i dont give a damn what i sound like, we are talking about brother on sister action, not gay marriageShadowsofHope said:
Incest.
- Thread starter Wedlock49
- Start date
Recommended Videos
first other animals (if you don't remember humans are animals)and plants have incest all the time does it cause great genetic mutation not more then if they had it with something not related. all human are related anyway you only have to go back about 200 years. so if they have a babie it's not going to be mutated and if it has a mental disability MOST people these days have mental disabilities I'm dyslexic and have autism (asperger to be precise) it doesn't unlock genetic flaws if you have genetic flaws they were always there and if you babie has genetic flaws but you don't have these genetic flaw it is your sperm or egg that has the problem. the problem with incest is keeping the genes less unique not mutated meaning that one virus could kill everyone or that everyone would have asthma or be allergic to nuts.
Why thank you for only being insulting towards anyone else with an opinion differing from you. Such a clear and positive role-model for debating, you are!s0denone said:
Not everyone shares the same moral stance as you. Feel free to get off your high chair, now.
I feel I should elaborate my stance a little better. I have no issue with it as long as the pair are close to or the same age as one another, and have consented with one another in turn. A father/daughter or mother/son incestuous relationship is obviously pedophilia, which I am very strongly against.
No kids and as long as the brother and sister really do love each other is fine, I say brother and sister, cause well anything else is just sick, unless its cousin and cousin
This is valid moral reasoning, the rest of your post wasn't (I can post rebuttals if you'd like; it's not very good form to just declare something wrong, but I'm trying to cut to the heart of your great point).s0denone said:
However, I actually do support preventing those who are most likely to birth severely maladapted children from giving birth. If one finds in a prenatal scan that one's child is going to have a debilitating mental illness I would fully support aborting said child. Whilst the maladapted have a right to life, simply in virtue of being human (we can debate that too, if you'd wish, though I'll fall back on Posner vs Singer), the prenatal do not and parents ought to take responsibility for what they do to humanity as a whole by contaminating the gene pool (yes, yes I know we've all got recessive 'contaminations', but until we find a way to make 'gene therapy' or 'eugenics' more than just science fiction we'll need to delineate between those in whom the contamination is dominant and those in whom its recessive).
I believe I've shown above why morality, since shared amongst humanity, is not mere subjective opinion. He's making a moral statement which, in the eyes of moral realists, is a factual one. Countering a factual statement with "I disagree! Respect my opinions!" isn't valid.ShadowsofHope said:
I don't have any siblings, so I really don't have an opinion either way. On one hand, all humans are very close relatives in the big scope of things, so it's kind of an odd thing to have a problem with in the first place. Also, what other people do in the bedroom is not my problem, they can decide to fuck whoever they want. I don't have the right to care what you do with your sister, nor do I want to care.
Thanks, now I need some brain soap.IdealistCommi said:
OT: No baby, I guess its fine. Not very cool with me personally but I've never been attracted to my only sibling that way.
Houser clearly didn't work enough on history of morality. Even now, if you look at Mid Eastern cultures their moral views is stuck in 8th century and it is a lot different than moral of the western cultures which is mostly the same. The reason why it's more and more similar is because of globalization, and liberalization. People are becoming more open minded about things. I'll give you the example from my own country how moral changes, and fast. Just 100 years ago it was morally correct to kill a man on the spot if he in any way insults your honor. It was encouraged even and it was considered immoral to let that person live. Now, all that is gone. It's changed. Only a couple of things like stealing and murder remained a moral constant in most cultures (most not all). In the ancient Sparta children were thought to steal. Elders would beat the kids if they get caught them stealing. Not because they stole, but because they were caught.BGH122 said:
The whole cutting a post apart makes it difficult to make a retort that seems coherent when I'm not willing to do the same, so...s0denone said:
I haven't first hand experiance about it, no but I do have an opinion that's based on me spending a large amount of time pondering the morality of such a thing.
