Incest, Should it be legalised? Options

[-TheKasbah-]

I think that it should stay illegal, I'm not just trying to be against the people doing it, but if they have children then there is a high possibility of the baby having a disibility and then there is someone living a life that could be healthy if only the parent had had the baby with another man or woman.

[Jim]

".

So should it be legalised? Should brothers and sisters be allowed to have children with one another? As the article points out, children of incestuous couples are far more likely to be disabled and in this family's case, their eldest child has epilepsy and learning difficulties ("but he was born two months premature"), and their other daughter has special needs.

People have said that our children are disabled, but that is wrong. They are not disabled

I belive the kasbah has just said that kinda thing above me ^^ (unless i finish my post before he does lmao)

I dont think it should be legal to marry sisrter/brothers cousins it may not be as bad but i personaly find it disturbing.

In this case and many others when they met randomly and had never known that they were related its not that bad but if they had grown up together i would have been completely against it.

(am i making sense to anyone?) lol

[Mata]

I'm sure that there have been cases of children separated at birth who have accidentally met later and had children together. I doubt there have been any prosecutions for those circumstances, but incest with prior knowledge of the situation is against the law. Don't forget that incest laws are also there to prevent parent/child relationships.

From the biological perspective, even if children are not immediately disabled, they stand a far greater risk of genetic problems that may cause severe problems later in life, mental difficulties, and their children have an increased risk of genetic problems too.

[mummalovr]

Hi i just joined up.

[edited]

[b] make incest legal....NOW

[Mata]

Sorry Mummalovr, but what you wrote there, if taken at face value, is a criminal offence. This is a public forum, and you should be aware that anything you post here is readable by anyone in the world with an internet connection. You mentioned an area, and your IP address is recorded when you post on here. If an agency were to search for certain keywords and find your post then I would be obliged to give your IP address to them, which would probably result in criminal proceedings against your family and potentially you too. For the purposes of discretion I have decided to work on the assumption that you were writing a fictional 'devil's advocate' view of incest that supports your view to make it legal, rather than revealing events that would see you prosecuted if they were to be investigated. You sound happy with the (hypothetical) situation, but I would advise to you bear in mind that there is no such thing as anonymous posting on the internet.

You clearly support legalisation of incest. Would you argue that all incest should be legal, or do you see valid restrictions on the law?

(Also the rules of this forum, that you agreed to when you joined, clearly state that there should be no swearing, so please moderate your language.)

[Yannick]

Not to completely resurrect a long-dead thread, but I've changed my mind on this. Not through personal experience, and it's still not anything I would ever imagine myself doing, but yeah, legalize it. No one should be able to control the lives of two (..or more) consenting adult human beings. The only real problem I could see would be some sort of brain-washing, where parents continuously condition their children into loving them sexually, and then the abuse continues into adulthood when the law no longer does anything about it. But that would probably happen whether incest is legalized or not. I still think there should be some laws against doing things that are just evolutionarily stupid, like having kids, but other than that, let people love whoever they want. This video is pretty interesting, btw.

[leopold]

Necropost!

I'd not seen this one first time round, but I'd be interested to see how many of the pro-incest people have kids. I bet none of you do (or did back then). I can think of nothing I'd find more distressing than seeing my son and one of his sisters hooking up. And it doesn't make any difference whether he's at his current 10 years of age or if he's 20, 30, 40, whatever.

I note one argument is "why keep it illegal just because of the 'ick' factor?" Well, to that I respond, why make it legal just because we can? Okay, so maybe there are people out there who genuinely love their brother or sister, but I'd question how often this love is misinterpreted. Thing is, the family bond is quite a strong one. You grow up with them, you live together in the same house for years. How could you not have a relationship with them of any description? I'd suggest that in this case, it's more likely that the family members in question are probably mistaking familial love for the emotional kind.

And, let's say it's legal. What happens if you split up? You've still got the family ties. How do you get around that?

But my main argument for not legalising follows a similar one for not legalising drugs. Just because we can change the law, doesn't mean we should.

[Yannick]

But my main argument for not legalising follows a similar one for not legalising drugs. Just because we can change the law, doesn't mean we should.

Eh, I think drugs should be legalized too. Basically, just let people do whatever they want with their lives, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. Will some people die stupidly? Totally. Will families and friends be upset? Of course. But I think the most important thing is to have the freedom to do what you want, as long as it's only at the expense of yourself. The 'guilt factor' and the 'you're being selfish' thing will probably get thrown in, but whatever. It's ultimately your choice to screw yourself up however you want. Or at least it should be.

