Incest, explain your stance without bringing up genetics.

[BiscuitTrouser]

Did you read the rest of my post? And why would you chance a 25% abnormality that could cripple a person from birth just because you lack social skills and are only able to get close to a family member because they're a captive audience? I would never knowingly procreate with a incest human to avoid medical complications, and so should everyone else. Yeah, the effects of inbreeding could be stifled, but only over the course of several generations. That's a lot of dead babies. And the only way for that to be viable is if that inbred family stayed on an island detached from any outside genes, forever. So yeah, lets not kill off the human race please. Also, I didn't make any mention of mutant tentacle babies, so I'm not sure why you went off on a tangent.

I don't like incest mainly because of the genetic distortion and how making it acceptable could damage the gene pool. Darwin's already slacking enough as it is. If there were no risk of genetic defects, then I wouldn't give a damn, just like gay sex. I wouldn't oppose it, but I would still find it icky, and I'm free to that opinion.

Oh everything after the first paragraph wasnt for you. I did read your post, this was just a general rant because the tentacle babies thing is super annoying for me, i never meant to imply YOU did it, i just picked you at random and typed the rest of my post. Hell i never said i didnt agree with you btw. Your reasoning is A ok and youre very entitled to your opinion. Just dont fall into the trap of trying to bend reality to fit opinions. Genetics is an argument yes. Just not as strong as some people wish it was and thus pretend it is. Seriously i dont love either side more than the other on this issue. What i love is biology and facts. And no matter what your cause is, even if i agree with you, tainting my beautiful subject will piss me off. A lot. So dont get me wrong. Im not partial to incest at all.

While i understand your general premise isnt the same argument pretty much used to justify sterilizing people whose kids, with ANYONE, would have a greater than 25% chance of deformity? This is why this discussion weirds me out.

When i discovered the 25% statistic i realised it was identical to the % chance of a cystic fibrosis or other genetic disorder sufferer would have making babies with anyone regardless of familial lineage. It makes it rather hard to argue from that angle.

I mean hell if you think incest shouldnt happen EVER just because babies might happen isnt the same logic applicable, not just to ban babies for those with disorders but to ban them entirely from sex as well? Im not particularly invested either way but the arguments each have some weird lines of logic coming from them.

 

[Jacco]

Donor? Donating what? Doesn't sound like you're talking about sex when you bring up donors. Do you have any sources supporting your contention that a single generation of incest will negatively effect the offspring? And if so to what degree? My point about older women (and to a lesser degree older men) is a variable risk. The older the participants, the greater the risk. Are you alleging that even a normal 90 yr old couple still has less risk than a pair of 20 something cousins/siblings would have of genetic defects? If not then at what age should we also keep older couple's from having sex?

Sperm donor; simply meaning the man who provides the sperm to fertilize the egg in whatever method.

I have seen sources somewhere. I'd have to find them but I'm not going to spend the time doing that for an internet debate no one actually gives a shit about. Too much work and I have finals.

The older the participants are also comes with a lower risk of pregnancy. Short of hormone therapy meant to keep it going (or in the case of a woman recently, to start it back up), most women stop menstruating by age 60. No menstruation means no baby so the possibility of genetic defects becomes a moot point. Now if you want to argue the ethics of having a baby past age 60, then that is a different discussion and my stance would remain the same.

Regardless, unless there is no chance of pregnancy between the incestuous couple, incest should not happen. Period. If one or both are sterile, then I guess I don't see a problem with it outside of it bucking societal norms.

You do realize that sperm donors don't actually have sex with the woman in question right? And in the interest of not being sexist, ill go ahead and throw old men into the ring too since they can still procreate till death, but also with increased odds of defects. If your unwilling to obtain sources, rather than debate the point, ill let it stand. I'm just looking for consistency. If your primary concern is genetic fitness than it would be just as reasonable to argue against old people having sex as well. Anything else is just inconsistent reasoning.

A sperm donor is any man who provides the sperm to fertilize the egg, whether through tradition methods, In-Vitro/GIFT/ZIFT/whatever. You can say sperm provider if you like but its the same thing. Ive already given you that older people have less fit gametes to offer, but I also said it is a moot point because once menstruation stops, babies cannot be produced therefore any genetic abnormalities in the gametes make no difference.

If you want the sources, you can look for them. I just don't have the time or motivation to do so for a debate on a video game forum. And I am debating the point. I could just as easily ask you for sources supporting your statement but I'm not going to (and don't bother providing them because honestly I won't look at them) because because this debate, at its core, it between (I assume you don't have a PhD in reproductive genetics cause I sure as hell don't) laymen.

My point is that as long as a child cannot come out of it, then its fine I guess assuming consent of all parties. Old people are far less likely to conceive and so whether they have sex is a moot point. Siblings in their twenties are far more likely to conceive and thus should be stopped for the sake of potential children. There is a reason even most pro-life groups stipulate that abortion is acceptable in cases of incest. If one or both parties are sterile, as I said, I have no problem with it outside of the expected societal objections which are in themselves no a proper platform to stand on as this thread has demonstrated.