dragonchild: The ironic thing about the reaction in TFA is that this is precisely the sort of small-government thinking that conservatives push in every single facet of government that involves money. A consensual relationship between adults is (at least in principle) victimless and there's a strong social taboo anyway, so why is it the government's business to interfere with privacy and legislate morality? In this sense, the law itself is very libertarian.

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: The revulsion is so well evolved into us that, overwhelmingly, we won't have sex with people with whom we grew up, not just sister, but childhood friends, etc.

Oy, I can relate. I have a childhood friend I consider a "third sister" because she's best friends with both of my sisters and thus spent a great deal of time at my house. I spent a lot of time with her myself, as we were both clarinetists in the same youth orchestra. Objectively I think she's cute, but in the few instances I pondered dating her a gut-level revulsion took over and killed the thought DRT.


I don't think the gut-level revulsion isn't the fact that you see her as a sister, I think it's cos it's a girl.

NTTAWWT

DingleberryMoose: dragonchild: The decision to have kids in spite of known risks is intensely selfish.

Is it more selfish than denying the possibility for someone to live because they might have some kind of defect? "Child, I decided not to have you because you had a 1 in 500 chance of condition X rather than a 1 in 10,000 chance like most kids." There's your selfish statement.

/playing devil's advocate here
//that's a personal decision everyone should make for themselves

Careful, you're getting dangerously close to the Catholic stance on birth control.

DingleberryMoose: Is it more selfish than denying the possibility for someone to live because they might have some kind of defect? "Child, I decided not to have you because you had a 1 in 500 chance of condition X rather than a 1 in 10,000 chance like most kids." There's your selfish statement.

/playing devil's advocate here

"I decided NOT to have you"?? That's seriously creepy; who the fark would you be talking to??

Seriously, that's a laughably crappy devil's advocate argument. You can't impose guilt on behalf of a party that doesn't exist. Really, if you're going to persecute people over victims that never existed in the first place, the capacity for accusation is infinite. In fact, you're guilty party Numero Uno, because you killed Joe. The Joe I'm talking about doesn't exist -- I just made him up -- but I'm accusing you of murdering an imaginary person in cold blood, and you can't prove you didn't. You selfish cocksucking bastard, you should kill yourself.

ace in your face: Its asthma, not farking hemophilia, and even that isn't regulated.

So are you saying if you had hemophilia you WOULDN'T have kids? Based on your decision-making so far, somehow I doubt that would've stopped you.

ace in your face: /She will also probably be a ginger. Can't wait to find out within the month!

You're a monster. A MONSTER! Letting a poor child come into the world knowing full well it could be one of them.

bulok: I don't think the gut-level revulsion isn't the fact that you see her as a sister, I think it's cos it's a girl.

Huh, I guess that explains why I farked your mom.

"Daddy, this tastes like crap!"

"Oops, I forgot - you brother borrowed the car."

YEAH!

bimalc: So a couple of comments:

1) There is actually an emerging body of scientific data that 'one off' consanguinous matings are not as damaging as we imagine. The realy problems happen from repeated consanguinity within a single family tree. It turns out that the genome is pretty robust to isolated consanguinity.


Came here to say this. Thank you, sir.

/no sisters
//a couple of hot cousins though...

jagec: DingleberryMoose: dragonchild: The decision to have kids in spite of known risks is intensely selfish.

Is it more selfish than denying the possibility for someone to live because they might have some kind of defect? "Child, I decided not to have you because you had a 1 in 500 chance of condition X rather than a 1 in 10,000 chance like most kids." There's your selfish statement.

/playing devil's advocate here
//that's a personal decision everyone should make for themselves

Careful, you're getting dangerously close to the Catholic stance on birth control.

Yeah, it kind of sounded like that. As my wife has fertility problems and any children we have are the result of serious planning and effort, the comment didn't feel like that to me until you pointed it out.

dragonchild: "I decided NOT to have you"?? That's seriously creepy; who the fark would you be talking to??

Seriously, that's a laughably crappy devil's advocate argument. You can't impose guilt on behalf of a party that doesn't exist. Really, if you're going to persecute people over victims that never existed in the first place, the capacity for accusation is infinite. In fact, you're guilty party Numero Uno, because you killed Joe. The Joe I'm talking about doesn't exist -- I just made him up -- but I'm accusing you of murdering an imaginary person in cold blood, and you can't prove you didn't. You selfish cocksucking bastard, you should kill yourself.

You missed the point, which was the first sentence. It's incredibly selfish to deny the possibility for someone to live because they might have a bigger chance of being non-normal and you (presumably) can't be bothered to provide the extra care they might require. The creepy sentence was the result of having been up with a sick three year old child most of last night and the fact that I'm a creepy bastard. And I admit to murdering Joe, but I haven't been Mirandized and you can't prove it.

