Incest & Ethics: A Dangerous Combination

The BBQ Pit
41

Back for a second to the OP, But the 2 cannot be compared. Consensual incest must involve at least 2 people,(we can get into the ethics of more than 2 later ;)) whereas taking drugs is up to the person taking them.

it is [bold] YOUR [/bold] decision wether or not you will take drugs.

you cant have incest by yourself.

totally different ethics.

“I’m a rebel, soul rebel. I’m a capturer, soul adventurer”
~Bob Marley
wanna see me?
Last picture. Thats me on the left. Blue shirt. I dont have the hair colour anymore.

42

Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex In Virginia:

Homosexual conduct would be prohibited by § 18.2-361, Crimes Against Nature, which provides that “If any person … carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony…”

I suppose that the “intercourse between persons forbidden to marry” (§ 18.2-366) misedemeanor would be a lesser-inluded charge of the felony.

  • Rick
43

F.U.C.K.

A beer for the one that gets the reference.

Coldfire
Voted Poster Most Likely To Post Drunk

WallyM7 on Coldfire:
"Yeah, he knows a little about everything because they have a good prison library."

44

Coldfire,

You’re arguing that there is a small risk of conceiving a disabled child in an incestuous relationship, which makes all such relationships morally wrong.

There is a small risk that a woman smoking pot might be pregnant (whether she knows it or not) and that the pot might harm the child. So why does this not make it morally wrong for any woman to smoke pot?

I just don’t see how objections to either incest or pot smoking can reasonably be based on harm to a third party.

45

For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge?

(Mine’s a Guinness …)

46

Once again Tom, you’re trying to obscure things by mixing two situations. I’m sure there are a lot of women who are absolutetely positive that they are not pregnant. And for the ones that aren’t so sure, well, I suppose there is a one month risk of exposing a child to the potential effects of a smoking mother. Effects which are pretty mild when considering pure weed, as opposed to tobacco.

Oh, and here’s your Guinness. Enjoy :wink:

Coldfire
Voted Poster Most Likely To Post Drunk

WallyM7 on Coldfire:
"Yeah, he knows a little about everything because they have a good prison library."

47

As far as the two 15-year-olds scenario goes - I thought that usually sex with anyone under the age of 16, or maybe even 16 and under, is statutory rape. The “statutory” part means that consent is irrelevant.

As far as incest producing birth defects, I don’t think it matters how many generations inbreeding has taken place. What matters is whether the parents share a genetic disorder that would be canceled out if they interreproduced with someone chosen out of the general population. I don’t see how inbreeding could CAUSE genetic defects, only how it could magnify the effects of them if they are present.

48

CF:

Errrrr, ALL sex has a risk of producing a child with a birth defect. Incest MAY (and only may) have a greater chance. But the same holds true for someone with a family history of diabetes, hemophilia, sickle-cell, etc, etc.

So shall we then say that “sex is unethical” (actually, I think we’re talking morals here, rather than ethics) when there’s any chance of producing damaged goods?

-andros-

49

We most certainly shall not :smiley:

The key is in the word “deliberately”, andros. I’m sure you’ll agree that makes a difference.

Coldfire
Voted Poster Most Likely To Post Drunk

WallyM7 on Coldfire:
"Yeah, he knows a little about everything because they have a good prison library."

50

Well, sure, but that’s predicated on several things. I know that any child I have runs a (small) risk of getting some crappy genes from me. I peceive that risk to be small enough, however, not to stop me from having a kid. Deliberately.

Where if the line drawn? 1 percent? .0001 percent?

-andros-

51

Oh, thanks, Mr. Hitler Coldfire, now you are telling everyone they can’t have kids unless they submit to genetic screening? So if a couple knows they have gene problems undder your system they aren’t allowed to try to have kids?

52

Ignore it, CF. It’ll go away again.

53

I’m late in the game, but I just had to say, Coldfire, anyone whose says something good enough to become my new sig line deserves some respect.

–Tim

You can’t accidently create a handicapped baby whilst smoking pot.

54

Wow. This is truely amazing.
AvenueB-Dude:

"Mr. Hitler Coldfire" eh?

First of all, I take GREAT offence to that remark because of my national heritage. But then again, someone as stupid as yourself mght very well be unaware of European 20th century history.

Secondly, I will have you know that it does not help ones credibility when one is shouting stupid remarks at the few people in a thread who are actually, unlike your pathetic little self, trying to contribute to said thread, and are generally debating on an acceptable level.

The fair conclusion can thus only be, that your incredibly dumb Hitler remark was the result of your personal frustration because of not understanding what the FUCK anyone in this thread besides yourself is actually saying.

I actually feel sorry for you because of that. You’re too stupid to participate in a real debate, so you resort to childish name-calling. Very, very sad.

However, I would also like to tell you that you suck the proverbial pipe in ways previously unimaginable.

You’re a disgusting little piece of shit, and I’m only using these mild words because Ed politely asked us to do so.

