Interesting incest question...

[Syterion]

This is one of the most perverted assertions I have ever heard, or at least what your statement implies. I know you are just trying to be open-minded, but I would suggest thinking about what you wrote. Any normal person finds even the idea of having sexual relations with their biological sibling repulsive. This is one of the few situations where society does know what is best for you, and should guide you in the moral direction. Being open-minded about everything is relatively easy to do, but drawing the line between what is right and wrong takes more skill.

Well sometimes the normal person isn't always right. In this case, the normal person is wrong. Incest is not(should not be) a crime. For a few simple reasons:

1. Who's the victim?

2. Children that are products of incest have a much smaller chance of birth defects than most think. I must also note that people with genetic disorders are allowed to freely procreate.

3. Incest is NOT pedophilia. I don't want to hear this argued.

4. "It's gross" is not an argument, it is an opinion.

 

[cgannon64]

1. Who's the victim?

Both parties. Incest can only result from a seriously deranged and perverted enviroment, with both parties probably acting incestuously because of confusion and emotional problems.

 

[ummmm........]

Am I the only one who read that as "insect question" and opened the thread to see what serutan had to say?

 

[Atlas14]

Well sometimes the normal person isn't always right. In this case, the normal person is wrong.

So because Al Qaida thinks flying planes into WTCers is morally acceptable, despite being in the minority for that view, they are still correct?

Incest is not(should not be) a crime.

Incest should be a crime.

1. Who's the victim?

The borne child with uncountable birth defects.

2. Children that are products of incest have a much smaller chance of birth defects than most think. I must also note that people with genetic disorders are allowed to freely procreate.

In response to your first part, you must have a very low expectation of what most people consider to be a lot of birth defects. People with genetic disorders are allowed to procreate becaue most don't have a 100% chance of having child with birth defects.

3. Incest is NOT pedophilia. I don't want to hear this argued.

I never said it was. I said it was completely, and out-right perverted. Nearly everyone here can agree with that.

4. "It's gross" is not an argument, it is an opinion.

Newsflash: Just about every law is based upon subjective opinions.

 

[Pikachu]

Any normal person finds even the idea of having sexual relations with their biological sibling repulsive.

I guess I am not normal then, but how does what “normal” people find repulsive matter? What the involved people feel must be immensely much more important.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with being un-normal either, is it?

And what makes you qualified of speaking on behalf of any normal person?

This is one of the few situations where society does know what is best for you, and should guide you in the moral direction.

How do you know that?

 

[Atlas14]

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with being un-normal either, is it?

Not necessarily "un-normal" in general, but in this situation, yes. It is one of those things that I truthfully can't prove to you, but it is accepted to be immoral as a society. It is a "given". Some people don't get quantum physics, others don't get that this is immoral.

And what makes you qualified of speaking on behalf of any normal person?

Because my view represents the majority viewpoint found in our society. Genetics and genetic history clearly shows children from two siblings will be borne with multiple birth defects over 90% of the time.

How do you know that?

How do you not know that?

 

[Syterion]

Both parties. Incest can only result from a seriously deranged and perverted enviroment, with both parties probably acting incestuously because of confusion and emotional problems.

Rampant generalization. Not that it might not be untrue, but first cousins and such have been known to fall in love and i see nothing wrong with it. While genuine romantic love between siblings may be rare, I see no fundamental flaw that makes it impossible.

Because my view represents the majority viewpoint found in our society. Genetics and genetic history clearly shows children from two siblings will be borne with multiple birth defects over 90% of the time.

Bull****. I remember proof from the last Incest threat that said it was more like 6% and lower depending on the relationship or something.

So because Al Qaida thinks flying planes into WTCers is morally acceptable, despite being in the minority for that view, they are still correct?

I shouldn't even have to argue this. So I won't, because it's just that stupid.

 

[Atlas14]

Bull****. I remember proof from the last Incest threat that said it was more like 6% and lower depending on the relationship or something.

Depends what you wanna define as birth defect. I think you have too high of qualifications. By incest w/ siblings, there is virtually no genetic variability, thus opening up the chance for mutations (deletions, insertions, and even point mutations) to be a much greater occurrance.

I shouldn't even have to argue this. So I won't, because it's just that stupid.

Stupid, or an excuse for your incapability to refute my comprehension of your shoddy logic?

 

[Narz]

#1 is fine.

Shoot, if I grew up with a non-realated hot chick in my household I probably would've run away from home and married her at 15.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I don't think either is necessarily immoral, but #1 is definitely the more disturbing.

 

[Speedo]

In response to your first part, you must have a very low expectation of what most people consider to be a lot of birth defects. People with genetic disorders are allowed to procreate becaue most don't have a 100% chance of having child with birth defects.

In family where incest has not occured before, the children of a sibling incestous relationship have a 2-3% greater than normal chance of defects.