GAT_00: This is what small government conservatism should actually be about: removing unnecessary laws and government intervention when consenting adults are involved. And honestly, if we don't have the right to prevent two consenting adults from having sex, and we don't, then we don't have the right to ban incest.

By all means, as long as you're the one paying for all the extra health care and special education for the children. Were your parents brother and sister, BTW?

Guy: "Hello boss, I won't be coming in today. I'm sick"
Boss: "Just how sick are you?"
Guy: "I'm home farking my sister. How sick is that?"

DingleberryMoose: It's incredibly selfish to deny the possibility for someone to live

Deny what from whom? How do you deny something from someone who doesn't exist? Did you also starve Joe before you murdered him?

Good job Switzerland.

/if people want to commit incest, it's fine by me.
//As long as it's not me.

dragonchild: DingleberryMoose: Is it more selfish than denying the possibility for someone to live because they might have some kind of defect? "Child, I decided not to have you because you had a 1 in 500 chance of condition X rather than a 1 in 10,000 chance like most kids." There's your selfish statement.

/playing devil's advocate here

"I decided NOT to have you"?? That's seriously creepy; who the fark would you be talking to??

Seriously, that's a laughably crappy devil's advocate argument. You can't impose guilt on behalf of a party that doesn't exist. Really, if you're going to persecute people over victims that never existed in the first place, the capacity for accusation is infinite. In fact, you're guilty party Numero Uno, because you killed Joe. The Joe I'm talking about doesn't exist -- I just made him up -- but I'm accusing you of murdering an imaginary person in cold blood, and you can't prove you didn't. You selfish cocksucking bastard, you should kill yourself.

ace in your face: Its asthma, not farking hemophilia, and even that isn't regulated.

So are you saying if you had hemophilia you WOULDN'T have kids? Based on your decision-making so far, somehow I doubt that would've stopped you.

I wouldn't personally have a child if it was going to have hemophilia or huntingtons or whatever, no. I would consider it too great a risk. That doesn't mean that I would support laws that make the government decide who is and isn't worthy to live based on genetic deficiency.


dartben: ace in your face: Which explains our mandates on women over 35 right? Or our hot tub mandates? Or our breeding system designed by the government to weed out genetic inferiorities? Oh no, we will just pick on the least common which is incest, because its Icky. I am pretty sure you have a shait ass senator in that state holding up DADT as long as he can too. Go Arizona.

I don't live there, I just took the bar exam there (wife had a job lined up down there before the economy collapsed and the state implemented a hiring freeze).

And there are plenty of similar things that are likewise forbidden. Crack babies and fetal alcohol syndrome babies are almost always taken from the parents, and depending on the state, child abuse charges can be filed.

As to the ones you specifically mention, I'd simply argue that the law hasn't caught up with modern science. Incest = bad offspring has been around for literally thousands of years; that people back then knew it could lead to bad results despite not knowing the mechanism doesn't make it arbitrary or random.

Crack babies are taken away because of the mother being currently addicted to crack, not because she did crack. I have never heard of a state filing abuse charges on someone for an act during pregnancy, but feel free to cite and prove me wrong. Moving away from that, fas babies are not routinely taken away- usually only if the person is determined to have a current problem (many FAS cases are the result of unknown pregnancy). Likewise, we do not have bans on 35 year old mothers, we don't even have bans on 55 year old mothers and they are FAR more likely to create a child who has down syndrome. People knew incest could result in harm in the past, but today we have this nifty thing called genetic counseling so that really is no longer an issue. We also have abortion and birth control, so there is no reason why two consenting adults shouldn't be able to be in a relationship, and married if they so chose. I don't think that the law hasn't "caught up", if anything it is catching up in the opposite way by recognizing we have no reason to make these types of consensual unions illegal.

dragonchild: DingleberryMoose: It's incredibly selfish to deny the possibility for someone to live

Deny what from whom? How do you deny something from someone who doesn't exist? Did you also starve Joe before you murdered him?

No, I beat him with an imaginary stick for weeks on end. What I'm saying is neither decision is more selfish than the other in this case.

In reply to someone on here:

Purposeful incest: Probably rare.
Accidentally incest: Not Rare.

/my co-worker is possibly dating her sister in some manner
//no seriously - she sent her flowers on their anniversary
///Getting a kick out of the thread

An Irish friend of mine once spotted a beautiful 18 year old in the pub and turned to me and said, "If she were my daughter I'd still be bathing her myself..."

/just saying.

dogdaze: For the old skoolers




I see what you did there.

ace in your face: I have never heard of a state filing abuse charges on someone for an act during pregnancy, but feel free to cite and prove me wrong.

