Having Kids with sister???

ASTRACLUB

Whats your views on it?

---

A German brother and sister are challenging the law against incest so that they can continue their relationship free from the threat of imprisonment.
Patrick Stübing, an unemployed locksmith, and his sister Susan have had four children together since starting a sexual relationship in 2000. Three of the children are in foster care, and two have unspecified disabilities.

The couple, who live near Leipzig, grew up separately and only met many years later. Their supporters say they will fight until incest is no longer regarded as a criminal offence, arguing that the law is out of date. They say it harks back to the racial hygiene laws of the Third Reich and should be overturned in favour of freedom of choice and sexual determination. Detractors insist that incest should remain a social taboo, largely because of the risks linked to inbreeding and the imbalance in social relations it inevitably causes.

A film and a book are planned about the Stübings, who remain defiant about breaking one of the few remaining sexual taboos in western society.

Mr Stübing, 30, has spent over two years behind bars for having sex with his sister and faces another prison sentence if paragraph 173 of the legal code is not overturned. His sister has never been imprisoned because she has always been tried as an adolescent.

The couple were born into the same family but Patrick was already living apart from his mother when his sister was born. After a life spent in children's homes, Mr Stübing was reunited with his mother, Annemarie, in Leipzig in 2000, when he met his sister for the first time. Six months after the reunion, their mother died of a heart attack.

The siblings fell in love, and their son Eric was born in 2002, followed by Sarah, now 4, Nancy, 3, and Sofia, 1. Two of the children are known to have disabilities, although it is not known whether they are a result of inbreeding, or because they were born prematurely. All the children except Sofia have been taken into foster care. Mr Stübing has since been sterilised.

Speaking to a German newspaper, Mr Stübing said the couple decided to have more children after the authorities took their first-born away. "The younger children might not have been born had they not taken the first one from us," he said. "We just want to make sure that we don't lose everything again."

Ms Stübing shook her head when asked if the couple felt guilty about their relationship. "No," she said. "I just want us to be able to live together."

Addressing the issue of two of the children's disabilities, Mr Stübing would only say: "It's true that Eric has epilepsy, but otherwise everything's fine with him."

"Our aim is to get paragraph 173 abolished," Ms Stübing said. "And I would like to have my children back again."

Germany's courts have not doubted the earnest nature of the relationship. But in German law sex with a close relative is forbidden and punishable by up to three years in prison.

Endrik Wilhelm, the couple's lawyer, said they had little choice but to fight the existing law. "It's clear, if you face jail, and the only way you can prevent this is by overturning the law, that's what you will try to do," he told the Guardian.

He said that the couple were causing no harm to others. "Everyone should be able to do what he wants as long as it doesn't harm others."

Incest is not illegal in many of Germany's neighboursing countries, he said. The law was a "historical relic".

Napoleon abolished France's incest laws in 1810. Neither is it a crime in the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Portugal or Turkey. Japan, Argentina and Brazil have also legalised it in recent years.

Incest is forbidden in Britain, where the law was extended in 2002 to include not just those with blood ties, but also step-parents and their children and in cases of adoptions.

But opponents of changing the law say it exists for a good purpose.

"When siblings have a child together, there is only a 50% chance that it will be healthy when it is born," said Jürgen Kunze, professor of human genetics at Berlin's Charite hospital.

Germany's constitutional court is expected to decide on the Stübings' appeal in four to six weeks' time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/27/germany.kateconnolly

iguana

Moved to humanities.

ASTRACLUB

thanks for moving the thread to right place and apology for not putting this at place.
Regards

rower 4 life

Mr Stübing has since been sterilised.

does anyone know was he forced to get sterilised(by the law) or was it his own choice??

seahorse

Well it sounds to me like Mr Stübing is deluding himself when he claims his relationship doesn't harm others. If it's accepted by professors of human genetics that the child of such a relationship has only a 50% chance of being born without serious disabilities, and two of his four children have been born with disabilities, obviously his relationship has harmed others and will continue to harm them for the rest of their lives.

Why should a person go through their life with the hindrance of a serious disability just because their father decided to form a sexual relationship with his sister rather than one of the 3 billion+ other women on the planet? It seems to me there is good reason for these prohibitive laws, in fact, it seems nature itself is opposed to incestuous relationships.

