Wasn’t this a Law and Order: SVU episode a couple of years back?
No amount of logic or open-mindedness is gonna keep me from being repulsed by this. That they have made those children a part of it is probably the most disturbing aspect, but their relationship itself also makes me queasy. That said, I am in favor of the government allowing them to do as they please together. Activity between consenting adults should not be legislated.
To be fair, Dellie, your OP was little more than “Eww, I’m outraged”. Had you’ve written out your post like you’ve just done here then you’d probably get more people agreeing with you.
This is said from the POV of someone who has considered 2.5 to be a pretty egregious troll in the past.
That’s interesting…do you know why it happens? Is it just being around people who are so close to you genetically, that you’re more likely to be attracted to them? I mean, why would you inherently bond with someone just because they’re related to you? And how can you tell that it’s different from lust? That is, what makes it different from lust?
Okay, my bad.
I’d think people would be naturally less attracted to those close to them genetically. Women use smell to determine those that have different genetics than them, simply put, because natural selection favors those with a wide variety of genes. As for why this happens sometimes, I’d think that for people with poor boundaries, the bonding love can feel like romantic love to them, and they get caught up in it. It’s a completely wrong decision, in my opinion, to let it develop into having children together. Where’s that pukey smiley?
To be honest, I don’t know anything about it. I should have been a bit clearer, the “apparently” was because all I know about this was read on wikipedia and a few articles related to news articles about the incest couple.
Personally I don’t know why it happens, and I would be interested if someone who does know more would be able to expand on it.
Possibly, but if she physically resembles her mother, those features may be as attractive to him as her mother’s were ~32 years ago.
This is pretty much my reaction as well. I just can’t get over the “ick” factor. But the fact that there’s children involved really raises my hackles. That just doesn’t seem right and you’d think they would have gotten a clue when the first one died.
I know this is pretty extreme, but this is one of the few instances in which I would support forced sterilization. Probably dad’s.
Exactly! That’s why it strikes me as so wrong. Ok, so she didn’t really know him as an authority figure. BUT they’ve already lost one child to genetic defects, they know why it happened, they know how likely it is to happen again, yet they don’t care, they keep trying. :mad: 
:mad:
Does “no creepier than Anais Nin and her dad” count as faint praise?
Unless the people in this thread are reading something beyond the original cite, I only see that the 2001 child died of “congenital” defects, which may or may not be genetic in nature, and even if they were, may or may not be related to the incest. Even unrelated couples can and do lose children in this manner.
To add insult to injury they gave poor little Celeste a name that rhymes with “incest”. The limericks almost write themselves.
That was exactly my question.
Here is the court transcript from their sentencing, and all it says is that “The first child was born in 2001 but died a few days after birth due to a congenital heart disease.”
While all genetic disorders may be congenital, not all congenital disorders are genetic.
I am aware of that and said so in my original post in this thread, but the odds of such problems for closely related persons are much greater than for most unrelated persons.
While Wikipedia says that 40-60% of congenital defects have no known cause, I think that when dealing with a couple this closely related, I’m not being unreasonable to ask for proof that the specific defect wasn’t genetic, before I drop my assumption that it can be linked to the consanguinity of the parents. I’ll admit part of that is because I’m taking that 40-60% figure as being based on all incidents through the population.
That would be my bad. One of the reports I read said that the birth defect was genetic and known to be linked with incest, but do you think I can find it now? No.
So strike that from my post.
You also asked, in that post:
Well, at what point IS the risk too great?
After all, it is now possible, in a variety of circumstances, to identify (non-incestuous) couples who are at greater risk of producing offspring with genetic problems. At what percentage do we tell them they can’t have kids? Is a 50% greater-than-normal probability of genetic deformity enough to deny them? What about 30%, or 10%? And, in making that determination, should it be done purely on medical percentages, or should the social “ick” factor surrounding incest also play a role?
Hell, there are plenty of congenital and genetic issues that can now be detected in the fetus. Should women carrying those babies be forced to abort?
And i’d also be interested to meet an inorganic child, to which your organic child is presumably the alternative.
I’d like to confirm this, somewhat. Ten years ago, a man my mother had given out for adoption as a baby found us (9 siblings). Long story. When I first met him, I was shocked, it was as though I had known him all my life. It was a very emotional experience, a bit like a birth and a death combined, as my mother had died with her secret. After the initial emotions, I was struck by the fact that, had my brother and I met unknowingly, I would probably have fallen for him. We are both jazz fans, indeed he is a musician. That was a scary thought for me.
That was just a passing thought, and we are now good friends and siblings – who just happen to have a lot in common.
So I can understand about the incest taboo not operating if people don’t spend their early lives together. Acting on it would have been another thing altogether, once people know of the genetic bond.
Bullshit. He is clearly trolling in this thread, imho. I think people are agreeing with him to show that they are open minded and that your axiom doesn’t hold true.
This is wrong in the same way that any medically dangerous practices are wrong and legislated against as this is. It’s also wrong for the child.
I will agree it’s weak for an RO thread.
I don’t know where the exact line should be drawn in all cases. As a childless bachelor, I can’t even offer up where I’d put the line, for myself, since it’s a moot point. I won’t say that the social “ick” factor isn’t part of my judgment against the parents in this situation. It is. At the risk of espousing expediency: a ban against parent/child incest or one against sibling incest producing children seems reasonable. Not ignoring the “ick” factor, but certainly not only for that reason.
As for asking whether women carrying babies with prenatally detected problems should be forced to abort - are you serious? Do you really think that preventing conception is the same as abortion?
Do you prefer the term “natural”? In which case I want you to show me an unnatural child. (And not one that’s just being quiet in public.) I was trying to draw a distinction between either adoption, or artificial insemination. i.e. a child that had an organic or genetic link to both parents, vice one that was either “natural” only to the mother, or not “natural” to either parent.
Do you have a better term?