Criminally, Texas has prosecuted this as assault and injury to a child, but the conviction was shot down on appeal at the federal level. Civilly, that's enough under Texas Family Code, if the child is born positive for a drug, to disposition "reason to believe" for physical abuse of the child and remove. Work computer has the bookmark for the correct statutory section, and I'm too lazy to google it.

Latinwolf: oldebayer: If Eve was made out of Adam's rib, wasn't he basically farking himself?

And their son Cain, when he was sent away, he went with his wife, where did she come from?

the land of Nod

DingleberryMoose: What I'm saying is neither decision is more selfish than the other in this case.

I.e., the selfishness of a couple that knowingly breeds an unhealthy child, placing a burden on society and the child itself (as opposed to adopting healthy) = the selfishness of a non-breeder that imposes no added burden and the only hypothetical "victim" doesn't even exist. I guess I have a better understanding of your position now, but I maintain that the real burden on real people outweighs the imaginary burden on imaginary people. I really can't feel selfish for denying something that doesn't exist to someone who doesn't exist. Man, I'm a jerk.

ace in your face: I wouldn't personally have a child if it was going to have hemophilia or huntingtons or whatever, no. I would consider it too great a risk. That doesn't mean that I would support laws that make the government decide who is and isn't worthy to live based on genetic deficiency.

I wouldn't either, but largely because every single instance in history of government-run eugenics resulted in horrific abuse. If I was dictator I'd try to limit eugenics to scientifically established genetic flaws and population management, but it would invariably devolve into bigots shoveling people into gas chambers if I so much as went on a lunch break.

DingleberryMoose: ace in your face: I have never heard of a state filing abuse charges on someone for an act during pregnancy, but feel free to cite and prove me wrong.

Criminally, Texas has prosecuted this as assault and injury to a child, but the conviction was shot down on appeal at the federal level. Civilly, that's enough under Texas Family Code, if the child is born positive for a drug, to disposition "reason to believe" for physical abuse of the child and remove. Work computer has the bookmark for the correct statutory section, and I'm too lazy to google it.

Ah Texas, land of fundies. Even so the "reason to believe" has to do with the idea that they will receive future abuse and they need to be protected from it, not technically that they are being prosecuted for the abuse already received. The closest law I can think of is the Utah one that made it illegal to get an illegal abortion (ie. when they tried to make it illegal for girls to pay people to beat them up etc.) but as I recall that got struck down too (although I could be wrong. It is Utah.). Anyway, enough of being stuck on illegal substances. I take category c medication my ob doctor advises I shouldn't (the expert said it was fine though since all studies point to no harm, and so far baby has been excellent on all her tests and ultrasounds), but no one is going to prosecute me. Plenty of women have babies after 35, when down syndrome takes a 45 degree angle up from 0 to higher and higher the older a woman gets. No woman has been prosecuted for that. No woman is prosecuted for having a baby with Sickle cell or CF, even if they KNEW they had it and still chose to have the baby. The fact is, a great deal of genetic deficiencies exist for a variety of reasons, and adult consensual incest is probably one of the least common. To say "think of the children" about it when we let pregnant women do a variety of other much more damaging things is incredibly silly, and really just shows that people have an "icky" bias.

Latinwolf: oldebayer: If Eve was made out of Adam's rib, wasn't he basically farking himself?

And their son Cain, when he was sent away, he went with his wife, where did she come from?

Jupiter.

dragonchild: I.e., the selfishness of a couple that knowingly breeds an unhealthy child, placing a burden on society and the child itself (as opposed to adopting healthy) = the selfishness of a non-breeder that imposes no added burden and the only hypothetical "victim" doesn't even exist.

You have no way of knowing if the child will be healthy in most instances until well after conception, so the child can't be bred knowingly. Any child over the second places an unfair burden on the first two by draining resources from an overtaxed planet, so any set of parents having more children than are required to replace them are being selfish. Basically, the urge to procreate is selfish, but necessary to the survival of the species. One hallmark of civilization is the collective care for the infirm.

ace in your face: Even so the "reason to believe" has to do with the idea that they will receive future abuse and they need to be protected from it, not technically that they are being prosecuted for the abuse already received.

This is incorrect. The RTB is specifically for the action that has already been taken. The subsequent removal is for risk of future abuse/neglect. They are distinct actions.

ace in your face: The fact is, a great deal of genetic deficiencies exist for a variety of reasons, and adult consensual incest is probably one of the least common. To say "think of the children" about it when we let pregnant women do a variety of other much more damaging things is incredibly silly, and really just shows that people have an "icky" bias.

Got to agree with you there.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that legalizing gay marriage will lead to........

