Incest

[Raggedstar]

Speaking from a veterinary perspective, inbreeding is done more frequently than you would think. All pure breeds of animal (dog, cat, horse, cow, etc) have been inbred at some point. The general point of inbreeding is to ensure that good or desirable qualities stay in the genepool and are passed to the offspring. Still done today with animals. For example, dogs like Chihuahua frequently have hereditary eye problems. If you breed two sibling dogs that have good eyes and are genetically clear of it (as in not a carrier) then they won't have those eye problems. If you outcross to an unrelated dog that might have eye problems or be a carrier, then you run the risk of offspring having eye problems or carrying it. Though ya, of course things aren't THAT simple. At the same time, if you inbreed an animal where the lines and/or individuals have BAD genetic problems, then they will be still carried in and possibly exaggerated in the offspring. That's why when a random schmuck breeding their animals for money or for "cute babies" can lead to unhealthy puppies (inbreeding or not) while an educated breeder (again, inbreeding or not) can produce healthier animals. "Hybrid vigor" has it's merits, but as a fail-safe it's largely a myth.

As far as an evolutionary and species survival standpoint, inbreeding is discouraged because you'll then lack the genetic variety. Cheetahs are in the exact same boat with a lot of inbreeding. They had a genetic bottleneck and the species lacks genetic variety, leading to a lot of problems staying in the genepool and many of the cubs not even reaching their first birthday. There was a zoo near here that had cubs way back that required surgery when they were very young (a really bad infection), with one sister having an eye removed and the other having part of her tail removed. That's why a lot of wild cheetahs are either getting sent to captivity or have their sperm harvested in order to promote genetic variety between populations.

Just to toss this out there.

As for humans...hell if I have an opinion. In theory, I guess I don't care as long as it's consensual. If children are involved, that complicates things. I know people use that excuse with gays, but incest could potentially directly influence the physical HEALTH of the kid.

EDIT: Woman of Spartan ancestry getting her 300th post. This is a momentous occasion.

 

[Arakasi]

Valid point, it still grates me though. That and the other things I mentioned.

>anti-intellectual
Nietzsche
>anti-genetic modification
Nietzsche and Prenatal Genetic Modification
>anti-stem cell
Used by nut jobs, yes, the movie itself isn't against that. Its against Prenatal Genmods

So these are gone

Again, those weren't against the movie, those are things people use the movie as an incorrect justification for.

>It brought up 'problems' of a potential society that two seconds of logic could solve
Slavery, Racism, Famine, Social Inequality
History is filled with issues that can be solved with two seconds of logic, the reason that we don't use it is because if we did those with power would lose some if not all their power.

I don't see how that applies in the case of Gattaca. One need simply judge someone based upon how they are, not how they got there (in the context of genetic modification)

That's why the south fought against the north, thats why 92% of america's GDP goes to 5% of Americans

I think there are other reasons for that.

I will admit that the fact that we don't use this logic breaks my suspension of disbelief with reality too, but the movie was very much in keeping with the matrix we inhabit.

Funny, I still consider Gattaca's issue far more simple than social inequality that isn't based upon genetic technology.

>and the main character was a selfish dick.
Gonna have to explain that one too me, seemed like he was just doing what he had to do in order to achieve his goals. He didn't do anything to anyone with out their consent, and the injustice inflicted on him were far worse than anything he did to anyone else.

If I remember correctly, and keep in mind it has been over 5 years since I saw the movie, the main character had a heart condition and went into space... Wait, having Wikipedia'd to refresh my memory, I found the perfect critisism which sums up what I wanted to say:

In 2004, bioethicist James Hughes criticized the premise and influence of the film Gattaca, arguing that:

-Astronaut-training programs are entirely justified in attempting to screen out people with heart problems for safety reasons
-In the United States, people are already discriminated against by insurance companies on the basis of their propensities to disease despite the fact that genetic enhancement is not yet available
-Rather than banning genetic testing or genetic enhancement, society needs genetic information privacy laws that allow justified forms of genetic testing and data aggregation, but forbid those that are judged to result in genetic discrimination (such as the U.S. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act signed into law on May 21, 2008). Citizens should then be able to make a complaint to the appropriate authority if they believe they have been discriminated against because of their genotype.

