![]() |
Hypocrisy on adult consent
http://jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby082905.php3
Quote:
I hope I'm not the only one who's pissed at this. Sure, it's incest, but the people involved also happen to be consenting adults. I've always believe that such people should be free to do what ever they want in the privacy of their own home, be it straight, gays, or incest-ers. As long as they don't harm any body, they should be left the hell alone. Or am I too liberal to the point of insanity? |
Quote:
|
Incest is a difficult case because the harm is rather diffuse. If you and your sibling have children together, those children have a significantly increased chance of receiving double recessive genes that you got from your parents. In some cases, this can cause your children to have severe genetic diseases.
The problem, as I see it, is that harm is only being done in an incestuous relationship that bears children. It is entirely understandable that the state would have a vested interest in preventing close familial relatives from reproducing together. It is far more difficult to prove that harm is being caused by protected sex between a brother and sister, morally disgusting though it may be. For that matter, what harm is caused by two brothers having sex with each other? |
I agree that the potential harm is done to non-consenting parties, the children, who have a special kind of vulnerability that ought to always be protected. I don't think that prosecution and incarceration is the key to stop child-bearing incest. Children need their parents, who I assume in this case love their children as most parents do, despite their origin and heredity.
|
Sending them to the slammer is absolutely not right... why should they be punished for a choice they make, which only effects them, and doesn't harm anyone else? For pi's sake, they already have children... what do the authorities tell them? "Your parents are in jail because they're 'icky'... you'll understand once you know our societies unspoken values."?
They probably shouldn't have had children due to the genetic defects and heredity, but the fact of the matter is that punishment isn't the answer to a case like this. You don't punish children because their parents had them, and you don't punish people for having children... society may punish people for what they do to other people, not what they do. |
Quote:
Personally, I have no problem with what consenting adults do. People have a right to live their own lives. I have no right to interfere. Live and let live. |
Sorry but when you find out shes your sister, thats just pretty fucked up, it wasn't like they found out AFTER they had kids or were in a relationship.
I hear banjos in the backround. Love may overcome all but that doesn't mean its good to fuck your sister, brother, mother, father, grandparents etc. |
I have to agree with the "they're consenting adults" crowd. There are no sound reasons for prosecuting them that I can think of...they started the relationship as consenting adults. If they're fit parents and nobody's being hurt, what's the problem (besides "it's icky")?
|
I'm with the majority on this.
They are consenting adults. We have no right to interfere with the course of their lives. They are hurting no one and the decisions they make will only affect each other, not this backward ass American society that we currently live in. I don't buy the "double your chances of genetic defects" either. Anyone can have a genetic defect and you have the same chance of bearing children with that other genetic stranger than you would if you had children with your brother/sister. No matter how "icky and gross" Utswo (and others who think like him) thinks it is, him and people who think like him that want to change the world to their usually single-minded views have no right how to tell others how to live their lives. Period. |
They made a choice to have children KNOWNING they were brother and sister and without any testing (plus I dont' think most of you know how weak that testing really is).
I'm sorry but thats fucked up. If you want to fuck your sister, good for you, but don't have kids. I don't care if they have sex, live together, etc. Thats all part of the consenting adult thing, but it was just wrong to have children. |
Quote:
Would you advocate their imprisonment? |
Ustwo, fucked upt it may be, they nevertheless, should be left alone. Getting on high horses and imposing our/your wills upon them and throwing them in prison is just as fucked up, if not more.
|
Ok, I am going to have to go with the "they're consenting adults they can do what they like" group. But at the same time, I gotta take Ustwo's side also. Sure, they can do whatever they like. But since they potentially (note: POTENTIALLY) are causing unnecessary risks to their children, I think something has to be done. If they really wanted children, they easily could've gotten a sperm donor.
|
Hmm. A couple of generations ago, it was generally accepted that first cousins marrying was immoral and that their children had a greatly increased chance of birth defects. We know better now, but many states still prohibit cousin marriage outright, and others permit it only when both are past child-bearing age. It's still a big joke to most, due to the misunderstanding behind the cause of inbred genetic defects. Isolated populations that develop widespread genetic defects do so over a very long period of time; it's generational, not related to any one couple and their offspring.
