Incest, Should it be legalised? Options

[Daria]

In Germany, there is currently a legal battle being undergone by a brother and sister who have had four children together- three of which have been put into foster care. The brother is 30 and the sister is 22 (I have just re-read the article and noticed that they "fell in love" when they first met in 2000. She would have only been 15.. hmm...) and only "met" because he was adopted by another family when he was a child.

Many people see it as a crime, but we've done nothing wrong...
We are like normal lovers. We want to have a family. Our whole family broke apart when we were younger, and after that happened, Susan and I were brought closer together

Incest is a criminal offence in Germany due to a law est. 1871. Patrick has already served a two-year sentence for committing incest and has "another jail term looming if paragraph 173 of the legal code is not overturned".

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

But is that really a good enough reason to prevent brothers and sisters having kids? People who have CF, Muscular Distrophy and other hereditary diseases still have children and there is no law preventing them from doing so. I know it sort of reduces the possibility of genetic variation, but seeing as humans have evolved to the point where they have all sorts of technical advances to help them survive to childbearing age, regardless of any diseases or disabilities they may have, should it even be an issue?

Thoughts, people.

[Izzy]

No, it shouldn't. Even if the kids wouldn't have disabilities, it still shouldn't be. Even if humans become so biologically extinct to where the only way to reproduce would be with someone in your family, it still shouldn't be. It's gross.

But on the other hand, meh, I guess it's whatever your into. If they make it legal, it's not like loads of people are gonna start having sex with family members.

[CrazyFooIAintGet...]

I think it should be legal. Don't see any reason why not except "it's gross".
If they want children maybe they should adopt though?

[Moosh]

Personally, I think that if that's what people want to do, then they aren't hurting anyone else, good luck to them.

As for the children, if they know what they are doing, and are prepared to care for and raise their child, regardless of any disability or not, then I see no problem with it.

This does not, of course, provide for accidental pregnancies, but, to be honest, I wouldn't see it as any different to any other accidental pregnancy. The decisions that the prospective parents make with regards to keeping/aborting/putting up for adoption shouldn't be changed because it has a higher probability of disability, and even if they knew it was going to be disabled, unless they were actually incapable of caring for it, then they should do the same as they would any child.

So yeah, legalise it by all means.

[pgrmdave]

I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be legal.

[Snugglebum the D...]

I actually find the idea of legalising incest distasteful to the point of obscenity.

I know I've got to back that up with something more and I will but I can't stop now. I only came on to observe a certain thread where a fights brewing...

[Forever Unknown]

Ditto. Not to mention that laws are there to preserve society, and to allow incestous relationships would mean a jump in the amount of disabled people being born. Not only would this increase the chances of that happening even further down the generation line (their kids kids, etc.) thus having a much longer-lasting impact, in some cases these disabilities would be awful to the extent of having no quality of life, and I don't believe that anyone would consider allowing that to happen more than it already does. If people want to bone their own family, go ahead, but I think as a society - aside from the 'ick' factor - we need to ensure that everyone has the chance for a decent life and brothers and sisters having kids would seriously affect the gene pool.

[pgrmdave]

I read somewhere (I'm going to look for it now) that incest does not significantly increase the chance of genetic disorders (except in specific obvious cases, of course). I'll post a link when I find it.

[pgrmdave]

Well, so far I've only found this:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/...bstract/40/1/55

Eighteen prospectively ascertained cases of brother x sister and father x daughter matings are described. A series of illegitimate children whose mothers were as nearly matched as possible to the incest mothers for intelligence, age, height, weight, and socioeconomic conditions were used as controls. Six of the children of incest had died or were found to have major defects on follow-up 6 months after birth date, whereas one of the comparison children was so classified. This is a larger inbreeding effect than would be predicted on the basis of published findings from marriages of first cousins. The series is published at this time to encourage others to collect these important, but rare and elusive data, in a prospective, controlled manner.

This is opposite what I thought I'd find, but it is only a very small sampling, so I don't put terribly much stock into it.

[CrazyFooIAintGet...]

brothers and sisters having kids would seriously affect the gene pool.

