Incest and Abortion: Evaluating the standards for Canadian and American Legislation

[Ninja]

Hello FDR!,

Today I came across a series of convoluted reports on a court case in Oklahoma, USA concerning a young woman's marriage to her biological mother. The mother, allegedly, had previously been married to her son.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.bet.com/news/national/2017/11/09/woman-pleads-guilty-to-incest-for-marrying-her-biological-mother.amp.html

http://www.kswo.com/story/33054070/brother-claims-siblings-were-manipulated-by-mother

Of course I'm thinking 'Isn't incest illegal because of the biological risks correlated with incestual reproduction?'

Upon further reading I learned that there are two states in the USA that do not legally enforce ant-incest laws to impede people from participating in incest.

In Canada, Incest is punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

It's curious that we treat incest with such severe opposition because of the health risk involved in incestual breeding but we do not consider other forms of dangerous breeding to be as serious an offence.

In many cases, dangerous breeding that may result in serious health problems or environmental deficiencies are facilitated by the incentives government subsidies provide through the use of force against citizens who generate economic growth.

I'm opposed to the idea of incest between two consenting adults but I'm not sure it justifies caging the weirdos for a decade.

If that choice does justify being caged for a decade, should we not hold other forms of dangerous breeding to an equal standard of legal judgement?

*There is an important distinction made between incestual pedophilia or molestation and a voluntary incestual relationship between two consenting adults. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

I don't know if it's a moral argument, but I can say for a certainty that people who do things that obviously will cause severe mental or physical problems--especially if it's guaranteed--to their potential children ought to be severely punished. The death penalty wouldn't be harsh enough.

However if there is no risk of pregnancy then incest (so long as it isn't parent-child because that's rape no matter how you look at it) is simply a repulsive thing best left for hentai to explore. In real life it's brutal, disgusting, and evil. 

[ofd]

Haidt proposed a social intuitionist model where we judge first and then come up with justifications later. I fail to see how a lesbian incestuous relationship could affect the offspring. It's even a better example than the one that Haidt proposed:

Quote

 

"Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide never to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it ok for them to make love?"

If you're like most people, your response is "absolutely not," but you'll find it more difficult than you think to come up with a justification. "Genetic defects from inbreeding." Yes, but they were using two forms of birth control. (And in the vanishingly small chance of pregnancy, Julie can get an abortion.) "It will mess them up emotionally." On the contrary, they enjoyed the act and it brought them closer together. "It's illegal." Not in France. "It's disgusting." For you, maybe, but not for them (obviously). Do you really want to say that private acts are morally wrong just because a lot of people find those acts disgusting? And so on.

 

Many people find the act of incest disgusting and then come up for reasons why this is the case. But in this case, it's neither morally wrong since both agreed nor will there be consequences for children.

[Jsbrads]

I don’t mean to speak down to Libertarians (most are smarter than me) but the astounding inability to see beyond the immediate can sometimes mirror the Liberals.

Normalization of fringe behavior “cools the water”. Permitting brothers and sisters who can’t have children from entering into an incestuous relationship increases the behavior and thus the probability of deformed babies  

Parents are a completely different problem. The normalization of parent son or daughter relations increases the probability of abuse. Abusing authority to encourage the child to be more open to staying with the parent long term and satisfy the parent and never living their own life. Further normalization would increase probability of pedophilia. 

[S1988]

17 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

I don’t mean to speak down to Libertarians (most are smarter than me) but the astounding inability to see beyond the immediate can sometimes mirror the Liberals.

Normalization of fringe behavior “cools the water”. Permitting brothers and sisters who can’t have children from entering into an incestuous relationship increases the behavior and thus the probability of deformed babies  

Parents are a completely different problem. The normalization of parent son or daughter relations increases the probability of abuse. Abusing authority to encourage the child to be more open to staying with the parent long term and satisfy the parent and never living their own life. Further normalization would increase probability of pedophilia. 

You make an excellent point.

Incest is a result of dysfunction because I don't know of any families in their right minds who would want to engage in something like this. 

There is something called covert incest, a situation that involves a parent who turns to their child for support and reassurance, like a substitute spouse. While it's not illegal, it's a damaging, sick relationship that's common in dysfunctional families. I think this is going on with my mother and my older siblings. My brother, the oldest, is a married middle-aged father of three teenagers, and he's quite enmeshed with her. I wonder if it'd be the same with my sister if she decides to have children. When it comes to this, I'm glad I'm not the favorite.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

12 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

I don’t mean to speak down to Libertarians (most are smarter than me) but the astounding inability to see beyond the immediate can sometimes mirror the Liberals.

