No cite, but IIRC persons with Downs syndrome have the same rights to marry and reproduce as anyone else. The list can go on from there: MS, ALS, and those afflicted with other maladies have the right to procreate, which runs counter to your point of state’s interest. Once the prohibition begins, where is the line drawn? You and your girlfriend are both bipolar. No booty. It’s a slippery slope, IMO.
As dwalin observed, ‘closed’ societies increase risk of offspring with genetic problems. Several articles in the Harrisburg paper addressed this problem within the Amish of Central PA.
No, the couple I’m thinking about is definately American, but I remember reading about a well-publicized incestuous couple in France. The difference between the two couples were that the Frence sibs began their relationship knowing full well that they were brother and sister, while the American sibs only discovered the fact after they had had a couple kids. IIRC, the fact was discovered because one or both of the sibs, both grown adoptees, were searching for biological family.
Gad, there’s probably at least a few dozen brother-sister mates living on the qt in the U.S., and in France, and Australia, and every other nation everywhere.
The chances of an incestuous union resulting in defective offspring are real but wildly exaggerated, particurly in the case of a “one-off” pairing as opposed to a few generations of inbreeding.
Well, some states already criminalize sexual contact between people who aren’t married…
also, isn’t that what the blood test before marriage is for? I don’t know if they can deny the marriage license if the test says you shouldn’t have kids, though.
And my original question stands: Why isn’t this girl being charged? She committed the same crime her father did.
I may be a dinosaur and therefor out of date, plus, I’m at work and doing google searches on this sort of thing is not a great idea, but I found reference to it being a misdemeanor in Georgia. It’s probably still a misdemeanor, at least, in a bunch of states. If not, feel free to flame me. It is the Pit, after all, not GQ.
I believe true consenting-adult anti-fornication statutes are pretty much “dead letter” law these days. They’re mostly there because nobody bothers removing them.
The earlier quote of the Indiana laws would suggest there would not be a case for the felony of “incest” if they had married in good faith, not being aware that they were father and daughter. However, if as suggested in further quotes, there was already the awareness of the relationship on both parts, the marriage would have to be annulled.
Puting aside the paternity/incest element for a moment – there is still something ethically uncomfortable to me about marrying your custodial ward immediately upon him/her reaching age 18. Dependency, position of authority and all that: makes it questionable how free and informed was this consent.
But, uncomfortable as it may make me, I have to admit that if there is truly free and informed consent among competent adults, I can’t really justify making consensual nonviolent private sexual contact a crime punishable by the State with prison. Even if the act were repugnant.
JRD
Oh, yes: on the “genetic defect” issue: we did have incest/endogamy laws before genetic research, the genetic justification was sort of retrofitted into them in the early 20th century, in terms of avoiding “degeneracy”. What is involved in some of the recent commentary on how real it is, is this: if genetic defect A has a relative rate of 1 in 1000 births in the general population, and an incestuous encounter doubles that rate, that is still 1 in 500, which still looks low. The really big problems happen when the endogamy is recursive within a closed population, e.g. isolated communities.
The short answer is yes, they “could”. In most states it would take nothing more than a majority vote in the appropriate legislature. Would it stand if challeged? Unlikely. Should it stand if challenged? Would it be proper? This is a matter of opinion. There are those who believe the state should be so empowered and as such would not object to the state attempting to prevent people from knowingly engaging in activities with a high degree of risk to bring a handicapped individual into being. There are others who believe the state should keep out of these types of decisions.
The courts generally side with the laisse-faire approach, but there is no enumerated “right to procreate with whomever you choose” in the constitution. Protection of reproductive rights has generally been at the whim of the courts. Vague concepts, like Substantive Due Process or a right to privacy emanating from a “penumbra”, are the foundation of such rights. As such legislation which infringes on them is not automatically required to undergo strict scrutiny as restrictions on religious freedoms and such are. Under a “rational basis” test it may well be that “discouraging inbreeding” is sufficient basis to criminalize incest.
As for people with Down’s Syndrome, MS, etc. we should be careful to note that just because they currently engage in behavior which is not criminalized, this behavior is also not explicitly protected. There may come a day when a state decides that, due to healthcare costs or Nazi-ish “purity reasons”, that they should not be allowed to procreate. Until that time the silence of the law on procreation by those with Down’s Syndrome should not be taken as affirmation that reproductive rights are protected.
Note that I have not expressed any personal opinions in this post, simply statements about how the system works.
I can’t see how it could be stated that “it is in the state’s legitimate interest in forbidding relationships with high degress of risk of producing defective offspring” because in this case it would open the door for laws forbiding people with genetic defect from having sexual intercourses with anybody. The reasonning would be equally valid in both cases.
That door is already open. In the US legal system every door that is not explicitly shut(“Congress shall make no law…”) is open. There are two things standing between the way it is today and a world where procreation is forbidden to those with Down’s syndrome. The first is the legislature, whom we hope will not make such a onerous law. Note that there is nothing stopping them from making such laws(at the federal level at least, the state constitutions are often far more specific on this and may have reproductive rights enumerated) however. Once that hurdle is crossed, then it goes to the judiciary. Since there is no enumerated right to procreate all a state has to do to have a law forbidding it stand is show there was a rational basis for the legislation. “Discouraging inbreeding”(the short form of my previous statement) is a rational basis as inbreeding is harmful to the population in biological terms.
Hiding under some rock?