That was quite interesting, I had heard of something similar before but it wasn't spelled out in such a manner. Though I'm still not quite sure how it tied in to the discussion.

Well, you and the guy you quoted were in favour of selecting genes, I've just proved that's futile with that video.

Umm. When I said I agreed, I was refering to this part:

And assuming that doesn't work what about just making them have abortions if it's shown that the fetus has physical or mental disabilities?

And when we were talking about 'selecting genes' I assumed he was talking about a test to tell whether there would be leathal recessives or debilitating recessives that would have a significantly higher chance of being expressed due to incest.

The context in which you said it would be used was fair enough, but once the technology is available you can bet people will start using it in general.

I have no problem with that.

On top of the fact that prenatal genetic manipulation leaves those living behind, having the burden of being perfect is something we should not give to our children.

There is no burden to being perfect, otherwise it wouldn't be perfection. Also what is perfect is so highly a subjective matter amongst humans that it wouldn't really end up homogeneous (at least, I don't think it would).

Eugenics is wrong, however if it can be done postnatally then its fine, hence "I most certainly am asking for this".

I don't agree. Eugenics is not inherently wrong. It could be applied wrong, but there are almost certainly ways it could work.

You also said that you knew about genotypes and phenotypes, thinkning that's what I was talking about. "Ignorance isn't the enemy of knowledge, the illusion of knowledge is"

The more you know!

Yes, thank you for that. I do disagree with you though, the true enemy of knowledge is not wanting to know.

 

[The Ubermensch]

Before it is argued that I am stating it is morally wrong (I have accepted my view was incorrect), I do not believe that suicide is morally wrong. But I still believe someone who is suicidal needs help. So whilst incest might not be morally wrong, in some situations, I believe that those who would partake need help and are ill.

You know what they used to do to homosexuals in England? You could go to prison or your could be chemically castrated.

Yes, I do. Of course I do. I am a bisexual living in England and I have studied history. I know what happened to Turing, I know he was pumped full of hormones. I also know that psychiatry has moved on since then, that we have stopped lobotomising people and that, in general, things are pretty decent within mental health care in this country. Could be better, could be worse.

Forgive me but I assume you're not an authority on psychology, and even if you were, even if incest is considered a mental illness today is it possible that we're wrong? Do you think those in the dark ages knew they were in the dark ages?

*SNIP*

I agree with you, there are some psychological factors, but you can't blanket every single case as being wrong.

You know, this would be easier if you actually started properly reading what I am writing! I accepted it is not immoral, however I will not move from me thinking that it is a sign of mental illness. If I am proven wrong in the fullness of time, fine and dandy. Thats life.

This here is a confusion of terms, when I say wrong I'm not specifically saying morally, I'm saying what ever reason you're claiming now

Look, My sisters... all three of them have stated on repeated occasions that they want to form a coital relationship with me, and they are messed up. This however doesn't mean that all siblings that engage in sex have a problem.

However, I do find fucking a family member abhorrent. I find it revolting. And I believe that someone who is making the choice to fuck family members needs their head examined. I do not like you trying to argue that this situation is the same as homosexuality. The LGBTQ is not the LGBTQI. Sorry.

As a Bi I can sorta see the parallels

Again, I stated that I believe it is not immoral, but that I think it is a sign of being mentally ill. A quick search online only gives me cases of people who were abused in childhood (Although a clear link is there between victims of childhood sexual abuse and mental illness), it is rather hard to do studies on people who admit to being in incestuous relationships.

So... there is no empirical proof that incest is even predominately caused by a mental illness

You can't possibly know what's going on in everyone's mind when you won't even admit what's going on in yours

*SNIP*

Please. Stop. For christs sake. I did not respond to your last post. It seems like your attempts to get the last word go so far as you having to have the last word twice (Thus continuing this circular bullshit.) This community has gone downhill since you are no longer able to label a troll a troll (that being a non-sequitur and not in reference to you, my good man).

I honestly want you to have a moment of introspection, I'm probably wrong, but the fact you think your opinion should be forced on everyone HAS to have come from somewhere. If its from societies consensus I want you to consider that that's where it came from, and then consider the amount of times society has been right when it comes to matters of the heart.

If you wish to have a discussion, let us have a discussion.