Problems really only occur when incest occurs over several generations.

 

[nonconformist]

I think neither is. To stop people reproducing in case of birth defects is bordering on Eugenics.
The % chance of incestuous relationsh ips are tiny, about 3% higher thaqn normal (assuming it's a recessive gene, over two generations). Multiply that by the number of people likely to be incestuous. Result: less dangerous than normal reproduction.
Plus, 'tis in the Bible.

 

[Atlas14]

In family where incest has not occured before, the children of a sibling incestous relationship have a 2-3% greater than normal chance of defects.

If you allow two siblings to have children, then you have to allow their two children to have children together. This most certainly will create birth defects. You can spare me your unofficial birth-defect rate percentages for the second incestial generation, which you never provided a source for the first, because the genetic variation is much to small to not produce defects in majority of born children.

 

[Atlas14]

To stop people reproducing in case of birth defects is bordering on Eugenics.

They can still reproduce, just not with their sibling. I would normally applaud your open-mindedness, but lines have to be drawn.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Someone here - let's call him "Atlas14" - needs a better grasp of genetics.

 

[Speedo]

If you allow two siblings to have children, then you have to allow their two children to have children together. This most certainly will create birth defects. You can spare me your unofficial birth-defect rate percentages for the second incestial generation, which you never provided a source for the first, because the genetic variation is much to small to not produce defects in majority of born children.

If you read the first page, you'd see that I know a couple who are siblings. They had tests done to see what the chances of problems would be if they decided to have children.

Either way, your argument is irrelevant. There are many people out there with a far greater chance of passing on defects and problems than incest will ever have, but you allow them to have children. (and we don't even need to discuss what you'd be if you didn't.)

 

[nonconformist]

If you allow two siblings to have children, then you have to allow their two children to have children together. This most certainly will create birth defects. You can spare me your unofficial birth-defect rate percentages for the second incestial generation, which you never provided a source for the first, because the genetic variation is much to small to not produce defects in majority of born children.

False; to produce a deformity, both parents would have to have at least one defective gene (I'm assuming it's recessive, otherwise the parents would be "deformed" in any case). The chance of that is small enough.
Then we get to the children; there's only a 25% chance they'll get ONE of the genes; i.e the % chance a child will get both, from parents with one each is 6.25%. Factor into that the chance that both parents have the recessive gene, and how many people will actually be incestuous, the numbers are ridiculously small!
In fact, the only way any problem could arise is through many generations of inbreeding.

 

[Atlas14]

False; to produce a deformity, both parents would have to have at least one defective gene (I'm assuming it's recessive, otherwise the parents would be "deformed" in any case). The chance of that is small enough.
Then we get to the children; there's only a 25% chance they'll get ONE of the genes; i.e the % chance a child will get both, from parents with one each is 6.25%. Factor into that the chance that both parents have the recessive gene, and how many people will actually be incestuous, the numbers are ridiculously small!
In fact, the only way any problem could arise is through many generations of inbreeding.

Not false. Your understanding of genetics is sparse. Mutations are much more prevalent and liable to occurring under conditions such as lack of genetic variability. Two siblings lack genetic variability. That is a fact. You are talking about actual genetic disorders among the parents, which is an entirely different situation, yet actually helps my point, so I'd consider dropping that arguement. Your genetic disorder via autosomal or sex-linked inheritability acutally increases chance of birth defects among the children when you add it to the obvious chances of mutations.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Mutations are much more prevalent and liable to occurring under conditions such as lack of genetic variability.

Bull****. The DNA strands that mutate or do not mutate know nothing at all of the overall genetic disimilarity of the two combining half-genomes.

 

[nonconformist]

Not false. Your understanding of genetics is sparse. Mutations are much more prevalent and liable to occurring under conditions such as lack of genetic variability. Two siblings lack genetic variability. That is a fact. You are talking about actual genetic disorders among the parents, which is an entirely different situation, yet actually helps my point, so I'd consider dropping that arguement. Your genetic disorder via autosomal or sex-linked inheritability acutally increases chance of birth defects among the children when you add it to the obvious chances of mutations.

Let's do this the diagramatical way:
Let X stand for a defective gene
let's say that there are two children
Scenario 1:
Parent with genetic disorder:

XX...........................XX
out of 2 children, the average should be:
XX.............................XX
i.e, 2 healthy children
Occasionally, you might get
XX...................XX
but that means nothing

In fact, allt he children are liekly to be healthy.
The children of the children are jsut as likely.


Now let's assume that by some freak chance of nature, that we have those 6.25 % afflicted both witha defective gene (and this is 2nd generation, remember)

XX.......................XX
This should give:
XX XX XX XX
[/COLOR]for 4 children.
25%.
Large, but only for more than 2 generations of incest.
That have 4 children.

The chance of that is absurdly small; much less than the 6.25% I initially calculatd.