[Phyllis]

Reading back over the thread, I find myself nodding along to the same posts that I agreed with before. I'm still against legalizing it.

Was it any one thing that changed your mind, Izzy, or was it just a gradual thing?

[Moosh]

Re-read the thread as I couldn't really remember what I'd said before, but I still agree with myself in the main. I'd agree with pretty much everything that's in Monty's post here (in which he agrees with something I wrote earlier, yay circularity).

However, I am more thinking about an issue that some people brought up, regarding parent-child relationships. Whilst it's obviously not okay for anyone to have a sexual relationship with a minor, it wouldn't be that hard for a parent to abuse their position of authority over the child whilst they are young, and to make them accept a relationship when they were older. Which would, in effect be a non-consenting relationship, but one that they would say that they consented to. That situation is wrong, but it would be difficult to distinguish from a "genuine" consenting relationship between a parent and a child. Inter-generational relationships between relatives do worry me, because one party has been in a position of authority over the other for their entire life, and the potential for abuse of that position is massive. I honestly don't know whether that potential for abuse is enough to justify potentially outlawing the harmless happiness of others or not.

[Yannick]

Umm, I think it was just me getting older, and realizing some things just aren't the big deal I thought they were before. Just kind of coming to the realization that we have this one finite life, and really, it shouldn't matter how we live/waste it. I mean, be nice, don't kill, etc., make your presence enjoyable, but ultimately, as I said above, do whatever the hell you want.
And then specifically the incest part, there were a few threads about it on another site, I was interested enough to read through parts of them, and people just made it seem like another one of those issues that the government really has no right to have control over. As long as kids aren't involved. I'm completely against children being born from the result of an incest relationship. If anything, a pro would be more kids get out of orphanages, because adopting would be the only legal option for parents. This also leads to population control, which will become more important as time goes on. (One of the reasons I support smoking/drugs/other stuff you do to yourself that harms yourself, it might sound harsh, but yeah, population control.)

[elphaba2]

I actually doubt incestuous couples would be likely to adopt, or raise children at all. Secrecy seems to be of such premo importance that I can't imagine a couple willing to be "out" and raisin' kids with all type of spina bifida and two different color eyes and so on--or to raise a kid with the knowledge that their parents are siblings. I'd probably gouge my eyes out, actually. That would just be such a horrible boulversement....ick.

Anyway, I still agree with myself 2 years ago. Incest shouldn't be legal because of the potential for abuse: that's all the right the government has in saying who can sleep with whom. I'd be uncomfortable as well if the age of consent was lowered, even if a 14-year-old is entirely capable of having a secure and loving sexual relationship. However, I do rather believe that a lot of incestuous couples are severely mixed up. Who knows, though. Maybe incest is innate, thru a genetic mutation (ha!) or something.

[CrazyFooIAintGet...]

I disagree with everybody!

Necropost!

I'd not seen this one first time round, but I'd be interested to see how many of the pro-incest people have kids. I bet none of you do (or did back then). I can think of nothing I'd find more distressing than seeing my son and one of his sisters hooking up. And it doesn't make any difference whether he's at his current 10 years of age or if he's 20, 30, 40, whatever.

No I don't have kids, and yes, I would find that distressing too. I still think that providing they are over 18, they should legally be able to hook up with whoever they want.

I note one argument is "why keep it illegal just because of the 'ick' factor?" Well, to that I respond, why make it legal just because we can? Okay, so maybe there are people out there who genuinely love their brother or sister, but I'd question how often this love is misinterpreted. Thing is, the family bond is quite a strong one. You grow up with them, you live together in the same house for years. How could you not have a relationship with them of any description? I'd suggest that in this case, it's more likely that the family members in question are probably mistaking familial love for the emotional kind.

The couple in the original article didn't grow up together. They don't have a "family bond".

And, let's say it's legal. What happens if you split up? You've still got the family ties. How do you get around that?

So what? That's their problem. Should workplace romances be illegal too?

But my main argument for not legalising follows a similar one for not legalising drugs. Just because we can change the law, doesn't mean we should.

How is that an argument? Nobody has said we should change the law just because we can.

But my main argument for not legalising follows a similar one for not legalising drugs. Just because we can change the law, doesn't mean we should.

Eh, I think drugs should be legalized too. Basically, just let people do whatever they want with their lives, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. Will some people die stupidly? Totally. Will families and friends be upset? Of course. But I think the most important thing is to have the freedom to do what you want, as long as it's only at the expense of yourself. The 'guilt factor' and the 'you're being selfish' thing will probably get thrown in, but whatever. It's ultimately your choice to screw yourself up however you want. Or at least it should be.