Dixit, you lame scrote.
andros: I know it will go away mate. With his intellect, he’s lucky to make it down the stairs alive every morning. But for the love of me, I coulnd’t ignore this ignorance. Please accept my humble apologies :wink:
Homer: OK, I’m kinda flattered by you using one of my lines as a sig. But errrmm… credit where credit’s due mate, know what I mean, nudge nudge, wink wink?

Coldfire
Voted Poster Most Likely To Post Drunk

WallyM7 on Coldfire:
"Yeah, he knows a little about everything because they have a good prison library."

55

I am sorry to be that offensive, that was over the line. But you have to admit that Hitler was for eugenics, telling people how they could reproduce. I shouldnt have called you that but you have to admit that it is a fair question to ask, if you are willing to control who can have babies where will it end?

56

First, let me say that I find incestuous relationships repulsive.

But all of you have got this handicap thing wrong. I have a medical background. There are many genetic “diseases”. Most of these are recessive, like blue eyes. You need two recessive genes to get that disease, otherwise you’re just a carrier, most of the time without symptoms.

Let me use an example. R is dominant and r is recessive. If one parent had a recessive gene then 4 kids would likely have RR, RR, Rr and Rr. Now recessive genes are generally rare in the general population. If the kids were to marry outside the family and have grandkids, then the r recessive gene would still be carried but would not manifest in any disease. But if the kids would marry each other then it’s likely that one of the grandkids would have rr and the disease would manifest itself.

Now, here is the real kicker. It’s actually better off for the kids to marry each other if the rr disease kills the gene carrier. Because if it did, the gene would die out. But if the kids with the Rr genes married out, 50% of his or her kids would still be a carrier and the r gene would live on. Anyone with a college course in genetics or biology would be able to verify what I’m saying.

57

This is not a matter about being “willing to control who can have babies”. Did I supply you with an extensive list of who would be allowed to produce babies and who would not be? No. I merely said something about babies born out of incestuous relationships. I’m sure that hardly qualifies as being a suporter of the Uebermensch theory.

The issue is, that society as a whole (and you can take every western civilized country as an example: The US, all European countries, HELL, maybe even Canada :D) rejects the notion of incest as being “wrong” (in the moral sense of the word - I’m sure not every single country has direct LAWS against it, but that’s another issue). This means, that babies born out of an incestuous relationship are considered “wrong” as well. I don’t know how things are in the States, but if a Dutch woman goes to Town Hall to register her newborn daughter and she claims her dad is the father of her daughter, the family WILL get a visit from the police, and subsequently, various people from institutions such as the psychriatric profession, family counselors, social workers and the like. Nobody’s gonna throw them in JAIL over it, the damage has already been done. But everything will be done to prevent it from happening again.

Major Feelgud: Thanks for clarifying that. As I said earlier on, I do not claim to have any wisdom whatsoever as far as the medical aspects of this issue go. But from your explanation, it seems logical that a brother and sister (for example) are more likely to BOTH have a certain regressive genetical trait (albeit that they are only carriers). If they then choose to procreate (sp?) together, are they not taking a (implicit) risk of ending up with a baby that is not only a CARRIER of that genetic trait, but bears the full-blown EFFECT of it (e.g. a physical handicap)?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the reasoning above is not faulty, it seems I have just proven my case.

Coldfire
Voted Poster Most Likely To Post Drunk

WallyM7 on Coldfire:
"Yeah, he knows a little about everything because they have a good prison library."

58

Sounds like you have some interesting friends. When can I meet them? :slight_smile:

seriously, single dad, I’ve been running through a list of the consensual sexual variations I know: 3somes 4somes Nsomes, BDSM, Fantasy and Roleplay, fetishism, voyeurism, etc. and I can’t think of any that freak me out as much as incest. My list seems to me to be a bunch of harmless diversions, whereas incest seems to me strongly indicative of some seriously fucked up family history.

Perked Ears indicate curiosity - Know Your Cat

59

I’m sorry Coldfire, but you’re just wrong in this instance.

No, you think it’s morally and ethically wrong…just like I think it’s morally and ethically wrong to smoke pot.

Just because you think something is wrong, doesn’t mean that everyone does. As demonstratedby several people posting that they know some incestuous relationships. As far as the law that most countries have to prevent incest, well, most of those same countries have laws against using pot. shrug…can you call one set of laws morally wrong, and the other right just because you feel that way?..I don’t agree with either pastime, but you cannot say that one is “right”, and the other “wrong” based upon your feelings…

60

Except that unlike you(with regards to pot) he was not basing it upon “feelings” but instead upon a well reasoned argument.

Now, you could argue with his premises, ie acting in such a manner as to create a child with a possibly severe disability isn’t morally correct, but somehow I’m guessing that you’re not going to do that. (seeing as how that would mean that, say, smoking crack while pregnant would be morally OK if one denies that premise.)