Poll: Is incest wrong if it's consensual?

[Roroshi14]

I really hate to say it, but if both parties consent then its no wrong legally and morality wise it is based on your own personal ideas. For me that is wrong no matter what.

 

[CrystalShadow]

When science backs ethics up, there's really no argument. Also, gross.

Expand on this?

Well, it's already been mentioned a little earlier in the thread, but the science of it is that if you have a child with someone who is closely related to you genetically, the risk of the child having two identical copies of a gene goes up substantially.

Everyone (except men, to a small extent, due to the y chromosome being essentially defective, and not properly matching it's partner the X chromosome), has 2 sets of pretty much all genes.

One from each parent. Thus, if one of those 2 is defective, the other can take over, and the person will still be healthy.

A surprising amount of problems result from recessive genes though; For instance, colour blindness & sickle cell anemia.

If the parents are unrelated, they won't have too many genes in common, so for any given gene, your parent will each have 2 copies, and you will have one copy from each parent.
(so, 2 out of 4)

The worst form of inbreeding, genetically, (aside from identical twins or a clone of yourself, which is currently impossible because you can't have a clone or identical twin of the opposite sex to yourself), is having a child with your own parent.

This is because, instead of there being 4 possible copies of a gene you can pass on, there are now at most 3.

Worse. Normally, for any gene, if all 4 variants are different, there are 4 possible end results.

With only 3 genes though, the end result is now that there are only 3 combinations. Worse, one of these involves the same gene twice. Contrary to popular belief, this isn't always a bad thing, because inbreeding can actually create massive improvements for the same reason that it can create serious problems:
Duplicating the same gene. - if this gene is a really good variant, the child will be better than the incestuous parents. But, if, as is much more likely, there is a bad gene in there somewhere, the child will be worse off.
(and if there is a long history of inbreeding, the problem gets a lot worse.)

So, let's say there's 4 variants of a gene, labelled A, b, C, d (with capital letters being dominant, small letters recessive.) - d is a faulty gene, and A is a really good version...

Starting with two parents:

Mother: Ab
Father: Cd

Possible children: AC, Ad, bC, bd

Since only d is faulty, none of the children will have problems, and 2 of 4 children will potentially be able to pass on the faulty gene.
Two out of 4 will have a better gene than the other two. (but this is statistical, so the real results will be kind of random amongst the 4 possibilities)

But, let's say we now have a few incestuous relationships.

First, two of the children.

You can see if you combine AC + bd, the possible end results are identical to the parents.
AC & Ad together produce: AA, Ad, CA, Cd. Of these two (Ad & CA) are exactly the same as one of the parents, but AA is a particularly good result, while the others are no better or worse than anyone else.
You can also see that Ad + bd has the potential to create dd, which would be incredibly bad.
But, there are worse examples, because it's possible both children are, say, bd. This can create only a handful of options: bb, bd, or dd. dd is bad, bb is alright since it eliminated d altogether, and bd is identical.
AC + AC can create AA or CC quite frequently, which is good because AA is very good, but bad in the sense that AA alone has no genetic diversity anymore. (But since it's such a good version of a gene, that isn't such a huge loss.)

The real problem happens when you get, say, bd + bd, creating multiple dd children... since dd has no alternate versions, and d is a bad gene, at this point, if inbreeding continues, all the children from that point on will only ever have d, the bad gene.

Notice that there's a chance of reducing the genetic diversity, alongside a risk of making bad (or good) genes the only ones left, but there's a lot of possible outcomes, many of which don't have a huge negative effect (but some of which clearly do)

OK, so that's brother and sister, so why is parent & child even worse?
Well, if you look closely, while brother & sister can produce bd + bd as a combination, (for instance), statistically, AC + AC is equally likely, and the overall number of possible combinations is quite large.

For parent and child, let's say Cd (the father) has a child with his own daughter.

We know the daughter could be any of the following: AC, Ad, bC, bd

But notice that while none of those is identical to the father, every single one contains either the C or d gene from the father.
So, with a parent, you are guaranteed to have at least 50% of your genes in common. (with a brother or sister, it could be as high as 100%, but equally you could share no genes at all with them).

So, not knowing what specific combination the daughter inherited, if she has a child with her father, the possible outcomes are:

Cd + AC : CA, CC, dA, dC
Cd + Ad : CA, Cd, dA, dd
Cd + bC : Cb, CC, db, dC
Cd + bd : Cb, Cd, db, dd

You can see here that of 12 possible outcomes, 2 are really bad, 4 (1/3 of all options) identical to the father (older person's genes), 8 (2/3) of the results pass on the worst of the genes , only 1/3 pass on the best (again due to the older person's genes dominating), with none passing on two copies of it, and in general the father's genes dominate all possible results, while everything else has a much smaller chance of being passed on. This is good if the father/older person had good genes, but not so good if they didn't.
Also note that every single possible outcome here, (unlike the brother/sister example, or the initial one of unrelated people) results in a loss of possible genes.
There is some chance that the next generation will have all 3 gene variants, but a much larger chance they will lose at least one, (or both).
And if that keeps happening generation after generation, it won't take long to lose almost all genetic diversity, and suddenly you've only got one variant of a gene.
(thus everyone in the family will have it, for better or worse.)