I disagree. And if it is legalised, its not like everyone will go have sex with their favourite family member to celebrate. Incest doesn't strike me as being very popular.

[Snugglebum the D...]

My concern is twofold.

I agree that it would damage the genepool. I'm going to use dogs as an example. Most pure breeds are interbreed to preserve the purity of the breed, as it were. Most pure breeds have some sort of defect that is directly linked to the fact that their mother is also their grandmother. The same defects are likely to turn up within the human race.

My second concern, which I have to admit worries me more - how many parents sexually abusing their children could justify this with incest being legalised? Honestly, really think about this one. I have a son. I have a responsibility to him to ensure that he grows up well with ethics and all of the wonderful stuff that every well rounded person should be instilled with. I love him more then life itself and think he's the most beautiful boy I've ever seen - does that make me want to sleep with him? Hell no!

There are two very distinct forms of love - that which you have with the person you have sex with and that reserved for your children/siblings/parent. The two should not be confused.

FU - I can't believe you don't want to sleep with me! We could make beautiful incestuous, lesbian love together!

[Daria]

Example- Incest is legal in France.

Do all French families sleep together? No.
Do all French people excuse child abuse as incest? No.
Are they all disabled and or have mental problems? y..No.

I, personally, find the idea of incest a little odd. But I don't believe that it should be illegal- some people find homosexuality a little odd, but I think it is just as good as heterosexuality. So who am I to comdemn it?

[Witless]

Someone poked me earlier into making a post in this topic, I said no, then pondered a while and decided yes.

I have read through what's been posted so far.. and will say, I agree with a lot of what's been said (on both sides), but still want to add some stuff.

First off, the reason incest brings about genetic issues is actually fairly simple. DNA's great.. but no person in the world has no errors in their DNA, infact we all have lots. Luckily, when you have kids, the person you have children with will have their DNA errors in different places to yours, so that your children will tend to have at least one copy of every DNA sequence that is in good condition.
With siblings that breaks down because siblings have a lot more DNA errors that are identical to each other, therefore the kids of close related people get a double dose of the the same errors. The result is a higher rate of genetic conditions. How high depends on lots of things.. but in general if your one of those people that can claim to be "english through and through", then incest is more likely to back fire on you than someone with a more "exotic" family tree.

Second, incest despite what some like to think, has not been a taboo throughout all time, and isn't a taboo across the world either. It became a taboo because of what I raised in my first point. But in societies made up of smaller tribes then incest is more common because the drawbacks of higher rates of genetic problems are out weighed by the simple lack of potential mates. This is especially true of tribes that practice monogamy.
Marriage between cousins is super common across loads of the world to this day, especially among rich families in india where they want to be sure of trusting the parents of the people they are letting their kids be with. So I'd like to dispel the idea that it's an inbuilt taboo needed for a society to function. The taboo formed entirely of the idea that people wanted maximum number of healthy hard working kids to work the farms (which may additionally explain why the upper classes seem to have been more ok with incest than the working classes).

Thirdly, if people are worried about the kids produced from incest, then the real issue isn't whether incest should be legalised, it's whether it's ok for a couple engaging in incest to have children. Would people be ok with it if they couldn't have children and it was just two siblings having a relationship? Or is it the additional 'ick' factor that means people can't deal with it.
Not saying you could realistically legalise incest while simultanuosly stopping them having children unless you wanted to sit with them day after day making sure that they used contraception, or enforce vasectomys and the like. But if it's just the children thing, then issue solved.
If not and we're scared when the line between family love and romantic line gets blurred well then we can chuck this whole issue into the same debate as "defining love", "does homosexuality really exist or is it an imagined thing some people have?" and the immortal, "what should be the right age for consentual sex considering different countries with younger ages seem to be getting on just fine."

Finally as far as I'm concerned, if a couple that are closely related have a happy relationship (both happy), and live happily ever after into their 80s, then I can only hope I'm have a relationship as sucessful as that in my life.

anyways, back to being 'afmf' (away from matazone forums) for me

[Wookiee]

This is where inbreeding gets you.



