How is a step-father/child incest? He isn’t related. That, it seems to me, is rape, pure and simple.
If the law defines it as incest, it’s not incest biologically but it’s incest legally. Many of those laws assume that incest will not be voluntary (same as you’re assuming that step-father/child is not, while I’m hearing echoes of The Woody Allen Situation) and have higher penalties for incest than for statutory rape and for statutory rape than for non-statutory rape.
IANAL, and I expect the answer is “it depends where you are”, but is it even possible to legally consent to an act that is itself illegal? Is not all incest rape, by this virtue?
Can a person, for example, legally consent to being murdered?
Rights like to not be assaulted are set by the state, and assault or murder is an offense against the state. However, many consenting acts (boxing, wresting, being checked in hockey) would be illegal if there was no consent. Others - actual serious injury, death - you cannot consent to, but consent may mitigate the guilt of the other party.
No, but if sex between two consenting adults is incest, technically the can both be charged. We’re long past the point where “rape” is something done by men to women, especially if you read the news about quite a few female teachers.
The law usually defines statutory rape differently for people “in a position of authority” over the victim - parent, step-parent, teacher, doctor or therapist, etc. These are people whose position implies they already have control and a child is more likely to do what they say and obey orders to keep it quiet.
I suppose step-parent should be rape not incest…
Is this technically true, or is it the case that certain relationships are not defined as incestual in certain states?
Which of course leads us to the joke: Why is police work so hard in West Virginia?
There are no dental records and all the DNA is the same.
It seems to me that if they go through the trouble of seperating the two with ‘or’ when they mention “in cases of rape or incest” then the the ‘incest’ portion must mean concentual incest and not rape incest since rape incest would automatically fall under the term rape.
If this is indeed the case it seems like an odd pairing and that plenty of people would have various opinions on which combination of the two they are for or against.
I.e.:
Pro-abortion in cases or rape, pro-abortion in cases of concentual incest.
Pro-abortion in cases of tape, anti-abortion in cases of concentual incest.
I have to wonder if most people think about it that much. Like I said above, I doubt they get beyond the “ick” factor and assume it would only occur between deviants or something.
In New Jersey family relationships only come into play in the law when it comes to age of consent. It bumps it up to 18 instead of 16. Incest is not illegal if both are adults. And it’s one of the states that 1st cousins can marry.
For other states you would have to check each one. As stated earlier Rhode Island repealed their statute.
I think there are also some jurisdictions around the world where uncle-niece is an allowed pairing. I don’t know about aunt-nephew, though: The sorts of places where uncle-niece is allowed tend not to be renowned for their gender parity.
In Canada, uncle-niece and aunt-nephew marriage is permitted, as is cousin marriage.
Would aborting a pregnancy that was a result of consentual incestual sex be no different, in the eyes of some, than aborting the pregnancy that was the result of a rape? If so, why?
I’m simply amazed at the amount of ignorance in the general public about these topics. Not in this forum, but in the people that the media, pundits and political parties seem to deal with.
Of course, IIRC one law proposed along these lines in some state required that a charge of incest or rape be laid before an abortion was permitted. Not sure what happens if the perp is dead…
IMHO if a fetus is a human being with “right to life” then how it was conceived is irrelevant to the conversation. Either the only reason is “medical necessity - danger of loss of life” or anything goes.
First cousins, according to a recent thread, share approximately 3% same DNA (assuming only 1 cousin connection). This is significantly less than siblings (about 50%), half-siblings (25%) or parent-child (50%). Uncle-niece etc. would be about 13%.
I tend to think of first cousin marriage as kind of squicky, though I understand that some cultures permit it. For me (guy), my only girl cousin is much younger than me and I can’t emotionally see her as not a little girl. She belongs in my lap, not my bed, lol.
Not “no different,” but also a special case, because of the genetic implications. That is, some people who oppose abortion in general might say that in certain special cases such as rape (because you wouldn’t want to impose additional trauma on the victim) or incest (because of the possibilities of genetic abnormalities in the child), they would allow abortion.
This one wins the trifecta: southern state, trailer home, drunken sibling sex.
Haha! And all niggers love watermelons and fried chicken! How is this shit allowed on this board? Are there mods here or do they only moderate slams against gay people?
But I’m wondering why some want a policy exemption for “incest”.