| Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Incest...ok or morally reprehensible?; Talk about whether you think it's ok to have in society or if it is so vile it deserves ALL OF YOUR HATE. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 24 2013, 01:50 PM (1,320 Views) | |
| Vindicated57 | Jun 25 2013, 02:16 PM Post #41 |
|
But that argument would mean that anyone, anyone, who has a higher chance than the average human to pass on a defect is immoral for having children. Much like the sterilization comment, this is now a slippery slope and suggests it can be decided who does and who does not have children. And yet again I turn to Gandalf. |
![]() |
|
| Himmelgeher | Jun 25 2013, 03:18 PM Post #42 |
![]()
|
No, you don't have to blood test every single couple who has a kid. The serious risks don't start until first cousins or siblings start having kids together, and that's something the state already keeps track of in most developed countries. If those two people decide they want to be together in a sexual capacity, then their reproductive rights are automatically forfeit. There are several reasons you wouldn't do this to people who happen to be born with a defect or a high risk for passing on said defect, and to claim the situations are identical is both a false equivalency and a straw man argument. But fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Here are a few of the reasons they are not the same thing 1) Being born with an abnormality already comes with its own set of challenges, and is literally out of the sufferers' control. Forcing medical sterilization is a violation of human rights because it punishes someone for circumstances that they are incapable of affecting and that they are in no way responsible for. When it comes to incest, it doesn't matter what your sexual orientation, fetish, etc., is there is someone else who shares it who isn't related to you. Therefore, people who engage in those activities are making a choice, and it is something in their control which they are able to change or pursue at their own discretion, through their own agency. 2) People with severe defects or abnormalities are already unlikely to reproduce, and in many cases are born sterile regardless. 3) Even if these people were to reproduce, the likelihood of the abnormality occurring in future generations decreases each generation where one of the parents is healthy. The inverse is true with incest. Of course it would. In such a relationship, one party is already mentally and emotionally vulnerable, and the therapist coming forward with such feelings or acting on them in any capacity would be an act of sexual coercion, if not rape, by definition. It's a blatant violation of trust, incredibly unethical, and just really, really selfish. It's for the same reasons --among others-- we don't allow teachers to have sex with their students or -hey- why we don't allow parents to have sex with their children. Because it is impossible for the party with more power (the therapist, teacher, or parent) not to have a coercive effect on the party with less power (the patient, the student, the child). "Consent" and "love" are often simply a misunderstanding of one's own emotions, mistaking respect with desire or admiration with love. Even if it were "true love," it's entirely possible they are confusing storge or phillia for eros. Even if this were not the case, the individual's judgement is impaired by default because of the power dynamics in the relationship. |
![]() |
|
| ViperKang | Jun 25 2013, 04:01 PM Post #43 |
![]()
|
While I agree about the therapist I have to unfortunately disagree with you about sterilization of incest couples. And comparing someone with a high risk of passing on a defect and an incestuous couple IS compareable. I'm Hispanic but I have a bit of African in me. As far as I know I do not have any worries about Sickle Cell Anemia. But there are many people who either suffer from it or are carriers of it and have a very high risk of passing this on. Now admittedly it isn't the worst defect but it's the first example to pop into my head that people generally know about. Now if these people are made aware of the high risk and STILL decide to give birth to a child who will most likely now have to deal with a disease forced upon it how is this different from an incestuous couple rolling the dice and hoping for light to no defects? Humanity by nature is prone to defective genes. it comes with being diverse. You have strong genes and weak ones and sometimes several generations have the bad luck to have a history of weak genes being mixed to become stronger. It's why you can have a family history of heart disease. Your family, through breeding, was unfortunate enough to pass down a gene that makes you more suceptable to this disease. Does this mean that we should sterilize this blood line to avoid future generations getting this debilitating gene? Instead of coming up with the idea of forcing sterilization on someone, which regardless of the reprocussions is a gross violation of human rights and by saying it's ok you are essentially saying incest couples are not human and don't deserve to have the right to not be neutered, how about we move forward with gene therapy to not only not need to neuter ANYONE but to just help humanity in general. No need to worry abotu resessive genes if we can fix problems before they become real problems. |
