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.

[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.