/just kidding
/maybe

Richard Flaccid: This is exactly the kind of stuff that legalizing gay marriage will lead to........

/just kidding
/maybe

Well, if the argument against incest is the worry about mutant offspring, then gay incest should be ok. At least that's what your dad told me.

{in best Joe Dirt voice} YOU'RE MY SISTER, YOU'RE MY SISTER

bulok: I don't think the gut-level revulsion isn't the fact that you see her as a sister, I think it's cos it's a girl.

NTTAWWT

I laughed because I was thinking the same thing.

DingleberryMoose: ace in your face: Even so the "reason to believe" has to do with the idea that they will receive future abuse and they need to be protected from it, not technically that they are being prosecuted for the abuse already received.

This is incorrect. The RTB is specifically for the action that has already been taken. The subsequent removal is for risk of future abuse/neglect. They are distinct actions.

ace in your face: The fact is, a great deal of genetic deficiencies exist for a variety of reasons, and adult consensual incest is probably one of the least common. To say "think of the children" about it when we let pregnant women do a variety of other much more damaging things is incredibly silly, and really just shows that people have an "icky" bias.

Got to agree with you there.

Right, but are the parents actually prosecuted for anything or is the child just taken because the parents are endangering them? I mean, I'm all for taking babies away from addicts, my point has been pretty much lost at this point- but its that while a person is pregnant they aren't prosecuted for an additional crime of child endangerment even if they get caught and prosecuted for drug use. Having the child taken away from addicts after the birth is a separate issue.

treating the conception of handicapped children as "damage" or "harm" negates these children's right to life,

In other words, have all the sex you want, but be responsible and use a condom... because you cannot keep the baby.

Since I am not one of those anti-abortionist types, I can say that this sounds equitable, as a protection of the human race.
Don't piss in the gene pool.

ace in your face: while a person is pregnant they aren't prosecuted for an additional crime of child endangerment even if they get caught and prosecuted for drug use

That's happened a few years back, see my initial contributed comment in this thread. The criminal conviction for damage to the unborn child was overturned in federal court, so they stopped bothering. The civil disposition of "reason to believe" the abuse happened isn't related to the same legal standard or body of code. (Texas distinguishes family code and criminal statutes.)

Have you SEEN my daughter?

ciderczar: dognose4: Nobody mentioned the columbia professor and anti Palin blogger yet? I guess David Epstein and his daughter would be looking to move there...

Congratulations on successfully failing to read the comments.

Well, still no mention of Epstein or Columbia prior to my comment.

Stay tuned while we whip up some swiss steak and toss a few salads yall!

DingleberryMoose: ace in your face: while a person is pregnant they aren't prosecuted for an additional crime of child endangerment even if they get caught and prosecuted for drug use

That's happened a few years back, see my initial contributed comment in this thread. The criminal conviction for damage to the unborn child was overturned in federal court, so they stopped bothering. The civil disposition of "reason to believe" the abuse happened isn't related to the same legal standard or body of code. (Texas distinguishes family code and criminal statutes.)

Right, but that part is irrelevant since it was overturned. People have tried to prosecute others for lots of dumb stuff but in the end were knocked back by the feds. Anyway, its still a current crime. If a child is born dependent on a drug it means that that person is actively still using it. However if a child is born and has a defect like FAS because a parent WAS drinking and then quit then its an entirely different case. Still, this is totally off topic, since my point was simply that you can't be prosecuted for drug use during a pregnancy, and as you pointed out even when they did try to prosecute someone for it it was struck down.

There apparently is a quirk in South Dakota law that if both related parties in the sexual relationship are over 18 it is not incest. I served on a jury for a sexual assault trial and even though the victim of the assault was a blood relative of the perpetrator, no additional charges of incest were filed since both were over 18.

dartben: Fun factoid: Arizona allows incestual marriages so long as it is impossible for the couple to bear offspring. Generally this means the woman must be well beyond menopause, though it's also allowable where the man has been castrated and/or is otherwise proven to be sterile.

No. Arizona allows first cousin marriages in this case.

Bork your sister?

NuttierThanEver:

She's both.

Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.

Swiss porn just got more entertaining.

what the hell,if they are legal adults let the wood fly... get off this morality kick and move on. Hell, the mexicans let their tenteens eleventeens and twelveteens fark, and yet we frown on consenting adults doing it... meh! i say..

I gotta say that I kind of agree with the Swiss on this one. Why should the government be legally enforcing something that really is just a social taboo? Do not get me wrong, I happen to think that it is a great taboo, but does that mean that it should be illegal?

oldebayer: If Eve was made out of Adam's rib, wasn't he basically farking himself?

What about the first grandchild? If it was only Adam, Eve, and their children then who farked who to make the grandchildren?

/Funny how fundies hate this question.