But please, stop with your attempts to annoy me.

You're blowing it out of proportion and taking it personally... kay

 

[HalfTangible]

For a starting definition so there's no confusion

Definition of incest
noun
sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.
Origin:
Middle English: from Latin incestus, incestum 'unchastity, incest', from in- 'not' + castus 'chaste'

It's from the Oxford Dictionary.

For discussion:

-Is incest morally wrong?
-In the case of no possible offspring?
-With offspring?

-Should incest be legally banned?
-Does the act of incest disgust you?

Context needed. In general, though?
Yes.
-Arguable both ways
-HELL YES WRONG

No.
Digust would require context. I'll call it 'creepy'.

 

[Malisteen]

-Is incest morally wrong?

Parent/child, or aunt/niece with a paternalistic relationship established early in the younger party's life? ABSOLUTELY. Child grooming is a horrible thing that completely undermines the entire concept of a willing union between consenting partners, it is completely immoral and is 100% abuse, even if the child has been brainwashed from birth to think it's 'ok'.

Cousins or other more distant relations, particularly without significant early childhood relationships? Probably not.

Siblings? Really sketchy and borderline, toes the child grooming thing, but I'm not necessarily sure I'd come down one way or the other in all cases generally. My instinct would be to suspect abuse.

-In the case of no possible offspring?
-With offspring?

Not sure how much this affects my opinion. Particularly problematic effects from incestuous pairings generally aren't that dramatic until several generations of continuing the practice, so theoretically doesn't weigh in on individual relationships. Unrelated couples can also be at high risk (or higher risk even) of passing on serious genetic defects or illnesses. I think the question of whether it is appropriate to bare biological children is separate from whether a given romantic pairing should be sanctioned by society.

-Should incest be legally banned?

Parent/Child? Absolutely. That includes adopted, step, and grand parent relationships. Siblings? Probably. First cousins? Probably not. Further then that? No.

The question to ask is 'does the existing familial relationship undermine the concept of consenting union between equal adults' to the point that said consent cannot be deemed legitimate. The closer the familial relationship the more that is the case, particularly with generational gaps. No parent should ever be allowed to look at a child under their care as a potential future sexual object, and I say that regardless of the biological genetic relationship.

-Does the act of incest disgust you?[/quote]

Not any more or less than sexual acts in general.

 

[The Ubermensch]

I don't see how that applies in the case of Gattaca. One need simply judge someone based upon how they are, not how they got there (in the context of genetic modification)

>One need simply judge someone based upon how they are, not how they got there.

I assume you mean general fitness and ability, I'll pay that
The issue that you have is that, as Frank said in the video, not 15 years ago scientist were saying "Oh, poor people aren't intelligent? It must be because they had bad genes"

This was the scientific consensus at the time the movie was made, you have to bare that in mind when your watching it. Its like Oscar Wilde seems a bit tame by todays standards as far as women empowerment goes, but back in the day he was bad ass

That's why the south fought against the north, thats why 92% of america's GDP goes to 5% of Americans

I think there are other reasons for that.

But that's the absolute crux of the issue; the status quo

I will admit that the fact that we don't use this logic breaks my suspension of disbelief with reality too, but the movie was very much in keeping with the matrix we inhabit.

Funny, I still consider Gattaca's issue far more simple than social inequality that isn't based upon genetic technology.

>and the main character was a selfish dick.
Gonna have to explain that one too me, seemed like he was just doing what he had to do in order to achieve his goals. He didn't do anything to anyone with out their consent, and the injustice inflicted on him were far worse than anything he did to anyone else.

If I remember correctly, and keep in mind it has been over 5 years since I saw the movie, the main character had a heart condition and went into space... Wait, having Wikipedia'd to refresh my memory, I found the perfect critisism which sums up what I wanted to say:

In 2004, bioethicist James Hughes criticized the premise and influence of the film Gattaca, arguing that:

-Astronaut-training programs are entirely justified in attempting to screen out people with heart problems for safety reasons
-In the United States, people are already discriminated against by insurance companies on the basis of their propensities to disease despite the fact that genetic enhancement is not yet available
-Rather than banning genetic testing or genetic enhancement, society needs genetic information privacy laws that allow justified forms of genetic testing and data aggregation, but forbid those that are judged to result in genetic discrimination (such as the U.S. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act signed into law on May 21, 2008). Citizens should then be able to make a complaint to the appropriate authority if they believe they have been discriminated against because of their genotype.