Also, beware of this.

[Tarantio]

So inbreeding gets you put in charge of a country and meeting other important and (much more) interesting people? Or inbreeding gives you large ears? Your second point is a little more vaild, but you should know I was born with three thumbs (and my parents were certainly not related) and, as I found out from recent X-rays when I sprained my ankle, mutant ankle-bones. Of course the risk of disabilities is higher, but saying that disabled children (I have no idea what the "PC" way of saying it is, so forgive if I offend) is a direct and unavoidable consequence of incestuous relations is a bit harsh. Unwanted pregnancies are a result of careless sex, but the government doesn't ban unprotected sex with two people outside of wedlock (or who aren't commited to raising a child together anyway). What it does do is provide advice and services to people it concerns, though. I would imagine the case would be similar were incest to be made legal. Not quite as blunt as Wookie puts it, perhaps, but a similar message can easily be put across of "fair enough, you love each other, but these are the risks you're taking while doing it:".

I think it would be easy to set up a board about such a thing. There's loads already for drug users (and that's still illegal in most cases), so why not relax the laws on it and just highlight the risks? I mean, smoking is legal and it causes cancer. So why, if its damaging the gene pool, has it not been made illegal yet? Its got an "ick" factor as well, and causes a lot more heartache than a brother and sister falling in love, but its too damn profitable still for any government to think of throwing out entirely. Aren't public smoking bans wonderful things, though? (sorry, off topic). Its telling people too much of what they can and can't do, IMO, when another solution that doesn't force desicions on people is readily available.

Its not my cup of tea, thanks, but then I'm also exclusively heterosexual. If it were me, I'd like to at least have the choice, and be able to find out the risks easily and reliably.

[Snugglebum the D...]

I can't help but feel that there is a general apathy regarding this. In fact, I'm not sure that's even what I'm feeling.

*puzzles a moment*

In my mind, there is something fundamentally, morally wrong with incest. I gave birth to a son and perhaps that's what makes it different? He can be homosexual, christian, a bigot or even racist but I will still love him unconditionally. I may disagree but it is what it is. If he was incestouous I really would struggle with that. It's a taboo subject for me.

I get the feeling sometimes, on this board, that people are so keen to demonstrate how very very open minded they are that they don't really go through the whole thought process before making a decision. Please don't flame me for this, guys; I'm just stating a viewpoint, not fact.

Daria - Things are not so black and white. I never insinuated that child abuse would be any higher in France than anywhere else or that they were using incest as an excuse. I find child abuse abhorrant and I'd hate to think they could have any further way out. I have seen child abuse, in the form of an ex boyfriend at its height and I assure you that I never want to see it again. It was done in such a way that the child in question was by all intents and purposes (in an adult world) a willing participant. There's nothing good there.
If an abuser will do that to a child what else will they use? Any port in a storm.

[Wookiee]

So inbreeding gets you put in charge of a country and meeting other important and (much more) interesting people? Or inbreeding gives you large ears?

It was more a passing reference to something Eddie Izzard said about the Windsors needing to learn the fundamental lesson of cousins marrying and scraping the bottom of the gene pool. And the second part was just because everyone needs to know and love Juliana Wetmore. It's a thing. It should be clear from my post that I have little that's constructive to add, I'm just playing for cheap laffs.

An extra thumb, though? That strikes me as a certain flavour of awesome. Thumbs are what makes mankind evolutionarily spectacular, so an extra one surely makes you some kind of superhero. Shall I call you Logan, Weapon X?

[Snugglebum the D...]

The extra thumb is the new middle finger.

The old one was getting predictable.

<Spammity spamison>

[Tarantio]

Lmfao. I am sad to report that it was surgically removed before I was old enough to even know about its existence. I do have a pretty awesome scar, but then wolverine would have healed that by now, so I've yet to discover my actual superpower

And Snugs, I get what you're saying. I only actually came up with my opinion because I was reading the topic and wondered what I thought of it more than anything. Its just my belief that something that isn't harmful to others shouldn't be forcibly restricted in that kind of way, and that while incest does seem to be in many cases, so are many other things in society that are legal; drinking, smoking etc. We're told to do these things responsibly, or not at all if we want to live, but at least given the freedom to choose. I'm not saying its right, just that my own personal beliefs are giving me that answer to whether or not it should be legalised. Being totally honest, the thought of it is pretty disturbing, and I'd argue against anyone who wanted to do it, but I'd never force them not to.