Normalization of fringe behavior “cools the water”. Permitting brothers and sisters who can’t have children from entering into an incestuous relationship increases the behavior and thus the probability of deformed babies  

Parents are a completely different problem. The normalization of parent son or daughter relations increases the probability of abuse. Abusing authority to encourage the child to be more open to staying with the parent long term and satisfy the parent and never living their own life. Further normalization would increase probability of pedophilia. 

I totally agree with you. In fact it takes a certain level of moral relativism to consider disagreeing.

[Jsbrads]

S1988 some mothers lean on their sons emotionally when their boys are 5 yrs old. Many of those boys are gay. 

Your brother despite his willingness to engage in an unhealthy relationship, is an adult. 

[S1988]

3 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

S1988 some mothers lean on their sons emotionally when their boys are 5 yrs old. Many of those boys are gay. 

Your brother despite his willingness to engage in an unhealthy relationship, is an adult. 

I should have clarified my statement. I think this has been going since he was a kid, and as a result he's so enmeshed now. I don't know too much about his childhood because he's 18 years older than I am, but with the information I do have it was anything but healthy. 

And you're right. Since he's grown up now, he can stop, but he doesn't want to, and that's his problem, not mine. 

[Donnadogsoth]

Have the rainbow brigade added this "I" to their alphabet soup yet?

There is nothing in [popular] principle stopping incestual unions.  Even if the children had a higher chance of developing a disease or deformity, so what?  Do we bar dwarfs and hemophiliacs from marrying, too?

[Ninja]

4 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Have the rainbow brigade added this "I" to their alphabet soup yet?

There is nothing in principle stopping incestual unions.  Even if the children had a higher chance of developing a disease or deformity, so what?  Do we bar dwarfs and hemophiliacs from marrying, too?

That's the interesting thing. If it's not incestual pedophilia then it's hard to see what part of the act requires the initiation of coercion/violation of property rights. I find incestual romance to be absolutely distasteful and I don't see any reason for a person to mingle sex with blood relatives, regardless, I don't see a justifiable reason to forcibly intervene in a relationship between two consenting adults. That's not to say I wouldn't attempt to thouroughly question a person who disclosed that they participated/are participating in incest to see if they truly had a reason to believe it was in their best interest. In the case of the daughter and mother in the article it seems like the parent was exploiting her child and that made me more curious about why incest is traditionally forbidden. 

[Donnadogsoth]

17 hours ago, Ninja said:

That's the interesting thing. If it's not incestual pedophilia then it's hard to see what part of the act requires the initiation of coercion/violation of property rights. I find incestual romance to be absolutely distasteful and I don't see any reason for a person to mingle sex with blood relatives, regardless, I don't see a justifiable reason to forcibly intervene in a relationship between two consenting adults. That's not to say I wouldn't attempt to thouroughly question a person who disclosed that they participated/are participating in incest to see if they truly had a reason to believe it was in their best interest. In the case of the daughter and mother in the article it seems like the parent was exploiting her child and that made me more curious about why incest is traditionally forbidden. 

Could the incest taboo be merely Darwinian?  Let's redpill ourselves [theoretically] by thinking that incest is gross because it leads to genetic ill health.  Paedophilia is gross because it represents an infertile union.  Sex with old people is gross for the same reason.  Doesn't it all revolve around breeding, psychologically, in terms of what we would call normal, well-adjusted human beings of breeding age?

[Jsbrads]

Prepubescent pedophilia is evil. People who do it have never been rehabbed.

postpubecent pedos are bad. People who did it can be socialized.

Ninja, that sounds very Libertarian. I don’t like the use of force, but it is necessary to prevent pedophilia, incest and child abuse. Perhaps a minimum of intervention is possible, not arrest and prison everytime someone misbehaves... but ignoring the problem doesn’t make it better.

[Ninja]

I am absolutely opposed to child abuse including pedophilia. The whole two consenting adults with blood relation thing is complicated. I wouldn't feel justified in intervening but I would definitely ostracize people who upheld values that defiled the separation of sexuality from blood relations. I personally see the act of incest as unnecessary and hedonistic. I can't imagine why someone would choose to be sexual with a family member when there are billions of other humans on the planet. 

[Donnadogsoth]

Are you an incestiphobe?

One day we will be called paedophobes.

[Ninja]

On 2017-12-06 at 6:43 AM, Donnadogsoth said:

Are you an incestiphobe?

One day we will be called paedophobes.

Hahaha, I'm an indifferphobe