Drugs do affect other people though. Drunk driving, for example.

Re-read the thread as I couldn't really remember what I'd said before, but I still agree with myself in the main. I'd agree with pretty much everything that's in Monty's post here (in which he agrees with something I wrote earlier, yay circularity).

However, I am more thinking about an issue that some people brought up, regarding parent-child relationships. Whilst it's obviously not okay for anyone to have a sexual relationship with a minor, it wouldn't be that hard for a parent to abuse their position of authority over the child whilst they are young, and to make them accept a relationship when they were older. Which would, in effect be a non-consenting relationship, but one that they would say that they consented to. That situation is wrong, but it would be difficult to distinguish from a "genuine" consenting relationship between a parent and a child. Inter-generational relationships between relatives do worry me, because one party has been in a position of authority over the other for their entire life, and the potential for abuse of that position is massive. I honestly don't know whether that potential for abuse is enough to justify potentially outlawing the harmless happiness of others or not.

True. The possibility of abuse isn't just limited to parent-child relationships though, and I don't see why making incest illegal would stop this kind of thing from happening.

This also leads to population control, which will become more important as time goes on. (One of the reasons I support smoking/drugs/other stuff you do to yourself that harms yourself, it might sound harsh, but yeah, population control.)

Um... maybe I'm being a bit controversial here, but I think death is a bad thing...

[Phyllis]

As long as kids aren't involved. I'm completely against children being born from the result of an incest relationship. If anything, a pro would be more kids get out of orphanages, because adopting would be the only legal option for parents.

Hmm. Certain states are unwilling to allow gay couples to adopt. I can't really see them throwing children at an incestuous couple. And how exactly would the government prevent incestuous couples from having babies if they were allowed to have sex? Would they make it illegal for them to have kids? Contraceptive failures do happen. You can hardly arrest someone just because his condom broke. Forced sterilizations and/or abortions are more than a bit contrary to the whole "live and let live" attitude. So what would you have the law say if a brother and sister are in a legal incestuous relationship and the woman gets pregnant?

I agree that soft drugs like marijuana should be decriminalized, but stuff like heroin? That doesn't just affect the person using it. I'm pretty liberal, but I still don't think that "no hard drugs and don't hump your sister" are bad rules. And I don't think advocating more deaths via drug overdoses/lung cancer/et cetera is a particularly great way to go about solving the overpopulation problem.

[Daria]

Well, I'm all for full-frontal nudity.


I also still agree with myself, although maybe just that the couple in the news story shouldn't be prosecuted rather than INCEST IS LEGAL. WOO!
I also believe that drugs should be legalised- but that's for a different thread.

[Yannick]

Eh, I think drugs should be legalized too. Basically, just let people do whatever they want with their lives, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. Will some people die stupidly? Totally. Will families and friends be upset? Of course. But I think the most important thing is to have the freedom to do what you want, as long as it's only at the expense of yourself. The 'guilt factor' and the 'you're being selfish' thing will probably get thrown in, but whatever. It's ultimately your choice to screw yourself up however you want. Or at least it should be.

Drugs do affect other people though. Drunk driving, for example.

I never said legalize drunk driving. Every could have some sort of license, and if you get all your points docked, you eventually get your license suspended. High and punch someone? Well, that's a few points. Get in a car wreck? Some more. Stay high in the privacy of your house, watching some funny movie with friends? Well done, you're doing it right!

Candice, if someone is stupid enough to die because they used cocaine or something similar, that's totally their own problem. I'm not saying hard drugs are good, just that they should be legal. Sky-diving is legal. It's fun, dangerous, and if misused, deadly.

This also leads to population control, which will become more important as time goes on. (One of the reasons I support smoking/drugs/other stuff you do to yourself that harms yourself, it might sound harsh, but yeah, population control.)

Um... maybe I'm being a bit controversial here, but I think death is a bad thing...

Well, it's not really 'kill people off' as much as 'don't have so many kids', but I'm meh on death. Don't want to die, probably will. So will everyone else. Whether from age or whatever, I don't care.

[Daria]

I think it would be better to keep the current stance on Driving Whilst Under Influence, but make the punishment harsher. You don't need licences for the drugs, you need criminal records and punishments for being a reckless idiot who endangers other people's lives.

