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.
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
But it's a completely different issue. The potential for bullying as a result of allowing certain actions should have absolutely no influence on whether it should be allowed or not.
Are you in favour of banning disabled people from procreating? If not, why not?
The whole idea of banning two consenting adults from doing what they want is preposterous, to be quite honest. All it does is send a man to prison, and have his kids taken away, because he dares to sleep with the woman he loves. Legalising incest won't make any of us go and sleep with our siblings, so why should it banned?
But children from an incestuous relationship is inbreeding! And imo it's totally different from disabled people reproducing ... I don't really see how the two can be compared. No doubt someone will enlighten me on that soon though.
Incestuous relationships, fine, whatever they want to do but I don't think that they should "be allowed" to have children from one. No doubt someone will point out to me here that it's their human right to have children.
In this case the kids are already there, they shouldn't have been taken away.
Basically because whenever we ask why people object to inbreeding, they state an increased chance of genetic disorders is the reason. So the comparison is made on those grounds. Other than that, I can't see any reason to object other than wanting to enforce your idea of what is right and wrong on other people.
Many disabilities are genetic, and they are passed on by disabled people on to their offspring. Many genetically deaf people will end up with deaf children, and so on. If the concern is the risk of genetic defect that it makes sense to also prevent disabled people from procreating.
The amount of people who would willingly have sexual relations with a parent or sibling is tiny, so the law is pretty much pointless. They could legalise it tonight and I'm not going to go and sleep with my sister, and I doubt you'd go and sleep with your brother just because the law lets you. Equally, if you and your brother were determined to have sexual relations, the law wouldn't stop you from doing so.
They're not allowed to marry, but then gay people have only just got that right for God's sake. But I'm not sure what the deal is in this country with having kids. I imagine it's illegal too, but I don't know how they deal with it when it happens.
It is? I would've thought it was banned because it is considered "wrong".
Genetic issues aren't inherent, even in children with parents who are directly related.
Incest in Britain remains forbidden, even for step parents, step kids, and adoptive parents.
The step-sibling one is a grey area though. I know that you are allowed to marry your step brother/sister but I think there are some rules about whether you've grown up together. Otherwise you could get a girlfriend, introduce the parents to each other, they could hit it off and get married, and you'd be banned from going out any more.
But not worthy of a criminal offence.
However, Pill'ed is right. The amount of teasing the kids will get will be huge - however, better than having a smackhead hooker and a man utd fan for parents....just.