![]() |
|
| Himmelgeher | Jun 25 2013, 05:31 PM Post #44 |
![]()
|
Once again, someone born with an inherited disease has no control over that circumstance. Someone who might pass down that disease has a static chance of passing it on. The odds of passing it down never change. Incest, on the other hand, is flagrantly and dramatically increasing the odds that you will pass down a horrible, debilitating disease to your offspring. From http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/genetics-inbreedingI don't even know why this is an argument. Literally every geneticist in the world says that inbreeding is a bad idea. In a hypothetical universe where incest was acceptable, it should come at the cost of mandatory sterilization. If you aren't willing to go through with it, then it's a sign that you aren't cognizant of the risks involved with inbreeding, or you aren't mentally competent to be making the decision in the first place. Or you're just so selfish that you don't care about the pain you could inflict on your child. In that last instance, I don't see that person as any more human than a serial killer or a pedophile. Secondly, heart disease and sickle cell anemia are, for the most part, largely manageable in modern society. They aren't exactly fun, but they don't prevent people from living relatively normal, productive lives before dropping dead a few decades before all their friends. Unlike many diseases that can be inherited from inbreeding, which can be painful and completely debilitating. These diseases occur so rarely in the general population that it would be insane to implement sterilization on otherwise healthy people just because of the circumstances of their birth. It would radically cull the number of people capable of having children, and would eventually lead to the extinction of the human race. Again, incest is not comparable because having sex and reproducing with a relative is a choice made by individuals. |
![]() |
|
| ViperKang | Jun 25 2013, 05:40 PM Post #45 |
![]()
|
First I mentioned that my examples weren't exactly life threatening and were used because they are fairly common diseases. Second it's an argument BECAUSE we are allowing a fictional universe where incest is perfectly fine in which case I personally would be more disgusted at the clear violation of human rights that sterilization poses rather than the incest itself. I would rather believe that consenting adults can be responsible enough to not take the chance rather than neutering them because they get together. Here's a scenario. A sibling pair get together but then break up and start non blood related relationships and would like to have a kid the regular roll of the dice way instead of the high stakes game of incest child birth. Oh wait they can't because they were neutered on the off chance they might have wanted a baby with their relative. Do you see my point? You are destroying any chance of them experiencing having a child on the off chance they'll be irresponsible and have a child with a sibling. That to me is unacceptable. Believe me I understand children through incest is a VERY bad idea. I think about it and get a chill of horror down my spine. But that chill turns into a huge shudder when I think that if this somehow became a world where incest was ok people would support the forced neutering of an 18 year old person because they have the hots for their sibling. Edited by ViperKang, Jun 25 2013, 05:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Warden of Wisdom | Jun 25 2013, 06:09 PM Post #46 |
![]()
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
|
Are we forgetting that anyone can cause major birth defects by using drugs during pregnancy? Should we sterilize everyone with a drug history? While I think that sterilization would be ideal in such a relationship, I'd rather have it recommended than enforced. I think a fine like Viper said could work. What about a therapist and someone who's mentally unstable? What about someone who's mentally unstable or impaired to begin with? Should they be legally forced to never love anyone because we can't be sure if they really are consenting? If a therapist dates someone they used to see in an office, and they're taking advantage of the patient, that doesn't change the fact that the patient is of legal age to consent and should have the right to date them. They can always break up. Hell, it's not like straight traditional marriages' divorce rates aren't absurd. If a colleague professor and a 8-22 year old student date, is that statutory rape? I don't think so, seeing as most people are mentally developed enough to decide for themselves at that age. I think it's wrong to keep two people who love each other apart. If someone with, say, severe schizophrenia wanted to marry. should we say "Because of your mental state you are not truly able to consent even though you love them and you would be a victim of rape no matter how much you love them and how much you consent."? I myself said that I'm against parent-child, but what about siblings? Should we take, say, two brothers who love each other and want to be together, and one is 2 years older than the other. Let's say, now, one is 22 the other is 24. Shall we say, "Sorry, because your older brother acted responsibly over you and protected you when you two were children/minors, you are unable to not be raped." Edited by Warden of Wisdom, Jun 25 2013, 06:15 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Warden of Wisdom | Jun 25 2013, 06:12 PM Post #47 |
