Philosophy Now Forum

just came across this item, was wondering if anyone has an philosophical thoughts

http://thatviralfeed.net/nawtynerds/mot ... 653/?pid=0

No. If they're not harming anyone else, including children ie. not having them, it's not my business what they do. In fact, there is a certain genetic sexual attraction amongst related people who did not grow up together. Just as there is a certain aversion to unrelated people growing up in close quarters eg. on kibbutz.

Not my cuppa, but it's not for me to tell others how to live, if they are doing no harm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_int ... los_II.jpg

Above link is a good reason why we should avoid incest and such interbreeding AT ALL COST!!!!!

HexHammer wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_int ... los_II.jpg

Above link is a good reason why we should avoid incest and such interbreeding AT ALL COST!!!!!

I don't know. The Queen isn't bad looking at all, for ninety. Besides, all humans are in-bred mutants.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

HexHammer wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_int ... los_II.jpg

Above link is a good reason why we should avoid incest and such interbreeding AT ALL COST!!!!!

I don't know. The Queen isn't bad looking at all, for ninety. Besides, all humans are in-bred mutants.

HexHammer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

HexHammer wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_int ... los_II.jpg

Above link is a good reason why we should avoid incest and such interbreeding AT ALL COST!!!!!

I don't know. The Queen isn't bad looking at all, for ninety. Besides, all humans are in-bred mutants.

Why the eye-roll? We are all far more closely related than was previously thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_rece ... n_ancestor

Scientific 'Adam and Eve' are of course a lot further back.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I don't know. The Queen isn't bad looking at all, for ninety. Besides, all humans are in-bred mutants.

Why the eye-roll? We are all far more closely related than was previously thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_rece ... n_ancestor

Scientific 'Adam and Eve' are of course a lot further back.

But they went out to the other humans..

HexHammer wrote:But they went out to the other humans..

Not sure what you mean.

I don't feel it's my business. Society at large, though, has a stake with the costs and other problems caused by genetic disorders. I suppose, as a taxpayer, I can see a small risk to consolidated revenue by the measure. More importantly, there is a risk of predatory behaviour and exploitation being more difficult to identify and convict. Families have long been the most likely source of rape and abuse so legislators would need to be very careful about changing the law.

Very hard to abide parent/child sexual relationships. The best I'd offer is for incestuous couples to apply to a court to assess the relationship's legitimacy, especially parent/child relationships. Not blanket recognition, though. However, given court costs it would seem easier to keep the practice illegal and for police and judges to hopefully apply discretion.

Of course incest should be legal. We already have gay marriage establishing the precedent of "If you love each other and are consenting adults, then you should be able to get married."

People who get married aren't under any requirement to have kids. Gay couples who get married aren't being restricted from getting married because they can't have kids. They can adopt and incestuous couples can do the same thing. Besides, if the left-wing is really about being Pro-choice, then they should allow incestuous couples to choose whether or not they get pregnant and whether or not they carry them to term or not.

If the rate of abnormal births from incestuous sex is reason enough to prohibit incestuous marriages, then the abnormal births as a result of the woman being over 40 years old is reason enough to ban women over 40 from getting married.

Gay marriage has also established a precedent for polygamy as well. Most people think of men marrying young girls when they think of polygamy, and I agree that that is just another form of child abuse, but polygamy between consenting ADULTs that love each other should be legal, given the precedent established with gay marriage.

Greta wrote:I don't feel it's my business. Society at large, though, has a stake with the costs and other problems caused by genetic disorders. I suppose, as a taxpayer, I can see a small risk to consolidated revenue by the measure. More importantly, there is a risk of predatory behaviour and exploitation being more difficult to identify and convict. Families have long been the most likely source of rape and abuse so legislators would need to be very careful about changing the law.

Very hard to abide parent/child sexual relationships. The best I'd offer is for incestuous couples to apply to a court to assess the relationship's legitimacy, especially parent/child relationships. Not blanket recognition, though. However, given court costs it would seem easier to keep the practice illegal and for police and judges to hopefully apply discretion.

Thoughtful post Greta. You've covered it pretty thoroughly, but people with genetic disorders are allowed to have children even when there is a high risk of passing those genes on. I doubt if genetic concerns are a reason for the illegality of incest. First cousins are allowed to marry, and that's nearly as close a relationship as siblings. I suspect the reason for the law is more about religion than science.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Greta wrote:I don't feel it's my business. Society at large, though, has a stake with the costs and other problems caused by genetic disorders. I suppose, as a taxpayer, I can see a small risk to consolidated revenue by the measure. More importantly, there is a risk of predatory behaviour and exploitation being more difficult to identify and convict. Families have long been the most likely source of rape and abuse so legislators would need to be very careful about changing the law.

Very hard to abide parent/child sexual relationships. The best I'd offer is for incestuous couples to apply to a court to assess the relationship's legitimacy, especially parent/child relationships. Not blanket recognition, though. However, given court costs it would seem easier to keep the practice illegal and for police and judges to hopefully apply discretion.

Thoughtful post Greta. You've covered it pretty thoroughly, but people with genetic disorders are allowed to have children even when there is a high risk of passing those genes on. I doubt if genetic concerns are a reason for the illegality of incest. First cousins are allowed to marry, and that's nearly as close a relationship as siblings. I suspect the reason for the law is more about religion than science.

Fair point about genetics, Veg. More than anything, the potential cover for exploitation aspect is my sticking point, as per the above.

Greta wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Greta wrote:I don't feel it's my business. Society at large, though, has a stake with the costs and other problems caused by genetic disorders. I suppose, as a taxpayer, I can see a small risk to consolidated revenue by the measure. More importantly, there is a risk of predatory behaviour and exploitation being more difficult to identify and convict. Families have long been the most likely source of rape and abuse so legislators would need to be very careful about changing the law.

Very hard to abide parent/child sexual relationships. The best I'd offer is for incestuous couples to apply to a court to assess the relationship's legitimacy, especially parent/child relationships. Not blanket recognition, though. However, given court costs it would seem easier to keep the practice illegal and for police and judges to hopefully apply discretion.

Thoughtful post Greta. You've covered it pretty thoroughly, but people with genetic disorders are allowed to have children even when there is a high risk of passing those genes on. I doubt if genetic concerns are a reason for the illegality of incest. First cousins are allowed to marry, and that's nearly as close a relationship as siblings. I suspect the reason for the law is more about religion than science.

Fair point about genetics, Veg. More than anything, the potential cover for exploitation aspect is my sticking point, as per the above.

Exploitation is a concern, or should be, in any relationship, incestual or other.

Shouldn't be illegal in my opinion.

If the concern is the health of any potential children, and I could see merit in arguing for restrictions on having children who will most likely have serious mental or physical problems because of genetic or behavioral factors, then there should be laws in place that require an assessment of the viability of healthy children regardless of whether the biological parents are closely related or not.

Greta wrote:More importantly, there is a risk of predatory behaviour and exploitation being more difficult to identify and convict.

My first question would be this: what research are you basing that on? We should look at the methodology of just how they're assessing occurrence versus identification and conviction.