If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
And just one thing.
What if in the future, incest became acceptable?? It can never happen?? How do you know?? Why should morality be so rigid and absolute??
They used to think it was 'right' to stick children up chimneys, but now we all have to be 'nice' to them!
So you consider a mutilated generation to be a fair consequence of having sex with your family members-as in, it wouldnt matter if your potential future children were deformed or ridiculed about their parents, as long as you could just fulfil your sexual fetishes or desires?
Or maybe not you personally, but you'd condone other people doing that?
How is that justifiable?
If it became acceptable then it'd still be a taboo. And it wouldn't be popular either... so I doubt unless everybody starts to want their mother, it won't happen. Social change in that sense is down to the majority vote and hard work by campaigners. So if you wanna screw yo mam, go and pitch a protest outside the house of commons. :rolleyes:
But something cannot by definition be taboo if it is accepted in a society!
I don't want to screw my 'mam'! But I'm right in saying that societal trends change. In the 1950's British society was more racist then in contemporary times, yet that had little to do with 'protest' outside the 'house of commons'!:rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
In my INITIAL post, I said that I disapproved of family members producing offspring!!!:p
An unsubstantiated assumption!!!
Hokay, so when you talk about incest, can I assume that that includes penetrative sex? Therefore, you're implying that incest is acceptable, as long as contraception is used which would erradicate people conceiving, but still allow them to partake in incest. What about the concept that contraception could potentially fail, or be forgotten, etc? Wouldn't that defeat the object of your argument...or do you think that incest should be made legal, but with limits? How could that be inforced? It would be impossible. It would be on the same wavelength as 16 being the age when you can legally have sex. How could police possibly keep tabs on every fucker in Britain? And more to the point, if people actually wanted to perform incest, then it wouldn't be a taboo, the law certainly wouldn't stop them, and we'd have a nation of mutants-which we do not.
Besides, intercourse is not the ONLY sexual act in existence!
i think it should stay illegal - it makes kids realise that it is wrong they are being abused by close relatives, even if they are brainwashed into thinking it isnt
and yes I know it is not always family members in child abuse cases....
Not every female is emotionally capable of aborting their child.
Also I'm going to highlight the fact that I said 'can I assume that that includes penetrative sex?'. That was a question, think about it. :thumb:
I also went on to say that if you WEREN'T talking about actual intercourse, it would be near impossible to keep tabs on people that didn't abide by the law, therefore making it near pointless.
Does that mean that people with genetic disabilities should not be allowed, by law, to have sex either?
Personally I think the liberal ideas to back up the removal of a ban are sound- after all, abuses of power and forced sex are already illegal under separate laws. But the idea itself is just too wrong- unless one is from Silsden
Surely that's another issue in itself? I would say that that should depend on the individual, and their personal choice.
In my opinion, for healthy but blood-related people to have sex and continue to raise potentially genetically disabled offspring is cruel and morally wrong.
It's not another issue- it cannot be used as justification for one law and not for another.
Using your justification, it is surely more morally wrong for a person who is unhealthy and knows that they have a risk of producing disabled children to continue to procreate, and using your justification this practise should be banned too.
After all, if the two incestuous partners are both free of genetic illness, there is no genetic illness to pass onto the child anyway.
unless there are genetic mutations; which are more common than you might think. but normally, if one chromosome (ie: from the mother) mutates then the one from the father will take over. but if both mutate then you'er fucked.
or so goes my understanding
Well, no, it isn't more morally wrong. If they personally feel that they are capable parents, are willing to take the risk of producing disabled offspring but feel that they have the strength of character to bring up a disabled child, then they should have the choice. If they have the strength of character to have potentially disabled children and deal with the consequences, then their children would assumably have all the support that they need, grow up in a considerably more stable environment than a genetically mutilated child created incestuously. The aspect that the genetically mutilated child's parents could very well be perfectly able parents can be overlooked when considering the fact that that the child would probably be ridiculed throughout it's life, a blot on the landscape of society-physical and mental disability is generally accepted throughout the Western world, in modern society-incestuous relations are not.
By what means is the average person supposed to find out what diseases, etc. are in their genetics?
Is it even possible, when considering the hundreds and thousands of people in every singular person's ancestry, to be completely free of genetic defects?
What happens if a brother and sister feel the same? They may well be less likely to have a disabled child; why should they be stopped if they wish to become parents with each other?