Piste

I think they should be allowed to continue with their relationship, but not to have anymore children (which is gradn since Mr Stubing has since been sterilised).

smellslikeshoes

I'm in two minds over this, I think people should be allowed to follow their heart if they are both two consenting adults but I also agree with the law because of the high risk of family members having disabled children and not to mention the mental state of children who have a brother and sister for parents.

I don't know the specifics of how they were caught but I presume it was because of having the first child. Maybe it would be better if the law was changed to having children with an incestuous relationship and have couples who were involved in an incestuous relationship sterilized though that would obviously open another can of worms. Where am I going with this? Im not sure.
All I can say for definite is was morally irresponsible for these two people to have children.

neuro-praxis

It is remarkably common for estranged siblings, and even estranged parents and children, to have an astonishing sexual connection when they are reuinted. I read some very good articles about the subject in the Atlantic Monthly last year (I can't link, as it is subscription only, but it's a brilliant magazine if anyone fancies subscribing!).

As such it is not that weird that they fell in love. It seems to be the case that when natural bonding processes are cut off, they re-form themselves in an adult, namely sexual, manner.

I don't know what to think though. Some things are more important than sex, and life is about more than your partner...I would like to think that if it were me, and I found myself attracted to a long-lost sibling, that I would simply resist and avoid them as much as possible...in order for a simpler life!

While those parents may have had choices in their behaviour, the children cannot help what they have been born into, and they will never, ever shake the stigma of having parents who are brother and sister - and their disabilities can't be shaken off either. It simply was not fair to intentionally plan a family together. They sound like selfish fools, to be honest.

EamonnKeane

seahorse wrote: »

obviously his relationship has harmed others and will continue to harm them for the rest of their lives.

But did he not give them life to begin with?

seahorse wrote: »

Why should a person go through their life with the hindrance of a serious disability just because their father decided to form a sexual relationship with his sister rather than one of the 3 billion+ other women on the planet?

But if an non-related couple happen to have two children with the same disability, should they be sterilised to avoid a likely third?

Or two people blind since birth due to the same disorder?

Zombrex

Never quite understood the big deal with incest. Naturally humans have a biological instinct not to mate with our siblings, for genetic reasons. As such I find the idea of sex with my sister disgusting. but if two siblings don't have this repulsion then all power to them. So long as they fully understand what they are doing as adults and consent to it freely.

They do have a responsibility though to the welfare of their children. If either of them have genetic diseases that could harm their children they should take care when considering having children.

Gurgle

Wicknight wrote: »

They do have a responsibility though to the welfare of their children. If either of them have genetic diseases that could harm their children they should take care when considering having children.

By the same token, anyone with any congenital condition should 'take care' when considering having children.

Incest is forbidden in Britain, where the law was extended in 2002 to include not just those with blood ties, but also step-parents and their children and in cases of adoptions.

But opponents of changing the law say it exists for a good purpose.

"When siblings have a child together, there is only a 50% chance that it will be healthy when it is born," said Jürgen Kunze, professor of human genetics at Berlin's Charite hospital.

If governments are going to prevent the conception of high-risk children, why not start by sterilizing heroin addicts and AIDS sufferers ?

Mellor

EamonnKeane wrote: »

But did he not give them life to begin with?

What difference does that make.
So he gave them life, that makes it ok that they have been harmed, and will be scarred for life.
Is it ok if a parent kills a child, as "gave them life to begin with".
Incest indeed

But if an non-related couple happen to have two children with the same disability, should they be sterilised to avoid a likely third?

Or two people blind since birth due to the same disorder?

no because the chances are not the same. Or they were not aware (in cases were chances are high)
These two knew they are brother and sister, the whole world knows that inbreeding causes defects.

Spyral

Well it sounds to me like Mr Stübing is deluding himself when he claims his relationship doesn't harm others. If it's accepted by professors of human genetics that the child of such a relationship has only a 50% chance of being born without serious disabilities, and two of his four children have been born with disabilities, obviously his relationship has harmed others and will continue to harm them for the rest of their lives.