Fair point, I can see how that would break your suspension of disbelief. But the plot wasn't the important thing about GATTACA, it was the themes, which as I said are a bit out dated now.

That was quite interesting, I had heard of something similar before but it wasn't spelled out in such a manner. Though I'm still not quite sure how it tied in to the discussion.

Well, you and the guy you quoted were in favour of selecting genes, I've just proved that's futile with that video.

Umm. When I said I agreed, I was refering to this part:

And assuming that doesn't work what about just making them have abortions if it's shown that the fetus has physical or mental disabilities?

And when we were talking about 'selecting genes' I assumed he was talking about a test to tell whether there would be leathal recessives or debilitating recessives that would have a significantly higher chance of being expressed due to incest.[/quote]

I agree with this, but the issue that we have is that I know it won't stop there.

The context in which you said it would be used was fair enough, but once the technology is available you can bet people will start using it in general.

I have no problem with that.

Sickle cell anaemia is created by a person having two of a certain gene and causes major issues with blood flow. However a person with only one of those genes becomes incredibly resistant to Milaria.

My point is that homogenising our genetic structure through eugenics makes us more vulnerable. If we were careful we could mitigate the risk, but its probably not going to happen and it won't be for at least 10 generations before the effects are felt.

On top of the fact that prenatal genetic manipulation leaves those living behind, having the burden of being perfect is something we should not give to our children.

There is no burden to being perfect, otherwise it wouldn't be perfection. Also what is perfect is so highly a subjective matter amongst humans that it wouldn't really end up homogeneous (at least, I don't think it would).

No, but a very high burden of performance will be placed on the first generation of "Goopers"

Eugenics is wrong, however if it can be done postnatally then its fine, hence "I most certainly am asking for this".

I don't agree. Eugenics is not inherently wrong. It could be applied wrong, but there are almost certainly ways it could work.

I'm sure there is, I'm just a really cynical person. Haven't you noticed?

You also said that you knew about genotypes and phenotypes, thinkning that's what I was talking about. "Ignorance isn't the enemy of knowledge, the illusion of knowledge is"

The more you know!

Yes, thank you for that. I do disagree with you though, the true enemy of knowledge is not wanting to know.

No, there will always be other people that will want to know, even if you do not. The main issue is folk indoctrinating those that want to know with false information.

Never take arguments of authority.

 

[Ninonybox_v1legacy]

This thread is going to end well.

-Is incest morally wrong?

Nope.

-Should incest be legally banned?

Nope.

-Does the act of incest disgust you?

Yeah but provided no one is getting hurt it is none of my business.

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to this sort of stuff.

Hey, look at that, it's everyone's answer to this thread.

Yeah, I think we can just end the thread with this comment, because it's just minor variations of this.

Agreed, it seems the ultimate answer has been reached....and only 1 reply in.

 

[Arakasi]

That's why the south fought against the north, thats why 92% of america's GDP goes to 5% of Americans

I think there are other reasons for that.

But that's the absolute crux of the issue; the status quo

I've been reading Atlas Shrugged lately (I pause here to hear you groan) and I'm starting to think that the status quo is hating on the, what 5%, while wider philosophical considerations are shunned.

That was quite interesting, I had heard of something similar before but it wasn't spelled out in such a manner. Though I'm still not quite sure how it tied in to the discussion.

Well, you and the guy you quoted were in favour of selecting genes, I've just proved that's futile with that video.

Umm. When I said I agreed, I was refering to this part:

And assuming that doesn't work what about just making them have abortions if it's shown that the fetus has physical or mental disabilities?

And when we were talking about 'selecting genes' I assumed he was talking about a test to tell whether there would be leathal recessives or debilitating recessives that would have a significantly higher chance of being expressed due to incest.

I agree with this, but the issue that we have is that I know it won't stop there.

How do you know? And where will it go? And will it matter if it goes there?

The context in which you said it would be used was fair enough, but once the technology is available you can bet people will start using it in general.

I have no problem with that.

