Poll: Is incest wrong if it's consensual?

[Xanadu84]

SNIP

Incest is a bit more controversial than blood transfusions. Yes, SOME religions see blood transfusions as unnatural, but incest is almost universally disliked by all, save it's practitioners.

But now you're down to the old chestnut of common opinion makes rightness, and I don't need to patronise you with examples of how insane that logic is.

It's not just about common opinion, incest can lead to birth defects, which is why I also said that it's not natural.

So can 'normal' cest. And of all the afflictions someone can be afflicted with, birth defects from genetic causes are amongst the most natural of them.

Your kids riding in a car can get killed in an accident whether or not you make them wear a seatbelt, but you still get your kids to wear a seatbelt because cutting back on the odds of hideously deforming or killing them is a damn good practice. Same logic applies to incest.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

SNIP

Thanks, I wasn't arguing with you in that last comment by the way. I'm just saying I'm every ounce as confused as you are. Haha

 

[retyopy]

SNIP

And I'm confused because I have no idea why people are arguing with me for saying that incest is unnatural and widely frowned upon. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that belief.

It may be unnatural, but if they're both in love, then who does it hurt? Love is love.

 

[jyork89]

Personally, I do not think incest should be illegal. I think simply having a child from incest should be illegal. It should be the law that if you are going to be in an incestuous relationship then you must agree to use some form of guaranteed birth control.

A condom is not enough. Either implanted control or vasectamony. If a child is still born after this no charges, as all reasonable steps were taken, however if it turns out they were lying about using birth control, or simply used none at all, they should be criminally charged and the child should be taken into surrogate care on birth.

Objectively the only thing wrong with incest is that the children are far more likely to be born with serious defects. It is not fair on the child, rather than the parents if the child is born. Therefore we erase that and even though it is weird and creepy (in my view), a lot of legal things are.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

i see no reason for it to be wrong, as long as they both consent and they use protection, but thats pretty much the guideline for anyone to have sex unless they want a baby, which i doubt people fucking their relatives would want, considering the risk and societal opinion on it.

Well, besides the fact that conception usually results in horribly disabling birth defects

if thats your only reason for it, which is the only one you gave, then if the couple is homosexual, only do anal/oral, use birth control effectively or even get an abortion if it all fails massively through some trolling by god it should be fine.

 

[shemoanscazrex3]

I don't think so, I would never partake in it but to be honest we are all committing incest if we all came from one being. Somewhere along the line we are all related but I want facts of incest pregnancy causing birth defects.

 

[retyopy]

SNIP

Incest is a bit more controversial than blood transfusions. Yes, SOME religions see blood transfusions as unnatural, but incest is almost universally disliked by all, save it's practitioners.

But now you're down to the old chestnut of common opinion makes rightness, and I don't need to patronise you with examples of how insane that logic is.

It's not just about common opinion, incest can lead to birth defects, which is why I also said that it's not natural.

So can 'normal' cest. And of all the afflictions someone can be afflicted with, birth defects from genetic causes are amongst the most natural of them.

Your kids riding in a car can get killed in an accident whether or not you make them wear a seatbelt, but you still get your kids to wear a seatbelt because cutting back on the odds of hideously deforming or killing them is a damn good practice. Same logic applies to incest.

O.K., but forgetting the kid, is it wrong for them to simply be in love?

 

[Jake0fTrades]

SNIP

Too many people quoting me! I am COMPLETELY lost. lol

 

[Loop Stricken]

SNIP

Incest is a bit more controversial than blood transfusions. Yes, SOME religions see blood transfusions as unnatural, but incest is almost universally disliked by all, save it's practitioners.

But now you're down to the old chestnut of common opinion makes rightness, and I don't need to patronise you with examples of how insane that logic is.

It's not just about common opinion, incest can lead to birth defects, which is why I also said that it's not natural.

So can 'normal' cest. And of all the afflictions someone can be afflicted with, birth defects from genetic causes are amongst the most natural of them.

Your kids riding in a car can get killed in an accident whether or not you make them wear a seatbelt, but you still get your kids to wear a seatbelt because cutting back on the odds of hideously deforming or killing them is a damn good practice. Same logic applies to incest.

If I had kids I'd make them wear a seatbelt as opposed to never being allowed into the car. ie if two closely-related people wanted a sexual relationship and didn't want kids then there are, shock horror, various contraceptions to use to prevent it. If they do want kids they would likely know, as most of us probably do, whether or not there are any hereditary health problems that might screw up their unholy devilspawn.
And for the ultra-cautious, genetic screening.