Why should a person go through their life with the hindrance of a serious disability just because their father decided to form a sexual relationship with his sister rather than one of the 3 billion+ other women on the planet? It seems to me there is good reason for these prohibitive laws, in fact, it seems nature itself is opposed to incestuous relationships.

by the logic of hindering children then those that can pass on things like MS and whatever should be sterilised or shot.

Eugenics here we come !

Dades

Spyral wrote: »

by the logic of hindering children then those that can pass on things like MS and whatever should be sterilised or shot.

Oddly, I don't see a post suggesting offenders to be shot.

You can't legislate against two strangers copulating for any number of reasons, but you can against siblings. And due to such a high chance of abnormality for genetic reasons it is eminently practical to do so.

adamd164

I recently read Matt Ridley's excellent book The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. He proposes (based on the research of others) that we are evolutionarily programmed to be sexually turned off by those who we grow up in close association with. This means that, in normal circumstances, one will not find their siblings attractive. However, as in this case, if separation occurs during the formative years, then there's a high chance of sexual attraction when/if they are reunited.

DamoDLK

seahorse wrote: »

It seems to me there is good reason for these prohibitive laws, in fact, it seems nature itself is opposed to incestuous relationships.

I couldn't agree more with you, i feel it is against natural law.

DamoDLK

EamonnKeane wrote: »

But did he not give them life to begin with?

You have to ask what quality of life has he given them..

adamd164

I would have to say that I do not think it should be illegal. For the most part, society itself implements the "law" through our innate sexual repulsion towards siblings. If two people do not feel this, then we should not stand in their way. Are we also to prevent two handicapped people from breeding because we are afraid that their children will inherit a disability? I don't immediately see any difference between the scenarios.

DamoDLK

adamd164 wrote: »

Are we also to prevent two handicapped people from breeding because we are afraid that their children will inherit a disability? I don't immediately see any difference between the scenarios.

The difference is in the detail. We have laws against incest - intercourse with a defined blood relative, The Incest Act 1908, I do believe..

adamd164

DamoDLK wrote: »

The difference is in the detail. We have laws against incest - intercourse with a defined blood relative, The Incest Act 1908, I do believe..

So what? Laws are never set in stone. We'd be living in the dark ages if certain laws had never been abolished and new ones brought in as time progresses. Interesting that you cannot think of a reason why one actually should be illegal and the other not.

blue shimmering

adamd164 wrote: »

I would have to say that I do not think it should be illegal. For the most part, society itself implements the "law" through our innate sexual repulsion towards siblings. If two people do not feel this, then we should not stand in their way. Are we also to prevent two handicapped people from breeding because we are afraid that their children will inherit a disability? I don't immediately see any difference between the scenarios.

There is a big difference between two handicapped people having a sexual relationship and an incestuous relationship! One is where two people meet and fall in love, the other as in this case is where two people meet, fall in love and mistake that love as a sexual love for each other!

There are many medical reasons why incest is inadvisable and I will not go into them because we all already know them! Genetics of the same family will be called in to play here and in a lot of cases weakness will come out double fold into the next generation! I am not saying that it doesn't happen in the ordinary everyday relationships but is much more likely in these relationships!

Now to handicapped people, nothing is wrong with these people meeting others who are seemingly healthy or have different health problems - in most cases they can find out if they choose what the likelyhood is of their offspring carrying a defective gene or being handicapped like themselves.

The are a lot of disorders that need both in the relationship to carry the same gene to be carried on to their children, for example: Haemophilia (don't know if I have it spelt properly) and so on...., this is the normal chance that we take but if you have a relationship with your siblings the story is very different because there is evidence there that these relationships are not really very advisable and usually weakens the off springs chances of leading a normal life!

There was also a case recently in England where a father who had never meet his child, met, fell in love with her and they had a sexual relationship without realising they were father and daughter - it was only when he asked about her family he realised that he was her father! She didn't know as far as I am aware and he didn't know what to do about it - I didn't hear any more about it so don't know what the outcome was on this!

I still think he was absolutely wrong not to have followed up on his child at any stage and didn't take on any of his obligations as a father! At the same time what would the girl think if/when she found out she had slept with her father!