[Aislinn Faye]

Maybe drugs should be treated like guns. If you mess up you can't have them. If you're a felon (regardless if it's a blue/white collar or violent/non violent crime) you cannot own a gun, which I agree with. Maybe drugs should be treated the same way, you can do all the drugs you want (with a hefty tax of course) as long as you're not a felon. It's a win-win, the government gets money on the insane taxes (because it should definitely be considered a luxury item) and you get high...now the only problem is passing the piss test a work, if it's legal then...how does that play in? I guess private company can make their own rules.

P.S.- beer does not make you fall asleep, and it's annoying when it's 2AM and you're still not in lala land.

[Yannick]

Why are drugs illegal in the first place? That's not a rhetorical question. 1. They're bad for you. 2. The government can't tax them, but only because they're illegal. 3. ..?

So, if drugs are treated like guns, would private sale of drugs be legal? Probably not, the poor government wouldn't get their taxes, but it'd be fairly hard to stop. Maybe just private growth. Hmm. Okay, if drugs become an industry kinda like the tobacco one, the government would have to keep lowering their prices the beat the drug dealers, who would in turn lower their prices to beat the government, etc. Mad cheap drugs. Or the government, instead of producing drugs could just buy them from dealers, meaning they would have control, but how outrageous can prices get? Still wouldn't stop individual sale, and would really depend on how the dealers think about this. *thinks*

[leopold]

But my main argument for not legalising follows a similar one for not legalising drugs. Just because we can change the law, doesn't mean we should.

Eh, I think drugs should be legalized too. Basically, just let people do whatever they want with their lives, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. Will some people die stupidly? Totally. Will families and friends be upset? Of course. But I think the most important thing is to have the freedom to do what you want, as long as it's only at the expense of yourself. The 'guilt factor' and the 'you're being selfish' thing will probably get thrown in, but whatever. It's ultimately your choice to screw yourself up however you want. Or at least it should be.

Wrong. Drugs go way beyond the user. I live in quite a nice area, and yet my kids have found used needles lying around when they've been playing out. I really, really don't want them to be exposed to this sort of thing. As well as this, there's an almost constant run of burglaries in the area to help fund these people's habits. The knock-on effect is much bigger than you seem to think, Izzy.

I don't believe legalising hard drugs will help the overarching social issues. Yes, it'll most likely make the drug itself a bit safer and it'll have a negative impact on the criminal element of the black market, but anyone hooked on it and can't afford it will still break into houses and cars in order to steal sellable items to fund their habit. And we'll still have the needles, like we still get the cigarette butts and empty beer cans.

And before anyone comes over all "Well, drink and cigarettes are legal, but nobody breaks into houses to get money for that", then yes, you're right. They stick to mugging old people and kids in the street, which is clearly more socially acceptable

And, let's say it's legal. What happens if you split up? You've still got the family ties. How do you get around that?

So what? That's their problem. Should workplace romances be illegal too?

You can change jobs, Mat. But your sister will always be your sister.

But my main argument for not legalising follows a similar one for not legalising drugs. Just because we can change the law, doesn't mean we should.

How is that an argument? Nobody has said we should change the law just because we can.

What??? Nobody has yet put forward anything convincing as to why we should legalise incest. Saying that we can fall in love with whomever we like isn't an argument either. I'd like to be able to beat the living snot out of anyone who abuses children. I'd like to be able to drive my car at a speed that I feel is safe for road conditions. I'd like to be able to carry a weapon so I can protect my family. All of these things are illegal, so I have to live with it, because if these things were legalised, you'd have people being beaten to death because of rumours, road accidents will increase and violent assaults would become fatalities. The law is there for protection, not to be draconian; making things legal to suit some will inevitably lead to it being abused by others.

Okay, so you want arguments against it. Here's a few:

- Teenagers are interested in sex. If we remove the barrier of familial sex, what is to stop siblings trying it out on each other purely for experimentation? Or worse, trying it out with parents? God knows it'd be easy enough, and you can't realistically ban your own kin from the house like you can a randy boyfriend.
- Following on from that above, parents have a duty of care to their offspring. Allowing parents and siblings to have sex legally is contrary to that duty. It's no different to allowing teachers to have sex with their students, or for doctors to have sex with patients.
- The potential for unwanted pregnancies will increase. Sex education is pitiful and, certainly within the UK, teenage pregnancies are on the increase as it is. By allowing siblings to engage in intercourse will only serve to make this worse.
- The potential for genetic defects to be passed on and amplified are increased. Yes, I'm sure some experts say that this is rubbish, but I fail to see how that's the case. If a defective gene is present in both parents, it's not going to be diluted, it'll get amplified. I don't need an expert to tell me that, because it's a logical deduction; you dilute orange juice with water, you get watery orange juice. Dilute orange juice with orange juice, you just get more orange juice. Am I over-simplifying it? Yes, probably. But who said genetics is rocket science?
- Finally, and seemingly contradictory to the point above, the reason rabbits overcame myxomatosis is because the few that were resistant to it bred with those that weren't, to reproduce and multiply the resistance and hence allow the continuation of the species. If they'd bred together then yes, we'd have a super-rabbit which is utterly indestructible to myxomatosis, but would likely succumb much more easily to another disease which would wipe them out entirely, due to depleted defences caused by that strain of resistance only being in rabbits that were killed by myxomatosis. The analogous is that diluted orange juice is better than an empty glass; if we don't interbreed, we could potentially lose valuable resistance to fatal diseases.

So, in summary, in order to allow the tiny minority to have a sexual relationship with their immediate family, we expose ourselves to a degradation as a whole. I'm not saying this will definitely happen, but there's always the chance. Want proof that it could? Here you go:

Drinking alcohol is legal, with some restrictions. However, the increase of binge drinking in the UK has reached epic proportions. There has also been an increase in drink related assaults. Because of the proliferarion of the binge drinking culture, 40 pubs per week are closing in the UK. Those who are responsible drinkers don't want their evening ruining by drunken morons, so they don't go out any more. But the bingers are getting drunk on cheap booze before they go out. The law that allows this to happen? The one that allows supermarkets to sell alcohol. This was made legal out of convenience, but it's knock-on effect is a society that over-indulges to excess. So much so now that it's almost seen as acceptable for 13 year old girls to get so wasted on alcopops that they don't even know their own name.

When this law was introduced, some people were worried that the drinking culture in this country would change fundamentally, but they were roundly ignored. Most never considered the possibility that supermarkets would make alcohol as accessible and as inexpensive as they did. And since the change in licensing laws, designed to try and ease the binge drinking issues, they can sell alcohol around the clock. So another change in the law, to relax the hours when alcohol can be sold, has merely made it easier for people to get drunk, rather than combating the problem of bingeing.

So there you are: Two laws, designed to relax restrictions for the few it would benefit, causing a massive negative social impact. That is why we shouldn't change laws just because we can.

And that, my friends, is why we shouldn't legalise incest.

[CrazyFooIAintGet...]

But my main argument for not legalising follows a similar one for not legalising drugs. Just because we can change the law, doesn't mean we should.

How is that an argument? Nobody has said we should change the law just because we can.

What??? Nobody has yet put forward anything convincing as to why we should legalise incest. Saying that we can fall in love with whomever we like isn't an argument either. I'd like to be able to beat the living snot out of anyone who abuses children. I'd like to be able to drive my car at a speed that I feel is safe for road conditions. I'd like to be able to carry a weapon so I can protect my family. All of these things are illegal, so I have to live with it, because if these things were legalised, you'd have people being beaten to death because of rumours, road accidents will increase and violent assaults would become fatalities. The law is there for protection, not to be draconian; making things legal to suit some will inevitably lead to it being abused by others.

Okay, so you want arguments against it.

Yeah, that's what I meant. If laws are there for our protection, then there should be justifications for a law to exist.

On rereading the topic, I'm not sure I still agree with everything I've said, but to me the only convincing argument for keeping it illegal that has been mentioned so far is the potential for sexual abuse between family members (and I'm still not convinced) .

Even if incest is legal, there's still a world of difference between a consenting adult relationship, and sexual abuse, be it to a child or an adult. I can't see that there would be any more problem in arresting and prosecuting in a case of sexual abuse if it were incestuous or not.

Legalising incest wouldn't make it legal to have sex with minors, or with those who don't consent, whether they're related to you or not. And I can't see it being harder to prove non-consent in the case of them being related.

This pretty much sums up my opinions on the topic.

Leo, you raise some good points, but I disagree with some of your conclusions. Pretty much everything I have to say has already been said by others, but I have to take issue with this:

- The potential for genetic defects to be passed on and amplified are increased. Yes, I'm sure some experts say that this is rubbish, but I fail to see how that's the case. If a defective gene is present in both parents, it's not going to be diluted, it'll get amplified. I don't need an expert to tell me that, because it's a logical deduction; you dilute orange juice with water, you get watery orange juice. Dilute orange juice with orange juice, you just get more orange juice. Am I over-simplifying it? Yes, probably. But who said genetics is rocket science?

