r.c wrote:

purplerat wrote:

r.c wrote:Ok they are above 18 and are consenting adults. But what if they want to have a child knowing that it may have severe genetic defects. To me that part is unacceptable.

At what age would you want to tell people they are no longer allowed to have children? Oh wait you probably want the inbreeding thing which is actually less of a risk than a 72 year old women having a child. Of course neither of these two concerns even apply to this case if you read the story but you have to be careful when going down the road in saying who should or shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

Yeah i know its not relevant to this case. My response was to a slight derail in the thread to incest in general. I just did a cursory search on the risks associated with old women getting pregnant and this is what I found ... Not sure how reliable it is though.

http://40andbetter.obgyn.net/display.as ... ity-111202

That study is about women using donated eggs. As it relates to the topic of incest, unless the egg is donated from a third family member, there would be no additional risk if a women carried a child which is from the sperm of her brother/father/grandson/son/etc but not her own egg. The biggest issue with this particular case is that the woman is 72 years old and likely will not be able to fully raise her child.

But to the actual topic of inbreeding; yes there is reason for concern, especially when talking about multiple generations. However you also have to talk about it in context of what the real risk is (not so high for a single instance) and how it relates to other known risks for birth defect. The problem is that the taboo of incest has created a lot of myth and pseudo science around the topic of inbreeding. The risks are not as high as most people believe (and most don't even understand what the risk is) especially when talking about an isolated case and really do not warrant special treatment whereas many other risks are ignored as being the parents choice.

purplerat wrote:

kiki5711 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

r.c wrote:Ok they are above 18 and are consenting adults. But what if they want to have a child knowing that it may have severe genetic defects. To me that part is unacceptable.

At what age would you want to tell people they are no longer allowed to have children? Oh wait you probably want the inbreeding thing which is actually less of a risk than a 72 year old women having a child. Of course neither of these two concerns even apply to this case if you read the story but you have to be careful when going down the road in saying who should or shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

Yea yea blah blah free society and whatevahhhh it's god damn wrong.

Well as an atheist I pay little attention to those things that god has damned as wrong and worry more about what is really wrong.

Well goody goody god damn drops for you!

kiki5711 wrote:Well goody goody god damn drops for you!

Huh.

This is one of those subjects that leaves me lost for words.

james1v wrote:This is one of those subjects that leaves me lost for words.

"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence"

- Ludwig Wittgenstein

Strontium Dog wrote:It's their life and they're consenting adults. The state should have no business interfering.

Strontium Dog wrote:It's their life and they're consenting adults. The state should have no business interfering.

Yeah, I do agree with you, but my first emotional reaction is that they should be taken out and shot.

But, yes, true.

NineOneFour wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:It's their life and they're consenting adults. The state should have no business interfering.

Yeah, I do agree with you, but my first emotional reaction is that they should be taken out and shot.

But, yes, true.

Pretty much. I don't really think it should be illegal. The condemnation of just about everyone they meet is probably punishment enough.

I don't really know too much about whether or not "inbreeding" causes too many genetic defects. I know you can argue that it does, but that's over entire populations not just one couple. They're unlikely to start a trend.

although I do see one reason why it should be illegal. How does their poor kid tell their friends the relationship of their parents? School can be hard enough as it is without that kind of target placed over the kids head.

Strontium Dog wrote:It's their life and they're consenting adults. The state should have no business interfering.

I agree. I do, personally, think there's something wrong with all of this, but I don't think of it as something illegal, and wether or not it's morally right is not my judgement to make. I do find it strange that people would want to have children at such a late age though, not knowing if they will live long enough to raise the children and provide for them until they are autonomous. I don't mean to be the defender of nature, but when you can't naturally have children anymore thanks to age...

Am I alone in not being disgusted by this?

juːtoʊpiə wrote:Am I alone in not being disgusted by this?

No, Yoo. Although I can understand the human reaction to be a bit shocked initially, I think far too many people on this thread seem quick to judge a book by its cover so to speak.

Well, I'm shocked, shocked I say!!! I am also shocked anytime I actually think about a guy having sex with a woman, that is SO disgusting, How can they let something like that be legal? Don't they know what he is doing with his eh, .... ewwwwww

My first reaction after reading the original post was not "wow, that's disgusting" but rather "what the fuck?!?!."

juːtoʊpiə wrote:Am I alone in not being disgusted by this?

No. I feel exactly the same (or don't, depending on your p.o.v.). They're competent consenting adults, I've no reason to suspect compulsion or coercion ... so what? It's their lives and their business.

juːtoʊpiə wrote:Am I alone in not being disgusted by this?

No, I find it disgusting as well. But then again I am somewhat personally disgusted by the thought of two men having sex with one and other. Not that the two situations are exactly analogous but it does illustrate how one can separate personal tastes or standards from the way we view other people's personal choices.

CherryBomb wrote:
Pretty much. I don't really think it should be illegal. The condemnation of just about everyone they meet is probably punishment enough.

I don't really know too much about whether or not "inbreeding" causes too many genetic defects. I know you can argue that it does, but that's over entire populations not just one couple. They're unlikely to start a trend.

although I do see one reason why it should be illegal. How does their poor kid tell their friends the relationship of their parents? School can be hard enough as it is without that kind of target placed over the kids head.

To be clear inbreeding doesn't cause genetic defects. What happens is that people with existing genetic defects who breed with close relatives who are also likely to have the same defect are at an increased risk of having a child born with the defect with both parents which in the case of recessive genes is a bad thing. But inbreeding itself does not create some new defect whereas other risks like later in life pregnancies can.

The argument from the standpoint of the child being picked on is flawed in that it's used for every other situation in which society tells two people they should not have a child or even be together. Gay and interracial couples are told the same thing. Maybe you can make a case that a child born of incest would have it even worse but the precedent is that it's not a very good argument to make against anybody having a child.

This one of the calamities of "American Pie" franchise.

crank wrote:Well, I'm shocked, shocked I say!!! I am also shocked anytime I actually think about a guy having sex with a woman, that is SO disgusting, How can they let something like that be legal? Don't they know what he is doing with his eh, .... ewwwwww

Oh get off it with the annoying remarks. You know damn well this is so wrong in more ways than I can count and don't try to downplay it. Disgusting. There is nothing natural about this. Even fucken snakes have more common sense than some human beings.

juːtoʊpiə wrote:Am I alone in not being disgusted by this?

Hi juːtoʊpiə. No, you are not alone. Several posters have said they don't mind; it is none of society's business. I see some people are upset by it, but they still believe it is the couple's choice. That is a fair choice; because even though something is legal, it doesn't mean we all have to love it or do it ourselves.
I can't see anything wrong with this. The only ethical problem (a minor one) might be that she may not live long enough for the kids to have a 'family' upbringing. But that's no legal impediment. After all, there are many varieties of 'family', and this merely adds a new type...might even broaden the community scope somewhat.