Essentially morality is subjective, but I still have issues with anyone who would rather impose their own beliefs on others instead of letting everyone just do what they please.
And yes I see the possible hypocrisy in trying to impose my belief in nonrestriction but honestly I think you'd be an idiot to try and argue against freedom.

 

[chadachada123]

SNIP

Incest is a bit more controversial than blood transfusions. Yes, SOME religions see blood transfusions as unnatural, but incest is almost universally disliked by all, save it's practitioners.

But now you're down to the old chestnut of common opinion makes rightness, and I don't need to patronise you with examples of how insane that logic is.

It's not just about common opinion, incest can lead to birth defects, which is why I also said that it's not natural.

So can 'normal' cest. And of all the afflictions someone can be afflicted with, birth defects from genetic causes are amongst the most natural of them.

Your kids riding in a car can get killed in an accident whether or not you make them wear a seatbelt, but you still get your kids to wear a seatbelt because cutting back on the odds of hideously deforming or killing them is a damn good practice. Same logic applies to incest.

You're (almost definitely) a hypocrite. A person with a history of cancer or genetic defect has a far higher chance of having a kid with said condition(s) than a person without these but in an incestuous relationship, yet society (and, from what I can tell, you) don't look down on higher-risk relationships like those, because, frankly, it isn't our damn business.

I'll say this again since no one seems to have read it: The average child born of an incestuous first-generation relationship has only a ONE PERCENT higher chance of having ANY serious genetic defect compared to the average person, and virtually NO difference in non-purely-genetic defects like autism, Downs, etc.

This still says NOTHING about relations that don't result in or cannot result in a child.

 

[Harrowdown]

Yes, according to the law. Unconsensual incest is a different crime entirely. If what you're asking is whether or not it should be illegal, then I would still say yes. Children born to incestuous parents suffer greatly from genetic deficiencies due to the limited gene pool. You can see for yourself the effects of it by looking at some of the old royal families from europe and elsewhere. If the sex is protected, I think there's still issues of mental scarring.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Personally, I do not think incest should be illegal. I think simply having a child from incest should be illegal. It should be the law that if you are going to be in an incestuous relationship then you must agree to use some form of guaranteed birth control.

That's awesome. Of course, apart from particular methods of surgical rearrangement no such thing exists.

 

[Azalin137]

I say go for it.........I had sexual relations with my stepsister........Now i would never have any relations with my sister. Primarily cause I don't have one. Screw who you want....its your problem.

 

[dead.juice]

My current account is new, but I've been lurking on The Escapist since Yahtzee first started hosting videos here, and it seems the Escapist forums can't go a single month without an incest topic.
I don't want to sound like an asshole, but wtf people, is inbreeding really so fascinating?

 

[Howlingwolf214]

I don't see anything morally wrong with incestual love. Love is Love no matter what shape it deigns to take.

However, the idea of children must be considered. If the couple wants to have children, that is. If they don't, then I fail to see the problem.

If they do want to have children and the child is likely to be severely affected as a result, I do not think it is acceptible. Getting together knowing that you will be bringing a child into a horrible life is not acceptible whether incestual or no, however.

But, if they just want to get together because they properly love each other, then all the best to the theoretical couple.

 

[Kaymish]

morally wrong*? not from the point of view of my moral frame work it is only after many generations that too many recessive genes turn up and children begin to become non-viable therefore it is not wrong* from a moral point for first or even second generation incest even to conceive a child weird hell yes wrong* no
however that said it still has a massive stigma against it so it is not advisable to admit to it if you do decide

legally wrong? it depends on where you are it is legislated against in some jurisdictions no matter the ciurmstances

*well depending on how you define wrong.

 

[retyopy]

SNIP

And I'm confused because I have no idea why people are arguing with me for saying that incest is unnatural and widely frowned upon. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that belief.

It may be unnatural, but if they're both in love, then who does it hurt? Love is love.

Wait, what? Prove its "unnatural". That sounds like the anti-gay argument, and its equally invalid.

Go find a pile of kittens from one litter, keep unfixed males and females, or even the mother. Watch what happens. Incest ahoy!

I was just quoting him. I didn't feel like explaining why it isn't unnatural, and i wanted to focus on the human aspect, i.e. love.

 

[Loop Stricken]

This still says NOTHING about relations that don't result in or cannot result in a child.

In which case love is love and is nobody else's concern. :3

Also that's a mighty fine avatar.