Poll: Is incest wrong if it's consensual?

[Loop Stricken]

Most studies on sexual attraction at a biological level, have shown that we are predisposed to not be attracted to our own siblings at any level and that those who are usually show some kind of social problems or trauma. Not the case for cousins, which we have no genetic deposition to not breed with them, only social immorality which is culturally based. There are also things like the Westermarck effect which imprints on us a tendency to avoid sexual relationships with those we were raised with.

So incest as defined as brother/sister relationship, even consensual between two adults is wrong.

Nnnnnnnooooooooooooooo. Just made unlikely.

 

[xXAsherahXx]

I don't think it should be illegal honestly, it's wrong to tell anyone who they can and cannot have sex with.

That being said...OF COURSE INCEST IS WRONG!!! It's the motherfucking family. Gross, disgusting, and shameful.

 

[Thaius]

Well in a society such as the one in which we live, where post-modernism is the predominant philosophy and morality is an entirely subjective concept, there is no reason for anything to be immoral, unless perhaps it harms someone else. I think that's crap, but moral subjectivity is a very popular way of looking at the world right now, and you can't just take the parts you like.

On the other hand, if you have a belief system that provides a basis for an objective, absolute system of morality (read: God), then you have a system laid out for you. And I think in most of those cases, incest is wrong on a basic level no matter what the circumstance.

 

[Autofaux]

Alexei Romanov...

Don't know why I said that.

 

[Gunjester]

As regards (1), what % of women are "known to be psychologically screwed up by abortion"?
Stats from a peer reviewed study please.
Anecdotes and Urban Legends do not count, nor does so called pro-life propaganda.

This isn't "Pro-life propaganda".
Found this from a site solely devoted to bare facts on abortion, and has links for both sides.
"National statistics on abortion show that 10% of women undergoing induced abortion suffer from immediate complications, of which one-fifth (20%) were considered major." That'd be just American Statistics. Don't say 10% isn't significant, especially when thats only 'Immediate effect'.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_effects_of_abortion.asp
Try and keep this away from Fox News-esque name-calling like all pro-lifers being propagandists and We'll keep from raising judgement of Pro-choice people.

 

[shadowyoasis]

Instead of boning your family member, take a walk into town, find a hooker, and do her.
That way thanksgiving isnt awkward.
Except for the fact you'll be scratching more. They arent clean.

Thats why I pay extra, so they let me hose them down first.

 

[Grospoliner]

It's fine but no kid's should be born from such a relationship

 

[Loop Stricken]

Incest is not morally reprehensible. Anyone saying so must have the moral and logical comprehension of a child.

Why? Because being against incest boils down to "ew, I wouldn't do my sibling/cousin/parent! so it's wrong!". You guys know that 99% of homophobes oppose gay marriage for that very reason, and that you are likely to oppose them for it?

Anyway, you literally cannot support homosexuality without supporting incest, because all of the arguments that apply to homosexuality support also apply to incest.

Except for the genetic defects it can produce and the fact that we develop a metal block that prevents us from being attracted to our immediate family.

People tend to develop an aversion to pain.

Oh wait, BDSM.

 

[dj Facchiano]

Meh. People should be able to do whatever the hell they want without being judged as long as nobody is hurt in the process. Just my opinion :/

I feel that way to, but I have to ask this. What if a child is conceived from this with horrible birth defects. The mother refuses to abort and this kid is born into the world a barely functioning mass of flesh that will need to be taken care of the rest of their life. Now, I'm using an extreme one-sided example but I thought it might be something to take into consideration. Once again I do share that as long as no harm is done to anyone else physically, mentally or emotionally as well as others personal property people should be able to do whatever they want. I'm not trying to start a debate, just bringing up a point if possible.

Hmm that brings on a different question, Should parents be allowed to have a child if they know it will have birth defects? I think the answer to that question would depend on your moral alignment, in my case I don't think I'm experienced enough to give a legitimate answer.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Incest is not morally reprehensible. Anyone saying so must have the moral and logical comprehension of a child.

Why? Because being against incest boils down to "ew, I wouldn't do my sibling/cousin/parent! so it's wrong!". You guys know that 99% of homophobes oppose gay marriage for that very reason, and that you are likely to oppose them for it?

Anyway, you literally cannot support homosexuality without supporting incest, because all of the arguments that apply to homosexuality support also apply to incest.

Except for the genetic defects it can produce and the fact that we develop a metal block that prevents us from being attracted to our immediate family.

People tend to develop an aversion to pain.

Oh wait, BDSM.

That?s hardly the same.

I know, I know, but it's 4am and I'm tired of saying the same old thing over and over again.

 

[souper soup guy]

It's not my thing, and I'm very creeped out by it, but its not wrong. Just keep it in your bedroom and you can do whatever you want.

 

[mizushinzui]

Morally no consenting sex is wrong (except consenting sex below the age of consent...yeah) if they are both of a sound mind and of adult age ,i.e. over 18/16 and not brainwashed, mentally deficient or blindfolded, then there is nothing really on a moral level that makes this wrong. This excludes if they don't use contraception, that's just being an idiot. It's illegal because bringing an inbred infant into the world isn't fair to the child, the parents, the family or society. If you're going to bang your sister rubber up dude.

Incest is however a societal taboo and if you decide that you're going to take it up as a hobby you probably shouldn't shout about it ( I know that OP isn't considering it, I'm just pointing this fact out)

Also on a psychological level this has been talked about before hasn't it? Was it Freud who said that all boys want to sleep with their mothers secretly? or something like that... I need to stop watching late night documentary television.

 

[Navvan]

Incest is not morally reprehensible. Anyone saying so must have the moral and logical comprehension of a child.

Why? Because being against incest boils down to "ew, I wouldn't do my sibling/cousin/parent! so it's wrong!". You guys know that 99% of homophobes oppose gay marriage for that very reason, and that you are likely to oppose them for it?

Anyway, you literally cannot support homosexuality without supporting incest, because all of the arguments that apply to homosexuality support also apply to incest.

Except for the genetic defects it can produce and the fact that we develop a metal block that prevents us from being attracted to our immediate family.

The extent of genetic birth defects/detriment to the children is being a bit overblown on both sides of this argument. It is neither completely risk less or an absolute detriment to the child. The reason we have a predisposition to incest is because diversity in offspring is a selected for not because of child birth defects. There is a difference.

Detrimental alleles are more likely to be passed onto the offspring of those with incest. Using basic genetics puts this at 25% chance of becoming homozygous for any particular allele. That means you have 25% chance of passing on the same alleles to your child, and if those alleles are detrimental in some fashion your child will exhibit that trait. Individual detrimental alleles are statistically unlikely to impact the quality of life of the child, and in one generation this is unlikely to accumulate to any serious problems. That is unless the parents are a carrier for a recessive disorder, such as the one that can cause cystic fibrosis or any other problematic recessive disorder.

However, serious cases like this are on the same order of likelihood as individuals passing down a problematic detrimental dominant allele. No one would advocate that anyone with a dominant detrimental allele should be forbade from having children, with lethal/torturous disorders like Huntington's Disease being the exception. The effect can be almost completely eliminated if you opt for expensive embryo gene screening. Thus the argument that it can have a negative effect on the offspring as having sex with a smoker. Less risk than a 40 year old woman having a child I believe.

That is of course under normal circumstances. For example if you know your family carries the gene for cystic fibrosis you defiantly are putting your potential child at risk.

Moral of the story, if you have the money get your genes screened people. And I mean all people, for the children. Also arguments about biological diversity being good for the species are moot. Not because it isn't true, but because as a society we have already set the precedent that what is good for the species isn't a prerogative.