Insults are no reason to prevent something, otherwise having a ginger child should be made illegal:p
Homosexual relations have only just become accepted in the Western world, and even then "God hates fags" is a popular belief, especially in the United States. In the past, marrying when a girl was only nine or ten was considered acceptable, but isn't today.
Point is, who defines "acceptability". Especially in Montana;)
That isn't really a good argument- genetic mistakes happen, and they can't be avoided. Look at Jacqueline Du Pre, and how unlikely a problem hers was.
And that still doesn't answer my point- if someone is more likely to have a disabled child, then using your justifications then it shouldn't matter who and why they are, it should be immoral regardless. Why should there be a differentiation?
If siblings 'felt the same' and had kids, then the chances are that they'd just become completely isolated from normal society-it's almost inevitable, but that's the way the modern world generally functions, whether it's justifiable or not. Would the family unit be able to cope with that kind of pressure, and would it really be fair to raise children in that situation?
The taboo surrounding incestuous relations is just too fundamentally large a one at the moment for its legalisation to even be considered.
As for 'homosexual relations'...well yes, that's my point exactedly, no? How long has it taken for gay marriage to become even remotely acceptable? 1 in 3 people might be gay, but I doubt the same figure applies to people with incestuous urges, so to speak-homosexuality is on a different level completely.
Genetic mutilations can and do happen, but are more possible where incest is concerned. I personally wouldn't take the risk if I was in a situation where I had strong feelings for a relative. It seems unnecessary when you consider the vast amount of people that exist that aren't related to you. If you were really capable of being a parent, would you really inflict that kind of cruelty on your spouse? Despite this I stand by my point that it's different in the case of disabled people having kids, for reasons explained in my previous post, which should also answer your question, if you actually consider what I'm saying.
Vorn x.
Try 1 in 10
The danger of genetic mutation is not a ground for outlawing incest, though, because of the whole issue of eugenics. To justify banning one group of people the justifications has to be extended to all- and that would include genetically disabled people.
Of course I don't think it should be legalised, and nor do I think it ever will be. It's just an interesting debate, because it shows how hard it is to justify something, without making random exemptions. Logic says that incest should be legal, but every other human faculty says the opposite.
Very true. I worked in a special needs school where there was a high incidence of gypsy families, where incest is common. A lot of the children born out incest were suffering from microcephaly and severe retardation. Considering that this is the product of incest, I think it's for the best that it remains illegal.
Really? Well, I heard 1 in 3.
Yep, agreed.
That's marriages that end in divorce;)
Proof?
I remember a case where someone was in love with her step-brother. They had no genetic relation whatsoever, and yet that relationship was discouraged by everyone. Why was that, since they weren't blood related?
For the record: I am against incest, be it between siblings or parents and child or whatever. I just don't think this paricular case is incest.
What do you say about this?
The supposed latest figure on that one is 1/2 (according to Radio 4).
And yes, I'm not going mad-1 in 3 people are apparently gay, although I'm sure figures vary with every survey done
They probably do, it all depends who's being asked and who's doing the asking. A survey by that prick Tatchell would find that everyone in the world was gay, whereas a survey by godhatesfags.com would find that no-one was:D
I'm dubious about a 1 in 3 figure, because even on the interwebnet there aren't that many gays and lesbians, though bisexuality amongst young women seems to be unfathomably popular (something to do with Willow in Buffy, me thinks)
I wish I could offer you statiscal proof for the particular school I'm referring to but that would be breaking all confidentiality rules
This link substansiates the link between microcephaly and incest
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2077135
this link prooves to a point the link between microcephaly and gypsy families. I know it is not brilliant, and is only one case, but I am tired!!!
486-491,1999, We report on 2 brothers with short stature, microcephaly, myopia, retarded ... nervous
system, which appears to be common in a specific Gypsy group in ...
http://www.rusmedserv.com/genetics/newsynd/1999.htm
how about such things as dignity ...self control ...
a very dangerous idea and in my opinion quite sick.
but then in this modern world ...some people have come to believe they are entitled to behave as they see fit ...do whatever they want ...i want it all and i want it now ...it's my right ...this is what will undo our civilisation. every civilisation so far has collapsed ...this one i fear will collapse becuase of greed ...selfishness and sheer fucking stupidity and indecency.
oh what an old fashioned word aye ...indecency.