Sickle cell anaemia is created by a person having two of a certain gene and causes major issues with blood flow. However a person with only one of those genes becomes incredibly resistant to Milaria.

My point is that homogenising our genetic structure through eugenics makes us more vulnerable. If we were careful we could mitigate the risk, but its probably not going to happen and it won't be for at least 10 generations before the effects are felt.

Again, it is very possible that it wouldn't be homogenised, and that's what testing is for. Lots and lots of testing. Also ensuring that we have the science of epigentics accounted for as best as possible.

On top of the fact that prenatal genetic manipulation leaves those living behind, having the burden of being perfect is something we should not give to our children.

There is no burden to being perfect, otherwise it wouldn't be perfection. Also what is perfect is so highly a subjective matter amongst humans that it wouldn't really end up homogeneous (at least, I don't think it would).

No, but a very high burden of performance will be placed on the first generation of "Goopers"

Not if you make it double blind.

Eugenics is wrong, however if it can be done postnatally then its fine, hence "I most certainly am asking for this".

I don't agree. Eugenics is not inherently wrong. It could be applied wrong, but there are almost certainly ways it could work.

I'm sure there is, I'm just a really cynical person. Haven't you noticed?

You're cynical? I'm cynical. I just don't like to speak in absolutes and rule out potential solutions based upon potential problems.

You also said that you knew about genotypes and phenotypes, thinkning that's what I was talking about. "Ignorance isn't the enemy of knowledge, the illusion of knowledge is"

The more you know!

Yes, thank you for that. I do disagree with you though, the true enemy of knowledge is not wanting to know.

No, there will always be other people that will want to know, even if you do not. The main issue is folk indoctrinating those that want to know with false information.

Never take arguments of authority.

Wait, what?
I am not saying that I don't want to know, I am saying that others don't and they're the danger, especially as they are much more likely to be able to be indoctrinated with false information.

Of course I don't take arguments souly from authority. I attempt to judge all arguments without prejudice, and weigh them by merit.

 

[The Ubermensch]

I've been reading Atlas Shrugged lately (I pause here to hear you groan) and I'm starting to think that the status quo is hating on the, what 5%, while wider philosophical considerations are shunned.

>Atlas Shrugged
Stopped reading there, Invalidates all your arguments

Kidding, Okay, but you need to follow that up by reading Marx and Orwell. Marx is actually very good at describing the difference between Libertarianism (which he claims is what capitalism is sold as) and working Capitalism.
Ayn Rand, if you haven't noticed, was very apt to dehumanise people.

I agree with this, but the issue that we have is that I know it won't stop there.

How do you know? And where will it go? And will it matter if it goes there?

In that order
-Based on projections made on personal observations and correlations in human behaviour
-Full blown inappropriately regulated Eugenics
-In my opinion yes

Again, it is very possible that it wouldn't be homogenised, and that's what testing is for. Lots and lots of testing. Also ensuring that we have the science of epigentics accounted for as best as possible.

The testing screens for Issues, not homogenisation, example. you have four couples and 16 genes, they each have two kids. the best Gene is selected from each parent

AB + CD = AC + AC
EF + GH = FG + FG
IJ + KL = JL + JL
MN + OP = NO + NO

Congratulations, you've just halved your genetic diversity!

they then mate and you do the same again

AC + FG = FC + FC
JL + NO = NL + NL
FG + JL = FG + FG
NO + AG = AO + AO

Okay, you haven't quite halved it this time, but the pools gettings shallower

See where I'm going with this? Yeah the examples not perfect but it illustrates my point. You can try and regulate this but it would be really difficult to do

No, but a very high burden of performance will be placed on the first generation of "Goopers"

Not if you make it double blind.

*First production models of Goopers

I don't agree. Eugenics is not inherently wrong. It could be applied wrong, but there are almost certainly ways it could work.

Yeah, I doubt it though

I'm sure there is, I'm just a really cynical person. Haven't you noticed?

You're cynical? I'm cynical. I just don't like to speak in absolutes and rule out potential solutions based upon potential problems.

Like it or not, you need someone to call out the potential problems

Wait, what?
I am not saying that I don't want to know, I am saying that others don't and they're the danger, especially as they are much more likely to be able to be indoctrinated with false information.