I wouldn't let them reproduce because it carries the risk of genetic deformity, I find it to be very irresponsable when parents put unborn children in harms way for the sake of their own selfish desires.
Inbreeding over time is bad for the genepool if reproduction occurs. Family members haveing relations with each other that don't result in pregnancy don't effect the gene pool.
Personally I never go with the "because it's illegal" option, I find it's a lazy way of reasoning something, also you're arguement against incestious relationships really doesn't have anything to support it, why do you feel it's amoral?
is wincest.
I'm sorry, i just couldn't resist, I believe it's wrong if someone involved is a child, but other than that, go to town.
I'm sorry, i just couldn't resist, I believe it's wrong if someone involved is a child, but other than that, go to town.
Isn't there something that proves that causes extreme birth defects and such. I think that's enough reason to avoid having children with a relative that close.
If it's just sex with no pregnancy, I personally wouldn't want to do it (I don't have any relatives close enough for incest anyway, but just saying), but if that's what people want to do, as long as it's not hurting other people, they can do whatever they want.
If it's just sex with no pregnancy, I personally wouldn't want to do it (I don't have any relatives close enough for incest anyway, but just saying), but if that's what people want to do, as long as it's not hurting other people, they can do whatever they want.
Agreed, there are superficial differences in the way which underlying moral principles are enforced, but I still argue that you, and other moral relativists, need to show that it's more than just this, that it's a case of there being massive differences in fundamental moral reasoning between nations (don't forget that for those, such as NeutralDrow, who reject behavioural/biological division the cause must be necessarily genetic and ergo racist (not that, if proof can be provided, that should deter the arguer)).ImprovizoR said:
The underlying cause of killing another person for honour is still a morally recognised principle, just not enforced (for the practical good of the land): duty to one's reputation. I am not doubting that there can be large temporal and cultural differences in emphasis of moral axioms, I am doubting that said axioms differ between cultures. Two cultures might view the axiom 'duty to one's reputation' as worth different amounts, but both would hold this as a duty, even if it is of differing value.
Well you can get into some messed up Bebbehs that way.
I guess, if you think about it, we're all committing incest.
I guess, if you think about it, we're all committing incest.
In the eyes of a moral realist, yes. And no, not all morality is subjective opinion. But frankly, quite a fair bit of personal moral decision making is. I'm not forcing my opinion of morality on this particular subject upon anyone else, am I? Also, I made a brief edit you would have missed.BGH122 said:
No, it wouldn't be mutant, like fish people. However all potential genetic flaws are doubled.nuba km said:
If your family is prone to a hereditary disease then breeding with your brother or sister, who has a near identical genetic table, You have twice as much chance for that genetic illness to develop.
It doesn't 'unlock' certain negative traits but rather makes them more likely to develop. All genetic strains have faults. In a healthy child that fault simply does not show up.
For a more simpler way of thinking about it take a big white piece of paper. Now take four pieces of paper, two small(recessive) two mediumish(Dominate). Throw a dart at the white paper. Did it hit one of the red papers? If so then the child will be born with a genetic defect. Now. Double the pieces of red paper. Throw the dart again. It more then likely hit one this time didn't it?
Now for each illness in your family genetic line add 8 pieces of paper. Throw a dart.
Did it hit one?
I know that's a very simplistic explanation but its been four months since my classes on that and I am in a hurry to type this as i have to go.
I'm completely against it. Aside from it violating the law and my religion incest completely distorts and perverts the whole family dynamic. I can't think of a single instants in which the incest, mutual or otherwise, didn't completely and utterly annihilate any semblance of the family's well being. My opinion also may have to do with the fact that I don't believe sexual acts should be taken lightly (no free love here). More often than not there are emotional ramifications involved with the couple (assuming they have any kind of pre-existing relationship, especially a close one... which a family member is about as close as it gets). In closing, I don't believe family members are supposed to play with each others gennies.