Well, that was incredibly long-winded, but that, is the science behind why inbreeding is bad. (more or less.) of course, since this was only about the variations of a single gene, and for humans, the bare minimum is doing this with 46 chromosomes (each chromosome is part of a pair; you get one from each parent, but each chromosome has thousands of genes), the math for a real person is thus a lot more complicated, but the basics of this are still valid.

 

[DJDarque]

This thread has gotten really strange. I didn't expect so many people to replay to it at first, either.

 

[Baneat]

Is Game of Thrones your family viewing?

Anyway, I find it really disturbing. I wish you didn't make this post.

I wish you didn't find yourself behooven to reply. I wish my wallet was bulging with unmarked nonsequential 20's. I wish I'd spoken to the girl I fell for instead of sitting there like a gormless twat for two years.

I wish many things. We don't always get what we wish for.

wow really going all philosophical? are you 11?

Irony of that being the one time he *left* the field of philosophy and went for prose.

 

[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.

Shall we go back to banning people with mental disorders from having kids? Many of them have a MUCH greater chance of passing on their problems to offspring. While we are at it, let's just ban anyone with an inheritable disease from having kids, the risk is there!

Honestly, that's not all that bad of an idea. Harsh and unpopular sure, but probably true. But evolution didn't instill that sort of natural selection in us, while it does understand incest.

Evolution didn't teach us that mental disorders existed. And let's be honest, mental disorders are generally completely psychological and thus not passed on genetically.
Unless you're trying to be tactful and not mentioning Down's Syndrome by name. Becuase that's genetic, a chromosome problem.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Is Game of Thrones your family viewing?

Anyway, I find it really disturbing. I wish you didn't make this post.

I wish you didn't find yourself behooven to reply. I wish my wallet was bulging with unmarked nonsequential 20's. I wish I'd spoken to the girl I fell for instead of sitting there like a gormless twat for two years.

I wish many things. We don't always get what we wish for.

wow really going all philosophical? are you 11?

26, but thanks for playing.

Irony of that being the one time he *left* the field of philosophy and went for prose.

Is THAT what I've been doing all this time? Shit, I should be a writer.
Fun fact: I have a story in mind. There is actually incest! It is borne from loneliness and drug addiction and power leverage. It is not portrayed as healthy.

 

[Navvan]

So my family and I were eating, and incest became, albiet briefly, the subject. So that got me thinking: is incest wrong if it's consensual?

EDIT: A lot of people think that something like that is going on in my family. No. Just... No. The thought is just... *vomits*

Genetically speaking, yes all kinds of bad things. Morally speaking, no so long as you either miraculously don't have any of the same detrimental alleles or don't go the normal route of having children. That or just don't have children.

 

[Commissar Sae]

I get the feeling a lot of the people who are saying its fine don't have siblings. The idea of it just messes up the entire notion of family for me. I can openly admit that my sister is fairly attractive from a logical standpoint, but if she ever mae advances towards me I would bail te hell out of there and suggest serious counselling. It has a lot to do with the fact that you grew up together too, think of your oldest friend now picture them coming on to you... Not exactly pretty is it.

Step-sisters are fair game though and both of mine are fairly hot, although I've know one since she was 5 so that makes things kind of a grey terriotry and shes also technically my best friends sister...

up think I'll just stick with my completely unrelated girlfriend.

 

[Baneat]

Woahsnip

Okay the science backs the claim that increased birth defect rate. I do not dispute that, sorry if I led you to believe that was the case, I totally believe this. I don't claim to understand genetic science, if scientists tell me incest increases defect rate, I'm believing it until another better one comes along and proves it untrue, then I believe that guy and so on.

But we're at ethics here, and even with the increased defect rate I only see it as a suggestion other than it being *wrong*, and the reasoning for that is given in an earlier post I made in the thread.

Is THAT what I've been doing all this time? Shit, I should be a writer.

Yep, good old engaging in normative ethics. Philosophy is the reasoning, but philosophers tend to be super smart smarty smart-pants all the time and dress everything they say beautifully for the lulz.

 

[Loop Stricken]

I get the feeling a lot of the people who are saying its fine don't have siblings.

I've got two sisters and many female cousins.
[sub]Must refrain from making a joke about cousins not being siblings (but actually ARE because of incest) because that's not a very good joke.[/sub]

 

[Stublore]

I call it morally wrong due to the problems that may arise. I.E. impregnating your sister with a child.
Your choices after that:
1. Abortion, something not universally excepted as good. And known to psychologically screw-up the women who get them.
2. Give the inbred, possible disfigured or defected baby up for adoption.
3. Try to raise an inbred baby, which has never worked outside of royalty.