Of course I don't take arguments souly from authority. I attempt to judge all arguments without prejudice, and weigh them by merit.

Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of
the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish
and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity
and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness.
For he is truly his brother's keeper... and the finder of lost children.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger
those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I
am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

Some people will away's need a shepherd, unfortunately false ones exist.

 

[Smeatza]

The problem with investigating what the psychological effects of defying a common moral taboo are, is that it inevitably ends up mixing up cause with effect.

Maybe incest "enabled" sexual depravity in the West family. Or maybe incest was an example of sexual depravity being enabled in the West family.

A few decades or centuries ago, in a world where homosexuality is illegal, a disproportional amount of gays that you would have heard about, would have been rapists. Not because there was any inherent connection between homosexuality and rape, but because smart, educated gays with self-control would have either kept their pants on, or found a discreet partner, while impulsive, uneducated, irresponsible ones would have gotten caught with their pants down. That's where the old "gays are pedophiles" stereotype originates from).

Maybe if incest would be culturally accepted, there wouldn't be any difference seen between two siblings ending up together, and two childhood friends ending up together, therefore we would be more likely to find successful, respectable, balanced people doing it. But as long as it's both illegal and shunned, it's inevitable that our sample of incestous relationships is leaning towards the kind of people who are already likely to break the law and defy social norms.

That is interesting but I was thinking more in a general sense than in regards to sexual deviation.

For example. A child born of an incestuous relationship is significantly more likely to have genetic defects.
And if a family accepting incestuous relationships as normal, increases the likelyhood of subsequent generations having incestuous relationships (not saying it does just my example), would that not make the chance of an incestuous pregnancy (accidental or otherwise) happening much higher?
If it was culturally accepted en masse wouldn't the amount of babies with defects being born rise significantly?

 

[bojackx]

If people want to get busy with their siblings, that's their business.

It does disgust me, but different strokes for different blokes I guess.

 

[superbatranger]

As long as it harms no one and is completely consensual, then I have no problem with it. People can do what they want in the privacy of their bedroom. On that note, I can't believe this is one of the first threads I've seen after being away from this site for like 4 months.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

Incest thoroughly disgusts me. But I don't really support stopping them via some law.

 

[Lawnmooer]

Is incest morally wrong?

Not really, in the animal kingdom incest happens all the time. Heck we humans force animals into incest in order to control various genes or to observe genetic anomalies (Not ones caused by inbreeding, things like hereditary diseases)

The only time incest would be morally wrong is if the sole purpose of it would be to try and intentionally create a child that has defects (Be it for science or other less sanitary reasons)

Should incest be banned?

Not really, it's not as if it's causing harm or anguish to anyone (Well... Other people in the family may get creeped out or disgusted by knowing about it) it shouldn't cause a major affect to the population unless it becomes a really big thing and multiple generations are all incestually reproducing)

Heck, if people can and do get tested to see if their children will be born with defects or not and find out that they have a high risk of having a defect, they're still allowed to have children. If that's not illegal then it'd be discrimination if incest (Which I dare say would have a much lower chance than what some people get for certain conditions) was illegal.

Am I disgusted by incest?

Not at all.

You can't help who you fall for and as long as both parties are consenting it should be fine.

I don't personally like it (I'm not attracted to any people I'm related to, nor do I much like the idea of watching other people commit incest (Be it porn or the fantasy 3-way with twins)) but that doesn't mean I'm disgusted by it.

 

[Leg End]

-Is incest morally wrong?
-In the case of no possible offspring?
-With offspring?

-Should incest be legally banned?
-Does the act of incest disgust you?

No, Naw, Nah, Negatory, Nyet. With extra onions, lettuce, cheese, tomatoes and bun, in that order.

For the argument about birth defects, the risk only rises by one percent for even the closest relations, with the only issue rising if it's around three generations or more.

Also, you can legally drink and smoke during pregnancy, so that argument is out the window before it even met the table.

 

[Entitled]

That is interesting but I was thinking more in a general sense than in regards to sexual deviation.

For example. A child born of an incestuous relationship is significantly more likely to have genetic defects.
And if a family accepting incestuous relationships as normal, increases the likelyhood of subsequent generations having incestuous relationships (not saying it does just my example), would that not make the chance of an incestuous pregnancy (accidental or otherwise) happening much higher?
If it was culturally accepted en masse wouldn't the amount of babies with defects being born rise significantly?