!!!
Obvious does not equal correct! You may be right, but without actual evidence to back that up then you may as well be claiming that children of parents who are related are likely to be born with birth defects because they have bad qi or offended the tooth fairy. It's not a logical deduction either - you are inferring something based on an analogy.

So, in summary, in order to allow the tiny minority to have a sexual relationship with their immediate family, we expose ourselves to a degradation as a whole. I'm not saying this will definitely happen, but there's always the chance. Want proof that it could? Here you go:

Drinking alcohol is legal, with some restrictions. However, the increase of binge drinking in the UK has reached epic proportions. There has also been an increase in drink related assaults. Because of the proliferarion of the binge drinking culture, 40 pubs per week are closing in the UK. Those who are responsible drinkers don't want their evening ruining by drunken morons, so they don't go out any more. But the bingers are getting drunk on cheap booze before they go out. The law that allows this to happen? The one that allows supermarkets to sell alcohol. This was made legal out of convenience, but it's knock-on effect is a society that over-indulges to excess. So much so now that it's almost seen as acceptable for 13 year old girls to get so wasted on alcopops that they don't even know their own name.

When this law was introduced, some people were worried that the drinking culture in this country would change fundamentally, but they were roundly ignored. Most never considered the possibility that supermarkets would make alcohol as accessible and as inexpensive as they did. And since the change in licensing laws, designed to try and ease the binge drinking issues, they can sell alcohol around the clock. So another change in the law, to relax the hours when alcohol can be sold, has merely made it easier for people to get drunk, rather than combating the problem of bingeing.

So there you are: Two laws, designed to relax restrictions for the few it would benefit, causing a massive negative social impact. That is why we shouldn't change laws just because we can.

And that, my friends, is why we shouldn't legalise incest.

I think you are oversimplifying things to blame our binge drinking culture purely on availability of alcohol. I'm sure there are other countries in which alcohol is sold in supermarkets where alcohol isn't as much of a problem as it is in the UK.

[leopold]

Leo, you raise some good points, but I disagree with some of your conclusions. Pretty much everything I have to say has already been said by others, but I have to take issue with this:

- The potential for genetic defects to be passed on and amplified are increased. Yes, I'm sure some experts say that this is rubbish, but I fail to see how that's the case. If a defective gene is present in both parents, it's not going to be diluted, it'll get amplified. I don't need an expert to tell me that, because it's a logical deduction; you dilute orange juice with water, you get watery orange juice. Dilute orange juice with orange juice, you just get more orange juice. Am I over-simplifying it? Yes, probably. But who said genetics is rocket science?

!!!
Obvious does not equal correct! You may be right, but without actual evidence to back that up then you may as well be claiming that children of parents who are related are likely to be born with birth defects because they have bad qi or offended the tooth fairy. It's not a logical deduction either - you are inferring something based on an analogy.

I don't recall saying it was obvious. I said it was a logical deduction; I took the known variables and arrived at a conclusion. And you'll note that my variables included the known element of the passing of DNA information from parent to child, but did not include random elements such as low intellect or a lack of faith in imaginary characters, as that is illogical. You'll note that, throughout the history of human advancement, logical conclusions are borne from use of relevant information. Karl Benz, for example, didn't need to factor in whether Santa Claus existed or not when developing the internal combustion engine, any more than Brunel had to worry about the air speed velocity of an African swallow when building the Clifton Suspension Bridge. Although I suspect his own QI wasn't too shabby.

Also, you'll note I said genetic defects. A genetic defect is not the same as a birth defect. I don't think that a child is more likely to be born with a defect as a result of inbreeding unless there is already a genetic predisposition being passed on.

So now, in order to prove that I don't just talk out of my arse, I'm going to bore everyone to death with my thought process on this. That'll teach you to argue with someone who doesn't like to lose!

Okay, so we know from the Human Genome Project that there are about 25,000 genes in the human body.

We also know that, when two people reproduce, their offspring's DNA is made up of a mixture of the genes that their parents have.

We also know that the offspring's gene profile isn't predetermined and happens entirely at random. This is why siblings have different gender, hair and eye colour, growth patterns, facial features, allergies and resistances to infection.

Now, given that this sharing of genes is random and that there are two parties involved, this can be likened to the ordered coin toss of 25,000 coins. The formula for this is here and if you bother to work it out, you'll see that it comes to 50%. So to this end, any child will end up with 50% of each parents' genes.

