Switzerland might make incest legal.
- Thread starter YukoValis
- Start date
This.Zeithri said:
Some may view it as sick and immoral, but if two people love each other, there's nothing that should stand in their way of doing it and nothing ever will no matter what the law says.
no this is not a fallacy, its roughly 3 time more dangerous when same family parents conceive. also its harmful to the child psychologically, can you imagine what what happen if children at there schools ound out?Zechnophobe said:
and your right, encourage was a strong word, iv already had to address it by about 5 others who have quoted it, but removing the deterrent of punishment is dangerous, alot of peoples only reason for commiting certain crimes is the chance of punishment
Again, outlaw vaginal intercourse between same-sex couples, and I'd very much like to see the judge who'd believe that came about by accident. You could even make the subjective requirement "Gross negligence".Generic Gamer said:
Well, not all infertile women would dismiss abortion, and if a related straight couple want a child that bad, then I still don't see how it would make any difference whether the law forbade them sex or (the type of sex that can lead to) procreation. Only the latter is problematic.
I guess it's okay if you have the stomach for it....ewww It's still nasty as hell legal or not >.<
What if someone falls madly in love with someone else, but that someone else is a corpse. Is right that the person in question wants to have sex with that corpse? It's a consenting adult and someone who doesn't say no.YukoValis said:
The whole "OMG THINK OF HOW PEOPLE WILL VIEW THEM" is such a weak argument. We let celebrities, convicted felons, and all sorts of social targets have kids all the time knowing it will probably affect their children. It's just as bad here as it is against gay adoption.jamiedf said:
We even let alcoholics have children even though we know having alcohol during pregnancy can cause severe disability.
Laws like this should never be outright repealed, just stop prosecuting it, allow the law to become redundant.
There are tonnes of incidental laws that you would have to have the greatest Lawyer ever to make stick. I know this is a much bigger one but actually bringing it into the open is just asking for trouble
There are tonnes of incidental laws that you would have to have the greatest Lawyer ever to make stick. I know this is a much bigger one but actually bringing it into the open is just asking for trouble
I suspect all the people who are saying we should just let people love each other regardless of their relation are the type of people who think Romeo and Juliet is the ultimate love story and not a cautionary tale about dumb ass kids.
There are such things as inappropriate relationships. This is why even in countries with lower ages of consent there is often a clause which states that the age of consent is much higher if there is some sort of power relationship between the two. That is why it is illegal to have sex with someone who cannot give informed consent.
Incest is taboo for many reasons which have been outlined in this thread. This is why it is outlawed, to show that society does not accept it as a valid lifestyle choice. If Switzerland as a society has come to accept this and is willing to deal with the implications, then it is their choice to remove the relevant laws. They shouldn't, however, expect the world to follow suit. I see it as the same way as a same sex couple in Canada knows they cannot travel as a couple in many middle eastern countries; and incestuous couple would face scorn if they let their relationship be known here.
However, you can't honestly believe that someone who is so in ~love~ with a relative will actually let the law stop them. I know people who have been in love with their first cousins and even had plans to marry them.* She simply did not mention it was her cousin when she spoke about her 'boy friend'. Repealing the laws isn't going to cause some sort of tidal wave of incest. It's just going to let people be open about it.
I think it's hella gross, FWIW.
*For the record, they did not have sex and were planning to marry 'back home' where this was legal. The relationship did not last for various unrelated reasons.
There are such things as inappropriate relationships. This is why even in countries with lower ages of consent there is often a clause which states that the age of consent is much higher if there is some sort of power relationship between the two. That is why it is illegal to have sex with someone who cannot give informed consent.
Incest is taboo for many reasons which have been outlined in this thread. This is why it is outlawed, to show that society does not accept it as a valid lifestyle choice. If Switzerland as a society has come to accept this and is willing to deal with the implications, then it is their choice to remove the relevant laws. They shouldn't, however, expect the world to follow suit. I see it as the same way as a same sex couple in Canada knows they cannot travel as a couple in many middle eastern countries; and incestuous couple would face scorn if they let their relationship be known here.
However, you can't honestly believe that someone who is so in ~love~ with a relative will actually let the law stop them. I know people who have been in love with their first cousins and even had plans to marry them.* She simply did not mention it was her cousin when she spoke about her 'boy friend'. Repealing the laws isn't going to cause some sort of tidal wave of incest. It's just going to let people be open about it.
I think it's hella gross, FWIW.
*For the record, they did not have sex and were planning to marry 'back home' where this was legal. The relationship did not last for various unrelated reasons.
the stigma a child will face from an incestuousness family will likely be higher then those of a celebrity dont you think? and even if you think so, the stigma argument is a secondary argument, the original is the danger it can pose to a child, its a preventive measure by the courts to try and minimise the possible risks, same reason that social services exists, but thats a post-emptive solutionDags90 said:
The fact that there's actually people posting on this site in favour of incest says it all, really.
Well that's just a misconception that can be resolved. People just need to be educated in the fact that it's not genetic code, or childbirth (which would still be available to reproductively-limited couples due to in-vitro fertilization using sperm donors) that makes a child "theirs" or not. That idea is, frankly, undesirable, because it decreases rates of adoption. But of course, it's not an issue limited to this topic.Generic Gamer said:
In any event, incestuous couples probably should not have their ability to reproduce "naturally" eliminated. Perhaps their pregnancies would require closer monitoring, but not being a reproductive expert I couldn't say. The more pressing issue would be whether or not the incestuous relationship is a good environment for a child to be growing up in--far more relevant, because that has more to do with how the child grows and turns out if the fetus develops without undue complication. Certainly incestuous relationships (unless they occur between close relatives that had rarely been in contact with each other, or possibly didn't even know each other) are more likely to be defective, or maladaptive, than normal relationships. However, this leads to the unfortunate consequence that we are punishing people for a problem that, although it is more prevalent in their particular subset, is miles away from being nonexistent in the wider category.
Overall, a much neater solution would be to impose a process on natural conception that would be very similar to the one for adoption. But then, the issue goes beyond mere incest, onto wider society as a whole, leaving me again with the conclusion that consensual incest between legal adults should be no less acceptable, legally, than a normal relationship.
Of course many people will argue that incest, even if it is incest between family members that are not genetically-related, is still morally wrong, and they could be right. But there is little evidence that indicates it is morally wrong in the legally enforceable sense--murder is morally wrong, and we may outlaw it, but while being mean to people is probably morally wrong there really should be no law outlawing unpleasantness.
Of course, it isn't a crime right? And I think you put a little too much stock into 'children at school finding out'. That is like saying adoption should be illegal. Or just heaving a dead beat dad/mom. Inbreeding can become a problem, but is not inherently one. Also, who says they will get pregnant? What if she's on the pill? What if they correctly use a condom? Your arguments against this require a whole lot of assumptions that aren't realistic.jamiedf said: