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.

[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.