Good Luck with deciding.

As regards (1), what % of women are "known to be psychologically screwed up by abortion"?
Stats from a peer reviewed study please.
Anecdotes and Urban Legends do not count, nor does so called pro-life propaganda.

On topic:
When you say incest, do you mean parental, or sibling?
Full or halfblood siblings?
Apart from the "ick" factor, would the main reason against "consenting sibling incest" be the potential to harm for any potential offspring?

 

[Zorpheus]

It's certainly not a natural thing, but as long as it's consenting and they're aware of the consequences, it's fine. It's not my place to keep two consenting adults from doing what they want to do.

 

[Dahemo]

Morally? Not really, two consenting adults, regardless of relation remove the moral aspect of the act. However, as has been pointed out repeatedly, it's the consequences that are very morally charged.

For the pair, the act (or indeed relationship) would need to be hidden, either fully or through some means of deception to appear publicly as a couple due to the moral and social ramifications. If that's as far as it goes then I can't really blame anyone if that's the road they choose, but discovery could do massive damage not only to themselves but to their family and friends.

I also believe it's an unhealthy misconstrual of familial love for erotic love and creates a slippery slope from a societal point of view. When a child comes into the mix, however, it's a whole different ball game.

On a purely genetic level a first generation child from incestuous relations should only have a marginally increased risk of abnormality. So from the perspective of health it's not a total disaster. But that's where the relative upsides end.

Could you ever bring that child to meet the family? Could you hide the truth from your child, knowing that they may unwittingly reveal your secret by discovering their schoolmates have two sets of grandparents? If you were to have a second child, could you deny their own possible incestuous relationship, as while your grandchildren from this arrangement run a vastly increased risk of disorders, you are something of a hypocrite for closing a door you opened.

Even if you could find a workable solution to these adversities, the laws are in place for a reason. Institutionalized incest could cripple a society within two or three generations, yet our concern for the rights of the individual (which I wholeheartedly support) clouds our ability to decry people who choose this path.

I think you have to outlaw it on the grounds that of course, it will still occur, but the illegality will dissuade the vast majority (although many other factors would be more prominent in preventing incest than the legality) and therefore I can see my way to having no moral objection to a childless incestuous couple, but that is my line. However, the concept in legal terms is unenforceable, plus the issue is not so widespread as to require such legal alterations...

 

[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.

Shall we go back to banning people with mental disorders from having kids? Many of them have a MUCH greater chance of passing on their problems to offspring. While we are at it, let's just ban anyone with an inheritable disease from having kids, the risk is there!

Honestly, that's not all that bad of an idea. Harsh and unpopular sure, but probably true. But evolution didn't instill that sort of natural selection in us, while it does understand incest.

Evolution didn't teach us that mental disorders existed. And let's be honest, mental disorders are generally completely psychological and thus not passed on genetically.
Unless you're trying to be tactful and not mentioning Down's Syndrome by name. Becuase that's genetic, a chromosome problem.

Yeah, that's the point. Primitive man doesn't understand a learning disability or being prone to a disease you might get should you live to be the positively ancient age of 35. It does understand that that person with tits is your sister and you don't hit that, because animals that do that end up doing it a bunch and turn into extras from, "The Hills Have Eyes".

Also, saying that psychological disorders have no genetic competent is just absolutely and completely false.

 

[Jordan Beeston]

I spoke to a Gay rights advocate a little while back on the subject and she said that so long as it is two consenting adults then it's okay.

I'm glad she did because it would have been a double standard to say 'Equal rights for everybody!' And then say 'except you incest, you're vile and wrong and perverted.' Oh the Irony!

And besides, even if they did end up having a kid, they could always abort it. I mean who has kids in this day and age.

 

[Drakmeire]

If my family started talking about incest at dinner... I'd be very worried.

and yes, it is wrong, irregardless.

I'd say it's just genetically wrong. but not as wrong as saying "Irregardless"

 

[Cain_Zeros]

Morally, it's a little iffy. Biologically, dear gods yes it's wrong. Genetic diversity is a very, very good thing for any species, humans included. A lack of genetic diversity, not so good.

 

[Sulgoth]

Yes, if children weren't a potential then maybe not, still creepy as shit though.

 

[Zorpheus]

It's certainly not a natural thing, but as long as it's consenting and they're aware of the consequences, it's fine. It's not my place to keep two consenting adults from doing what they want to do.

 

[dagens24]

The idea at the center on my morality has always been 'do whatever makes you happy as long as it isn't hurting anyone else'. If the sex is concentual and there's no chance of producing offspring then, I guess, it's alright. It grosses me out to my core for what I would imagine are biological instincts, but hey, whatever floats your boat I guess.