Now, if we assume that the parents have 20% similar genes, then these are definitely going to be passed to the child as there's no alternative - like the double-headed coin, if you will. I don't think that 20% is an unreasonable number to assume, on the basis they could have the same hair or eye colour, be of the same race, have a similar build, or have the same allergy.

This means that their remaining 80% will be half mother and half father.

Now, a second child is born. They too will share the 20% from before, and be half mother and half father. Given the random nature of gene passing, it's a fairly safe bet that each parent will pass on some of the same genes as last time. To work out this random event's probability, we need to look at another similar situation: If we take two coins and flip them simultaneously, there's a 50% chance they'll land same side up on the basis that there are 4 possible outcomes (head/head, tail/tail, head/tail, tail/head) and two of these result in the same side appearing.

So by that reckoning, the second child will share 50% of its' random genes with it's sibling. It breaks down like this:

Child 1 has 40% of mother's genes, 40% of father's genes and 20% shared genes from both parents
Child 2 has 40% of mother's genes, 20% shared with child 1; 40% of father's genes, 20% shared with child 1, and 20% shared genes from both parents.

So this means that 60% of both parents' genes are shared with the two children.

Now, if these children reproduce with each other, they share 60% of their genes, so their first child's genetic makeup is 20% from mother, 20% from father and 60% shared.

If both the grandparents of this child were genetically predisposed to heart failure, then this child definitely has it. If one of this child's parents' were someone without this defect, there's a 50% chance the child won't have it. There's an article here on genetic presdisposition.

QED. Inbreeding is more likely to increase the risk of the offspring being predisposed to genetic defects.

So hopefully I've proved my point. Inbreeding increases the risk of genetic defects and therefore keeping incest illegal protects children by reducing the risk.

Incidentally, my use of analogies is to help explain my point in terms that people can visualise, not to prove a theory. I find it helps people get their head around my thought processes.

As to your point about laws protecting people, let's revisit my previous point about preventing abuse of positions of trust. It applies to anyone in the medical and teaching professions by law. As a parent, there is also a duty of care. Repealing the law against incest is akin to repealing sexual abuse laws. And if we go there, we're a stone throw from legalising rape.

Okay, I've said enough. I feel like the anti-incest group has been battered enough. I'd like to see the pro-incest lobby put forward a considered argument as to why we should repeal a law which is designed to prevent sexual abuse in the family home, just to suit a tiny minority of people who fell in love and then discovered they were directly related. Because, at the end of the day, the law is already in my corner and it won't change unless there's a damn fine argument.

[Yannick]

You make a strong point Leo, but I think everyone (or almost everyone?) here was already against interbreeding. True, if people are screwing each other, there will undoubtedly be some pregnancies (which the parents *will* be taken to court over, I imagine major fines, and if it happens again, jail time), but on the evolutionary level, how is that different than people with autism mating, or ADD, etc.? Should we limit their rights because of the genetic predisposition they hand down to their future offspring? I guess you could, but limit the rights of two, in this case innocent, people never really goes over well. In your hypothetical case, you leave it at the child. Well, what about the child's child, grandchild, and so forth? If the kid marries into the family, fair enough, you've got a pretty messed up blood line. However, I don't think there has been any sort of evidence suggesting that being born from incestuous parents makes you anymore likely to be gay (probably no more than having a gay parent/being adopted by gay parents will make you gay). Let's say this kid goes on to breed 'normally'. Eventually, natural selection will eliminate any crappy genes anyway. Legalizing incest won't make it more common, just more public. The ick factor remains, and I doubt most people are going to go off messing around with their family just because they can. Teenagers have that chance now anyways, most don't, legalize it, but continue teaching your kids it's wrong, and the majority of people will maintain the same mentally: I'm not going to screw my brother, it's sick, end of story.

*edit* I think the best argument against any of this (including drugs) would probably be, "Well, we don't have the money, time, or courts to trial all these people." My solution: If found guilty, the convict pays; innocent, the state does. (In the case of drugs, the taxes can be used in the event of a state-lose.)

[leopold]

]...but on the evolutionary level, how is that different than people with autism mating, or ADD, etc.? Should we limit their rights because of the genetic predisposition they hand down to their future offspring?

The law goes back a long way. In the past, incest was probably a recognisable issue. People with autism or ADD or bipolar disorder were all diagnosed equally; they were all branded as "insane" and thrown into asylums, so the prospect of them mating was just brushed under the carpet. Any mating they did inside their institute was their business, but any child was automatically branded as "the bastard child of the insane" and was most likely killed. I'm glad we've moved on from that!