A century or two ago, when there were a lot of small, isolated populations, it made sense to have strict restrictions regarding marrying close family, because such behavior, do to isolation and immobility, was much more likely to be repeated over time from generation to generation, and that did pose a threat. There was a compelling reason in such a situation to encourage the mixing of gene pools. Because we no longer live in such small, isolated, immobile communities, the threat of repeated intermarriage within the same family is greatly reduced, and thus the threat of genetic reinforcement is no longer a compelling state interest. Yet we remain with a general populace that misunderstands the genetics, and which has a moral objection, on top of the "ick" factor, so it's unlikely we'll see much, if any change on this soon. And I think we underestimate the "ick" factor. There are people out there who do believe things they find disgusting should be illegal, even in the absense of any harm being done to anyone. So why don't we see more social liberals up in arms about this the way we are about gay rights, using the same arguments? Practicality. The predjudice against siblings having sex, marrying, and having children is much, much stronger and more prevelant among the mainstream than the disapproval of gays having sex with each other. Linking the two with the same type of argument would, in practical terms, be counterproductive. I can see two possible outcomes to using the same argument for both. People who object to both gays and siblings getting married are going to have that attitude reinforced by such a comparison, and equating them would make the cause of gay rights more difficult. People who favor gay rights, but not sibling marriage are the ones that would be problematic. If we convince them that the two are equivilent, would they be more likely to move in favor of more rights for siblings, or fewer rights for gays? I think the latter to be more likely. As a moral issue, I find it disturbing. As an ethical issue, I don't think I should have the right to dictate to others how to live their lives, and for that reason, jailing these people is something I disapprove of strongly. As a practical matter, I think we'll see more progress more quickly on sexual freedoms for all consenting adults if we concentrate first on those that are likely to be best recieved by the mainstream. Think about the children. A few years ago there was a southern California anchorwoman with a genetic disease that caused her to be born with a birth defect of malformed hands, what used to be called lobster claws in freak shows. It's a rare genetic mutation, but once it manifests, it has a 50-50 chance of being passed on to children. She decided to have children anyway, and was severely criticized for this. How dare she inflict this on a child? I look at her situation, and though I'm not sure I would make the same decision she did, my ultimate conclusion has to be that it isn't my decision to make. I think the same way about siblings marrying, having sex, or having children together. Gilda |
Damn Gilda, every time I read your post, it's always so informative and well thought out. Thanks.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You know, its nice to be all accepting of every deviation in human sexuality, but in this case its time to shake your heads and say 'thats not right'. Jail time, etcetera, I dont really have much of an opinion on, but the act of having children with your sibling is wrong, yes a moral judgement, wrong. |
It is my belief that our constitutional privacy rights are so threatened at this moment that it is difficult for me to champion a further right of privacy among siblings, cousins and the right for them to marry and have children. My personal belief is that this article is intended to inflame those that can't even accept recognizing same-sex relationships in a civil marriage.
KellyC, do you get the same impression, or am I being caught up in my preconceptions? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Ustwo, if this couple had volunarily sterilized themselves prior to engaging in this relationship, would you still have a problem? In other words, does your issue only stem from the potential harm to children of this union or is there something else?
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
It's one thing to act immorally, and another to be sent to prison for it. If we are saying that it is immoral because of the risk of children being born with birth defects, then shouldn't we also ban people with inheritable conditions from procreating as well?