![]()
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
|
And incest in the form of second or even first cousins does exist today a lot more than people think. |
![]() |
|
| Himmelgeher | Jun 26 2013, 10:35 AM Post #48 |
![]()
|
Firstly, the word "neuter" implies castration, which is a much more extreme procedure than a vasectomy. Secondly, vasectomies and tubal ligations are reversible. The odds aren't great, but it is possible. Thirdly, they're choosing to engage in incest. That already tells me that they aren't exactly the most responsible people in the world, and a guy accidentally knocking his sister up isn't just an "off chance." And lastly, having "the hots for their sibling" and "fucking their sibling" are two completely different things. Regardless, if they're attracted to their sibling(s), they should seek mental help, and their family should be investigated for a history of abuse, sexual or otherwise. They should not be encouraged in pursuing a relationship. Well, if they're 8 years old of course it is. But let's just assume you left the 1 off of 18. Almost everything else you listed here is already covered under malpractice law, so I don't have to make the arguments against them, because people with more expertise and experience in the area have already made them. A professor sleeping with one of their students is incredibly unprofessional. When I say that a teacher sleeping with their student is coercion by definition, I don't mean that they are doing it intentionally. Those who exploit people weaker than them seldom do so intentionally at first. What I mean is that coercion is intrinsic to the act. It is impossible for the professor not to have a coercive effect, because of the power dynamics built into the relationship. It doesn't matter how nice the professor is, or how horny the student is. It is up to the professor --read: anyone with power or responsibility over someone else-- to be mindful and self-aware enough not to take advantage of those they have power over. The same is true of family members. Every family has some sort of hierarchy. As nice as it would be for every educated adult in a family to have equal say and equal power within that family, it just doesn't happen. If such cases do in fact exist, they are very much the exception rather than the rule. Basing how we govern our society on such extreme and uncommon circumstances would be incredibly counter productive. Both deontology and rule-utilitarianism (the system used in law making) support this. In both ethical systems, choices must have "universality." To radically oversimplify for the sake of length; every time you make a choice, you must consider the effect it would have if everyone made that choice all the time, regardless of the specific circumstances. What you are arguing is act-utilitarianism (or worse, egoism), which is very impractical when discussing how we as a society should treat these scenarios. Guys also roofie girls at parties a lot more than people think. That doesn't make it socially acceptable or morally just. |
![]() |
|
| ViperKang | Jun 26 2013, 10:48 AM Post #49 |
![]()
|
Ok I get it now. You are the one I was lookign for Himmel. We now have someone who is morally and ethically opposed to incest. Good to see the otherside represented. |
![]() |
|
| Warden of Wisdom | Jun 26 2013, 10:58 AM Post #50 |
![]()
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
|
Never said it did...
Just because it's covered in a law doesn't make it correct. In ancient Israel there were plenty of laws that I think were wrong. Is it unprofessional? Yeah. Is it wrong? Not necessarily. What if a student loves their professor for who they are? And there are marriages where one individual is employed by their spouse, and works for them. Should we force them to divorce? Maybe it's just my family, but none of my siblings have authority or responsibility over each other. I don't support the idea of a family ruled by one individual. I think it should be both spouses, not one (usually the one who makes the larger salary.) My dad, who supported the household, tried to justify a total rule over us, and that's partially why I have such disdain for him. I don't think one person should control the family. I think it should be all (usually 2) spouses that own the house and such. Also, I think it's a bit unfair to jump and say that anyone who has had sexual attraction to their siblings is not mentally normal. A friend of a friend I knew killed himself because his family was disgusted when he admitted having sexual thoughts about his cousin. A bit unfair... |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate Section · Next Topic » |







1:56 PM Jul 11