse to being sexually attracted to each other later in life...it's like an evolved deterrent to our innate genetic sexual attractions.