Should we lock up all the dwarves, people with Down's syndrome, congenitally deaf or blind people or anyone with a high chance of passing on some condition if they ever enter into a procreational sexual relationship? I think not. That doesn't mean I'm going to encourage anyone to get friendly with their immediate family - but likewise, locking people away can't be the right answer either. |
I love that the case presented is 150 years old.
|
Sending them to prison is pretty harsh. They should have just been shipped off to West Virginia.
|
Eh, let them have their fun. At the worst, they'll keep inbreeding until theyt wipe themselves out. At best, they'll accidentally trip upon a way to evolve.
|
Quote:
|
Read Under the Banner of Heaven and then tell me incest is "ok" if people are "consenting." Sure, some of the people in said book weren't always consenting adults, but the still-born "blobs of protoplasm" are reprehensible and vile regardless.
Max security prison is pretty rough, probably too rough, but they should be held liable for their actions. As for the poster who said the law under question is 150 years old, well, to me that just shows without an intricate knowledge of the human genome we still knew incest was dangerous. |
Quote:
|
I can get into this in a religious sense, which makes it totally not allowed. Or I can talk about how the Pharaohs in Egypt married their sister etc.. But basically what you do behind your doors, as long as it is consensual, I do not care. Does not mean I will accept it, or think it is ok, but that is your issue, between you and G-d.
|
Quote:
When I read the story itself, I thought, "GOOD GOD. None of that should have been allowed to happen. What is this guy talking about--hypocrisy? I think not." I don't cotton too much to the idea of incest. But then I read all the responses and realized that there is belief I value highly which dictates that I mind my own business. This is clearly not my business, nor is it the government's. While I find it highly inadvisable to fornicate and especially reproduce with one's own sibling, I can't bring myself to say that it wasn't within their rights. So, while almost everything inside me screams that they ought to be taught a lesson in order to discourage any other misguided individuals from following in their path, I have to say that the case just didn't belong in the court system. I wish I could defend them more emphatically for the sake of rational thought, but this is probably as enthusiastic as I'm going to get about it. In any case, I doubt I could have come to a conclusion like this in any environment outside of this forum. Thanks for helping me keep it real, TFP. |
Quote:
BUT at the same time we have so many people every day who marry and have children even though they have genetic defects that are likely to be passed on to their children. Or even diseases that they children end up being born with. If we were to ban familial marriage or sexual relationship on this point alone then we'd have to ban ALL marriages and sexual relationships that could potentially produce genetic problems. That would not be tolerable. As much as the idea is not something I am used to. I cannot see anything warrenting imprisonment for this couple. Besides, I see the law as protecting siblings from being intimidated into sexual intercourse by another sibling. In this case they were both grown, had not grown up together so intimidation was not a part of the picture, and they both CHOSE to be together. I could not condemn either of them for that. This is an overreaction by a group of people biased by standards set decades ago that are outdated and most likely religiously based opinions. |
http://www.s-plan.fslife.co.uk/deliv...nce_guitar.jpg
I'm sorry but there comes a point where you need to say....thats not right. We all draw the line somewhere, I draw it at brothers and sisters having children. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
in all seriousness, though, if half their children are experiencing developmental problems, I'd look to malnourishment or abuse before genetic disorder. |
Quote:
Or, perhaps we should start making laws against ugly people procreating. People will get disorders and diseases, and people will die or live difficult lives. It is unavoidable, and at a certain point trying to make laws to prevent it becomes ludicrous. I believe this is one of those points. |
Quote:
Its pretty classic for inbreeding. |
Quote:
Come on people :rolleyes: |
Quote:
I remember your example from my undergrad bio 100 years, but I also remember that a) diseases (or any phenotype characteristic) aren't likely to be caused by one single gene, b) Punnett squares are heuristic devices for understanding how genes cross from parents to offspring--unless you've got the genetic structure mapped, they aren't going to give accurate statistical represenations of a given genepool, and c) the human genome is a lot more complex than that of a pea. useful for teaching students about different colors of roses understanding visible genetic abnormalities in human beings? not so useful |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project