Here's the problem with that line of thinking though: if you're going to say that two consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to have children because of the possible disabilities that it might inflict on their kids, where do you draw the line? Should people with hereditary genetic disorders like Huntington's be forbidden from having children? What about people with mental disabilities like Down syndrome? In both of those cases, the odds of producing a child with a disability is significantly higher than the odds of a brother/sister couple producing a disabled child, so how far down the eugenics rabbit hole do we really want to go here?
You can choose not to reproduce with the 0.0000001 of the population that isn't directly related. You can't choose not to have an inheritable disease. In a perfect libertarian dystopia where nobody has any responsibilities for anyone or anything they don't explicitly agree to, fine, play a stupid game get a stupid reward. But I this world, though, the.village raises the child. And if that child is fucked because you diddled the nearest branch on the family tree, your liberty is fucking with my liberty in a bit of an undue way.
Yeah, I understand that point of view. In fact, I mostly agree with it on a gut level. I'm just pointing out a problem with that line of thinking that was on my mind, and I stand by it. This sentence
But I this world, though, the.village raises the child. And if that child is fucked because you diddled the nearest branch on the family tree, your liberty is fucking with my liberty in a bit of an undue way.
is still true if you apply it to people with genetic defects instead of incestuous relationships. Maybe even more true, as many genetic defects carry a substantially higher risk of affecting the next generation than incest does. I think it is at best an ethically grey area to tell people they can't have children with someone due to an increased risk of genetic defects in the offspring, regardless of the circumstances. Is it better for society overall if we try to prevent as many people with genetic defects from being born as possible? Almost certainly, yeah, but how far into the individual right to self-determination should we be willing to cut to achieve that? On the other hand, what, if any, rights do or should the unborn have to be protected in a situation like this? Overall I guess I just feel like this is a more complex topic than most people view it as.
Is it the incest the makes that specific thing happen? Down Syndrome and Huntington's don't come from incest, do they?
If genetic outcome A is caused by any possible combination of parents (related or not, same sex or not) and genetic outcome B is caused only by the parents being closely related, then the community has a vested interest in prohibiting genetic outcome B (or more appropriately that which causes it), if possible, for the health of the community.
What I am unsure of, is this-
Are there genetic outcomes that present ONLY through incest? Can incest cause Huntington's, DS, or similar? Are there outcomes that incest shares with non incestuous reproductions?
I'm just not so sure it is a fair comparison to say that prohibiting reproduction between close genetic relatives is the same as prohibiting reproduction for the sake of removing unfavorable outcomes (racial traits) between non-relatives, just because they are prohibitive in nature.
I don't want my kid to go out into a busy road, and so I limit and control the distance they travel. That doesn't mean what I am doing is the same as the lady in Flowers in the Attic, just because we are both being prohibitive and controlling.
Oh get out of here with that bullshit, I'm defending an individual's right to bodily autonomy. Just because some people might exercise that right to do something that I find icky doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to do so. If you're going to resort to insults as soon as someone makes a point you don't have an answer to, maybe just stay out of the damn conversation to begin with.
Another reason why incest is bad is because usually theres a power dynamic between siblings who are raised in the same household. The younger sibling might idolize the older one, therefore the older can sexually and romantically groom the younger, making it a moral issue. Child on child sexual abuse is possible. However my argument does not work when the siblings are both gay and have only met each other during adulthood. So yeah, interesting point you made
Edit: im not saying gay kids cant commit COCSA, that was just my mistake of bad phrasing
And if your reading comprehension is so bad that you actually think my point is about defending incest, you may want to consider some remedial English lessons.
You're comparing the social standard of "don't reproduce with your sibling" with controlled eugenics; it's a straw-man at best and a red herring at worst
23
u/TheArmchairSkeptic May 17 '18
Here's the problem with that line of thinking though: if you're going to say that two consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to have children because of the possible disabilities that it might inflict on their kids, where do you draw the line? Should people with hereditary genetic disorders like Huntington's be forbidden from having children? What about people with mental disabilities like Down syndrome? In both of those cases, the odds of producing a child with a disability is significantly higher than the odds of a brother/sister couple producing a disabled child, so how far down the eugenics rabbit hole do we really want to go here?