So, short answer: Incest? Wrong. Making(keeping) it illegal? Wronger. More wrong. Wrong, but more so.

[Izzy]

I actually just thought of something. If an incest couple have a child that appears normal, and then that kid has a kid. And then there are a lot more kids.. and then more.. and then eventually so many that you can't tell anymore who was a result from an incest relationship and not, won't eventually everyone be disabled, thus causing the downfall of mankind?

[Wookiee]

I actually just thought of something. If an incest couple have a child that appears normal, and then that kid has a kid. And then there are a lot more kids.. and then more.. and then eventually so many that you can't tell anymore who was a result from an incest relationship and not, won't eventually everyone be disabled, thus causing the downfall of mankind?

... did your brain just rupture and leak over the internets?

[Izzy]

I actually just thought of something. If an incest couple have a child that appears normal, and then that kid has a kid. And then there are a lot more kids.. and then more.. and then eventually so many that you can't tell anymore who was a result from an incest relationship and not, won't eventually everyone be disabled, thus causing the downfall of mankind?

... did your brain just rupture and leak over the internets?

Maybe. But think about it, it could happen. If too many people become incest and have kids.

[Snugglebum the D...]

Your argument is technically right. I'm not smart enough to argue against further. I'll leave to those that have actual facts.

It may not be harmful - not sure that makes it right. As a mother and the only one that has posted here that is, must take that into account, I think it is important to see a difference.

It's such a feeling that trying to quantify is really hard

[gothictheysay]

Like stated before, I don't think enough people will want to be incestuous for that to happen, Izzy.

Snugs, is the parent-child thing what's bothering you, or are you still really unnerved by just siblings? I would be much more comfortable with a sibling situation - I feel very nervous about a parent and a child. It seems like brother and sister could be okay to me, but not a parent and child. It is a little weird, I agree. I honestly don't think the genetic problem will be overwhelming, and while there could be mishaps, I don't see why it couldn't be legal. First cousins are legal in some states. The ick factor for me isn't there as much with cousins because I honestly don't see my cousins a lot. And if that brother and sister were separated, it's easier to understand.

[elphaba2]

A good friend of mine has a grandmother who was born of two first cousins. She has no sense of smell and tiny tiny feet (size 2 1/2!) And her parents were only first cousins.

There's a good reason that humans have such a "oh god, that's gross" response to incest--we've been trained for a good long time that incestuous relationships produce children with a good chance of being disabled. It's my belief that lots, maybe even most, of human impulse comes from the desire to produce healthy children in terms of basic evolutionary desires.

However, just because centuries of impulse says it's bad, should we make it a felony? No. I can't stop two hideous people from marrying each other and producing hideous babies. Nor can one ethically stop two people with Tay-Sachs or that awful disease Wookie keeps bringing up from doing some sex. To do so opens up the door for eugenics to waltz in, as it did in the 1900's in the States.

But incest should be a felony because of the point that Snugglebum brought up--the potential for abuse in incestuous relationships. Bonds between siblings and between children and their parents are incredibly strong, and allowing these bonds to be equally OK in two fundamentally different ways gives a lot of room to the types of parents, sibling and relatives who commit sexual abuse. 75 percent of cases in which women are sexually abused involve family members. 75%. Meaning that if the victim remains silent, the government has no reason to intervene. The humiliation that a victim suffers in these cases would grow as the permissibility of the "relationship" increases, making these abuses even more damaging. As such, the German government is perfectly within its rights to stop these two (who I am sure are perfectly normal and in a loving relationship) from getting it on anymore. I feel the government has a responsibility to protect their citizens from any chance of being abused, and if that comes at the cost of one relationship, it's an easy trade.