Technically, you're right. But from a moral standpoint, it's more of a sticking point.

...limit the rights of two, in this case innocent, people never really goes over well

And therein lies the nub of this whole discussion. The reason it becomes a point is due to the very notion that two siblings, separated at birth, come together and forge a loving relationship. And why wouldn't it be? I know it's still illegal, but if they are ignorant of their own circumstances, I can't justify punishing them; it's not their fault they were split up, and it's not like the first question you ask a new date is "are you my sister?"

I don't think there has been any sort of evidence suggesting that being born from incestuous parents makes you anymore likely to be gay (probably no more than having a gay parent/being adopted by gay parents will make you gay).

Well, I guess homosexuality could be a genetic thing... taking that into consideration, if you're born you are the product of two people who have had some heterosexual tendencies, so the odds of you becoming gay from inbreeding are just the same as those from interbreeding. After all, a gay couple can't reproduce on their own!

Eventually, natural selection will eliminate any crappy genes anyway

That only works when natural selection is allowed to occur. Humans try to overcome natural selection at every turn; incubation for premature babies, assistance and protection for the disabled, weapons to kill the few natural predators we have, powerful drugs to overcome fatal diseases... we don't even let our elders die! Nature has a way of population control, but everything it's thrown at us to keep our numbers down, including cancer and HIV, is only met with our own resistance to it.

and I doubt most people are going to go off messing around with their family just because they can. Teenagers have that chance now anyways, most don't, legalize it, but continue teaching your kids it's wrong, and the majority of people will maintain the same mentally

Hold on... if it's legalised, then it's no longer wrong in the eyes of the law. Kids aren't stupid and they'll question it eventually. The one question you won't be able to answer is "Well, if it's so wrong, why is it legal?" And if it's to be taught as being morally wrong, then why legalise it?

As far as teenagers not trying it goes, it's not because of legality; Many teens flout the law with minor offences at some time or another, and always will, I reckon. I think it's more to do with the fact that when you've grown up with someone and been that close forcibly, it's probably more out of contempt that you don't sleep with your siblings.

[Yannick]

I don't think there has been any sort of evidence suggesting that being born from incestuous parents makes you anymore likely to be gay incest (probably no more than having a gay parent/being adopted by gay parents will make you gay).

Typo, sorry. Fixed that.

Eventually, natural selection will eliminate any crappy genes anyway

That only works when natural selection is allowed to occur. Humans try to overcome natural selection at every turn; incubation for premature babies, assistance and protection for the disabled, weapons to kill the few natural predators we have, powerful drugs to overcome fatal diseases... we don't even let our elders die! Nature has a way of population control, but everything it's thrown at us to keep our numbers down, including cancer and HIV, is only met with our own resistance to it.

Okay, thought. You know that thing where you can essentially pick out the genetics of your kids? Assuming incest people want kids, can't they just do that? Pick the kids with no genetic problems?

and I doubt most people are going to go off messing around with their family just because they can. Teenagers have that chance now anyways, most don't, legalize it, but continue teaching your kids it's wrong, and the majority of people will maintain the same mentally

Hold on... if it's legalised, then it's no longer wrong in the eyes of the law. Kids aren't stupid and they'll question it eventually. The one question you won't be able to answer is "Well, if it's so wrong, why is it legal?" And if it's to be taught as being morally wrong, then why legalise it?

Well, what about gay marriage? I don't know about the UK, but it's illegal here. Why? Because some magical sky-monster told us it was. If it ever becomes legal, Christians (etc.) will undoubtedly brain wash indoctrinate their children to think the same way they do. Though, I suppose there is a decent religious answer for that question (if at all, unrelated).
Son: Dad, if being homosexual is wrong, why is it legal?
Dad: Well you see son, the government is corrupt and full of non-believers who don't listen to the word of Gawd! They won't accept Jeebus as their savior! God is testing us, through them. It's really Satan's work. Now, on with your Bible studies.
Government dude: *mumbles things about marriage having a secular purpose, whose principles predate any contact with or significant influence from Christians, Jews or Muslims.*

Anyway, maybe it isn't that it's morally wrong. Maybe we just think it is because of the huge 'ick' factor (which is of course there for a good reason: no wacky kids.) But if we can genetically engineer the future, does it matter?* Crap pregnancies can be terminated, and they can have a healthy kid instead. Happiness is more important than anything, because what's the point of a life where you're miserable?

*I still haven't decided whether I'm for or against this. But for the sake of this argument, you don't know that.