Oh, so when you said "the psychological aspects of incest", you meant "the psychological aspects of inbreeding"?

Well, first of all, the former desn't necessarily assume the latter. It's not difficult to imagine a society where sex or even long term relationships between siblings are accepted, but inbreeding is heavily discouraged. Birth control technology is already pretty safe, especially the long term solutions that would work for spouses.

Second, there is the Westermark effect. Right now, incest is discouraged by both the effect and by taboos, while encouraged by the Genetic Attraction effect, and by the emotional effect of long term intimate relationships. These four add up to incest being extremely rare. So even if we would take out the taboos, probably the Westermark effect would be strong enough that incest would be somehow more common than now, but not as significantly common as natural attraction between people close to each other would imply.

Third, I think you are misunderstanding how genetic defects from inbreeding work. Real life is not like Game of Thrones, where every time an inbred baby is born, the gods toss up a coin and it has a 50% chance of growing up batshit crazy.
Inbreeding can trigger a number of pre-existing hereditary disease genes that the two relatives shared. If they share such genes, their child is extremely likely to be born with that disease (e.g.: Huntington, Hemophilia, etc), and if they don't then their potential children are safe. These genes can be tested in advance nowadays.

But it's not as simple as children resulting from incest getting some sort of vaguely defined "negative psychological effect".

 

[HalfTangible]

Is incest morally wrong?

Not really, in the animal kingdom incest happens all the time. Heck we humans force animals into incest in order to control various genes or to observe genetic anomalies (Not ones caused by inbreeding, things like hereditary diseases)

I would just like to point out that what animals are willing to do isn't a good moral compass (EX: Dolphins commit rape and kill for fun). Especially for something like incest, where potential issues are long-term and genetic, something animals don't understand beyond perhaps an instinctual level.

 

[OldKingClancy]

People can fuck who they want to fuck. As long as both parties are willing I'm ok with it.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I?m skeptical of people that talk about ?genetic attraction? (especially when used as a justification for incest) in how humans are apparently hardwired to go after partners that looks similar to them. I don't know anyone who?s like that. For example, I?m black, yet I?m not attracted to black girls. I?m attracted to attractive members of any race but them. Does that mean there?s something wrong with me? That I?don?t want to bone someone who looks similar to me?

*shrugs* I don?t want to be right if that?s wrong.

Is incest morally wrong?

No, don't see any reason why it should be. Besides, morality is entirely subjective - that's why it's a social construct. But context is important here. If it?s a parent abusing their child, then yes, that?s immoral. But if it?s someone who?s ?really close? with their sibling, then it?s fine.

If I can endorse other sexually ?deviant? behaviour such as homosexuality, rapeplay, and ?watersports?, it?d be hypocritical for me to oppose incest solely on the grounds that ?it?s icky, therefore wrong?. And before you guys say it, no, I?m not comparing incest to homosexuality, rape fantasies, or urolagnia. Going by society?s definition, it seems that anything other than heterosexual sex is considered ?deviant?.

In the case of no possible offspring?

Nope, people should be able to have sex in whatever way they want, as long as it doesn't cause non-consensual harm, physically or psychologically.

With offspring?

I'm compelled to say yes, because of the risk of genetic defect (I know there are counter-arguments to this, but none believable enough for me to change my opinion on the matter) and the fact that there's a high chance for that kind of relationship to be socially unstable (imagine trying to work your head around the fact that your sister is also your mum, not to mention how it could affect your relationships with other people).

But I wouldn?t force the mother to get an abortion or anything. To be honest, I don?t know what you could do in that situation, since it?s not entirely fair for a child to be forced into care and potentially have no contact with their birth parents just because they were brought into the world through ethically questionable means.

If an incestuous couple want kids, it?d be advisable for them to adopt instead. It?s just flat-out selfish to ignore the health risks knowing that your child has a great probability of undergoing a fucked-up existence primarily because of you.

Should incest be legally banned?

I have no strong feelings one way or another. There'd be no skin off my nose if it was legalized, but I'm not exactly clamouring for it to be so, when there are far more important things that could or need to be legalized. Not to mention that if a brother and sister want to get it on, they'll do it regardless of legality, and even if it was legalized, there'd still be the social stigma lasting from years ago, so they'll keep it under wraps anyway.

