God bless the westermarck effect.Imperator_DK said:
And Tutankhamun had a cleft palate, a club foot, (possibly) scoliosis, Kohler disease (a bone disorder) and a current theory is that he died of sickle cell anaemia.Quantum Roberts said:
Switzerland might make incest legal.
- Thread starter YukoValis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
People keep saying, 'as long as they don't have kids', but it's kind of inevitable. Once the woman gets pregnant what's going to happen, the government forces them to have an abortion? This will only lead to bigger headaches I think, but it's their business.
Actually the probability of birth defects is 2%, 4% if there is a history of inbreeding present in the family tree. The human genome is remarkably resiliant.Generic Gamer said:
Still, I am reminded of the old saying;
Not playing to win is like sleeping with your sister, sure shes a great piece of tail with a blouse full of goodies, but its just illegal. Then you get in to that whole inbreeding thing: Kids who eat applesauce through a straw, play the banjo and pork farm animals.
Then again, it seemed to work ok for Donnie and Marie Osmand (spl?)
Well, I've never understood why it's illegal in the first place, provided they don't have kids. Obviously that last point may end up being a problem, and then things like issues of forced abortions (similar to what happened in China when they started limiting the number of children couples were allowed to have to one) may occur. But, deal with that as it comes.
The same reason it can't be Doctor-Patient, gross imbalance of power in the relationship. Even if they seemed like they're perfectly fine, indoctrination could be going on, even if it's just sub-conscious. Don't get me wrong, I think sibling incest while weird (to me at least) probably should not be illegal, anything parental is a no go.Jaranja said:
Well as I said above, I don't think sibling incest should be illegal. I just think the risks cannot ever be stressed enough.Quantum Roberts said:
Well as I said above, I don't think sibling incest should be illegal. I just think the risks cannot ever be stressed enough.[/quote]Quantum Roberts said:
Good point I guess.
Jaranja said:
You might also wanna look up a guy called Oedipus. Didn't turn out pretty for the poor motherf*&ker.WolfThomas said:
Because the mother or father in question already had a lover, the other parent. The result of that love(or broken condom but let's stick to love) was that child. And when the two didn't work out, one of them suddenly end up with their kid? It's not much of a matter of love to me but more of a simple way to get laid.Jaranja said:
Also, I find it disgusting so it's a lot of personal opinion from my side.
Smoking is legal. Alcohol abuse is legal. There are many things that are not punishable by law that are most certainly not encouraged by the government. Come on, now. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to oppose this without having to resort to nonsense.jamiedf said:
I think... While the "ethical question" of incest may be debatable, as muddied an issue as it is, I do not think fines and jail time are an appropriate response. Especially if the primary reason for such a law to exist is to minimise the risk of birth defects in children. After all, there are many, many things a person can do that will result in serious birth defects that are not illegal. Again, smoking, alcohol abuse - I may be wrong, but I am not aware of any laws preventing a mother from drinking while pregnant. We frown upon it as a culture, and it is strongly discouraged by medical professionals, but, as far as I know, quite legal.
It seems... Inconsistent, that one should be punishable, but not the other. If the argument stands for incest, should it not also stand for acts that pose a similar risk to a potential child's wellbeing? If the reasons for anti-incest laws are medical in nature, then incest is a simple bullet-point in a long list of factors that lies at the heart of a far larger issue: should the government work to prevent birth defects by punishing high-risk parents?
Interesting issue this one. I tend to come down on the side od 'consenting adults may do what they like' but in this issue I also have to add the addendum 'but don't have kids.'
There's a difference between potential for birth defects and near certainty of birth defects.
I suppose with the advance of medical science we might actually end up at a position soon where this doesn't even matter either.
Anyway, to rope this wandering steer back on topic, I say reservedly that this is a good thing.
There's a difference between potential for birth defects and near certainty of birth defects.
I suppose with the advance of medical science we might actually end up at a position soon where this doesn't even matter either.
Anyway, to rope this wandering steer back on topic, I say reservedly that this is a good thing.
No, social pressure prevents it from happening in virtually all cases. Still, if two adults want to have sex, who am I to tell them they can't?jamiedf said:
It's just strange that Switzerland would do that, considering their track record as far as social progressiveness goes. Women couldn't vote until the early 1970s...
Actually though if that occured in the modern day, I don't think it would be too bad. As Oedipus and his mother didn't know they were related, no westermarck effect and no screwy pschological indoctrination going on. The idea of a man of say around 20 marrying an older woman of say 35 (may have had the child quite young then) is not completely unheard of.Quantum Roberts said:
If they want to do that then let them.
Not my cup of tea but I do understand that sometimes this sort of thing just happens so yeah go ahead and get rid of that law.
Not my cup of tea but I do understand that sometimes this sort of thing just happens so yeah go ahead and get rid of that law.
