Incest

[Loop Stricken]

-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.

Well, that was fun! Let's just forward this to the rest of the world and-- oh.

---
See, the problem is, people think incest and default to godless heathen low IQ degenerates who are so disgusting only their own kin will take them, and they just pump out unholy deformed mutant babbies.

Now I can't speak as to how people actually go about porking their family, but the children thing? Massively overblown.
When you consider that the average chance for two as-unrelated-as-it's-possible-to-be people having a child born with birth defects is 2%, and that incest between siblings (not even cousins) is only double that... it's not a massive problem.
Yes, successive instances of incest and inbreeding will increase the chance for latent heath problems to express themselves, but at that point the situation is probably more endemic of some sort of abuse.

Regardless!
What consenting people do with or to each other, I feel, shouldn't concern anybody else.

 

[austinmus4]

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.

Thus sums it up nicely. Although I do think that the couple, in the case of pregnancy, should think about the possibility of the child being born with any genetic problems and possible social side effects. So having a bit of foresight.

 

[Smeatza]

I wonder if people in this thread are taking into account the psychological aspects.

Incest was certainly a factor that encouraged and enabled sexual depravity in the West family.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_West http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_West )

Have the psychological effects of incest ever been researched or documented?

 

[John Mcgregor]

incest doesnt bother me i guess since its their choice.

 

[Arakasi]

No, I'm not saying the movie is anti-intellectual, it very much isn't. I'm saying it's used by anti-intellectuals to justify backwards beliefs.

Well thats hardly a reason to hate the movie. I know goodwins law and all, but I think this usage is the reverse, we don't hate Nietzsche because the Nazis bastardised his concept of the Ubermensch to include Aryan features

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

And I did a biology course. I know about genotypes and phenotypes.

These are out dated, please look up the term Epigenetic.

Or hell, here's a good video

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.

 

[Entitled]

I wonder if people in this thread are taking into account the psychological aspects.

Incest was certainly a factor that encouraged and enabled sexual depravity in the West family.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_West http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_West )

Have the psychological effects of incest ever been researched or documented?

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.

 

[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.

Because of this legislation the greatest man in all of everything, Alan Turing, took his own life. The man who created a device that cracked the enigma code and is responsible for saving the world was forced to take drugs that messed him up to the point where he killed himself because his government thought that having sodomy with another consenting man was abhorrent and thought that they could "Fix" him.

I agree with you, there are some psychological factors, but you can't blanket every single case as being wrong. If they are consenting adults who cares. It's not like they're marching down the street proclaiming their love in multicoloured attire; which I guess is part of the reason its so easy to attack them.

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

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

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

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.

>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.

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

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!

 

[HoneyVision]

I think that something like incest is just so culturally engrained, and so deeply embedded in our society as being wrong, that I don't think it will see the light of day anytime soon. And to be honest, some things are better left alone. There's too much risk with incest.
I find that a lot of people want to stretch and break rules just for the sake of having no rules, not because it will actually produce anything useful. I think that the reasons keeping incest socially repulsive are called for.

 

[The Heik]

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?

Given the topic, I think this should be an interesting supplement


In answer to your questions though (from my perspective at least)

Morally wrong?

No

In case of offspring?

Only if it's with direct family ie brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son, and that's only due to the the higher likelihood of genetic defects coming to the fore, and even then it's still up for debate.

Legally banned?

Hell no. Sex between two consenting adults is my only criterion for coital circumstances.

Disgust me?

Well let me put it this way: a few years back i was at a summer sophia symposium, I found out that two of my friends there were dating and hooking up despite being related to each other, specifically second cousins i think. My reaction to discovering that? I shrugged my shoulders and went back to my morning flapjacks.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Two consenting adults? No problem.

However, adult/child is wrong because it's an adult having sex with a child. I think that's (one of) the original reasons it's considered bad - adult/child gets rapey pretty much immediately.

For this reason, I'm generally more okay with sibling incest than anything between parent/child. Even between consenting adults, the parent/child seems ickier. Probably just my bias, but there you have it.

Then again, this whole thread is about personal bias (of one sort or other), so I'm not really alone.

 

[DarkenedWolfEye]

I have no moral problem with incest itself. Whatever certain family members want to do, I've got no problem as long as it's consensual. What I do have a problem with is inbreeding: obviously, it presents real genetic problems and that's what I think shouldn't be allowed. The rates of mental illness are high and the national IQ is low, and we don't need to exacerbate that problem.
I'm not saying incestuous couples shouldn't be allowed to raise children, all I'm saying is that they should have to adopt.

 

[Mr F.]

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.

*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. 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.

If they are consenting adults who cares.

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.

It's not like they're marching down the street proclaiming their love in multicoloured attire; which I guess is part of the reason its so easy to attack them.

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).

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

But please, stop with your attempts to annoy me.

 

[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.