Does the act of incest disgust you?

Yeah, because I can't imagine ever finding my mother, sister, or even a cousin whom I barely know attractive. That kind of intimacy just doesn't exist between us, and I prefer partners who are significantly different from me (it?s probably the reason why I?m not attracted to black women). When you live in such close proximity with someone for that long of your life, you get desensitized to even the possibility of looking at them as a prospective mate.

Although, for some reason, porn with incestuous storylines has the capacity to turn me (especially lesbian sisters, or lesbian twins). I just like the "forbidden fruit" aspect of it, I guess.

Also, if you're banning incestuous baby-making, you're basically starting a mandatory eugenics program. Slippery slope.

My sister's husband has some terrible genetic diseases he might have inherited from his father. (who is wheel-chair bound and barely able to function anymore) He has a 50/50 chance of developing the same disease. Even if he doesn't develop the disease, any of his biological children will still have a 1/4 chance of developing said disease. If they decide to have children someday, who's going to be the one to tell them no? (not really an issue, because it sounds like they plan to adopt, devil's advocating here)

I mean, hell, my own genes are definitely mediocre. I have a family history of suicide on one side, and lots of heart disease and mental health issues on the other side. (some bi-polar, some depression, some OCD) Does that mean I'm not allowed to reproduce, because my kid is likely to be messed up in the head?

That sort of thinking is pretty dangerous in it's own right. I think that a few incestuous babies are much less of an issue. Incest by its very nature is rather rare, and our population as a species is so massive that a little inbreeding isn't going to hurt it.

But the slippery slope argument is flawed. Just because we outlaw incestuous reproduction doesn't mean that we're going to outlaw anyone with a genetic condition from reproduction, nor are we going to force mothers to have abortions. The difference with incest is that...well, it's abnormal for a reason, and unlike a fairly vague condition like OCD and depression, there's a definite risk, much moreso than a lot of other situations, that the baby will come out fucked-up. If not physically, then mentally, like I've explained above.

And if our population is so large, shouldn't we be encouraging people to not add "a little inbreeding" into the mix so we have to support them too, when it'd just be easier for those couples to adopt children already born into the world, or a non-incestuous couple to bring a statistically healthier baby into the world?

Now that Danyal?s gone, how about we kick up a discussion about bestiality, eh? No. Fine then. -_-

 

[Therumancer]

Yes it is wrong, there is more to the issue than simply genetics, which is what most people seem to be focusing on. There is the issue of the family structure. In general family is supposed to be safe, nuturing, and free of ulterior motives in of itself. You legalized incest and your basically saying it's okay for parents to do things like condition their children to be sex slaves, as long as they wait until the age of consent to actually have sex with them. Something which is going to be REALLY easy to do if your dealing with the parents being able to raise the child pretty much since birth.

People aren't animals, and honestly I feel our family structure is supposed to be devoid of that kind of garbage, it totally destroys people. I believe as a principle incest (sex within the family) should be illegal.

The kind of trust and nurturing enviroment within a family should be kept free of internal sexual predation, this is supposed to be the group of people totally free of that kind of thing. That kind of safety is what makes family home.

Now, I will say that when you move beyond the immediate family (parents, brothers, sisters) it raises some other questions. To be honest I'm not personally very comfortable with the idea, but I can see cases being made for say cousins having sex and such due to the detachment. But I'm not paticularly in favor of that either. Given the way how a law like this applies it basically opens the door for someone's creepy uncle to work on their brother/sister's kid, again as long as actual sex doesn't happen until the age of consent.

For the most part I think family needs to be kept sacred here, and I personally support the idea of a blanket "no incest" law branching from immediate family to extended family.

I am aware of some really wierd fringe studies and such dealing with the nature of twins and such and arguements that sex between twins is tantamount to masturbation due to their unusual relationship (before anyone brings that up) and really even if one tries to invoke such things I do not think that even if it's true that blanket policy can be set based on possible exceptions. I believe sex needs to be kept out of the family, as to do otherwise opens the door for the destruction of one of the major building blocks of society and the worst possible forms of long-term abuse.