There are many moral issues here and to be honest the situation where we can just hop into bed with anyone is going to have implications in the years to come - and not very good ones either because a lot of the time young people don't realise that they could have a half brother/sister wondering around!

DamoDLK

adamd164 wrote: »

So what? Laws are never set in stone. We'd be living in the dark ages if certain laws had never been abolished and new ones brought in as time progresses. Interesting that you cannot think of a reason why one actually should be illegal and the other not.

Quite obviously they are not set in stone, we change them often enough. As for the reason why incest is illegal.. I don't know, i wasn't around making law in the early 20th century, but i would hazzard a guess that it was deemed immoral, reasons for it being illegal currently, are probably the associated health risks to the child. Which are avoidable-only by means of making the act illegal. There currently is no law against two people who are incapacitated to engage in sexual activities, as long as they are two consenting adults. Problems arise if one party is mentally ill, and the other is not. This is known as Statutory Rape.

adamd164

blue shimmering wrote: »

There is a big difference between two handicapped people having a sexual relationship and an incestuous relationship! One is where two people meet and fall in love, the other as in this case is where two people meet, fall in love and mistake that love as a sexual love for each other!

And who exactly is the judge of that? Society decides what 'real' love is, does it?

blue shimmering wrote: »

There are many medical reasons why incest is inadvisable and I will not go into them because we all already know them! Genetics of the same family will be called in to play here and in a lot of cases weakness will come out double fold into the next generation! I am not saying that it doesn't happen in the ordinary everyday relationships but is much more likely in these relationships!

This is precisely why I used the analogy of the two disabled people. In cases where their children would be highly likely to inherit the handicap, much moreso than if they had children with persons not carrying the genes for said trait. Yet we allow them to freely decide for themselves.

blue shimmering wrote: »

Now to handicapped people, nothing is wrong with these people meeting others who are seemingly healthy or have different health problems - in most cases they can find out if they choose what the likelyhood is of their offspring carrying a defective gene or being handicapped like themselves.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm obviously referring to two persons carrying the same genetic disorder; specifically to instances in which the child will have a high probability of inheriting that disability.

adamd164

DamoDLK wrote: »

Quite obviously they are not set in stone, we change them often enough. As for the reason why incest is illegal.. I don't know, i wasn't around making law in the early 20th century, but i would hazzard a guess that it was deemed immoral, reasons for it being illegal currently, are probably the associated health risks to the child. Which are avoidable-only by means of making the act illegal. There currently is no law against two people who are incapacitated to engage in sexual activities, as long as they are two consenting adults. Problems arise if one party is mentally ill, and the other is not. This is known as Statutory Rape.

Er, thanks for that. Are you just informing me of the legal framework or are you actually trying to make a point?

Zombrex

Gurgle wrote: »

By the same token, anyone with any congenital condition should 'take care' when considering having children.

Well yes. I know a couple who knew the woman was at risk of a serious genetic disease, but who didn't get tested before they had children, and now all 3 of the children have the disease and will probably not live beyond 50. I feel this is some what irresponsible.

Gurgle wrote: »

If governments are going to prevent the conception of high-risk children, why not start by sterilizing heroin addicts and AIDS sufferers ?

it is possible to prevent AIDS being transfered to the foetus, which is why all pregnant women should be blood tested, even if they don't consent.

blue shimmering

adamd164 wrote: »

And who exactly is the judge of that? Society decides what 'real' love is, does it?


This is precisely why I used the analogy of the two disabled people. In cases where their children would be highly likely to inherit the handicap, much moreso than if they had children with persons not carrying the genes for said trait. Yet we allow them to freely decide for themselves.


That's not what I'm talking about. I'm obviously referring to two persons carrying the same genetic disorder; specifically to instances in which the child will have a high probability of inheriting that disability.

Why would the children of two handicapped people be any more likely to have children who are also handicapped - some of the reasons for them being handicapped in the first place could be related to not taking folic acid etc... There could have been problems with their birth and so on.... They may not actually be gene related so would not show in their offspring!

I do understand your point about this but think there is a bigger picture than that presented here, depending on the reasons for their disability they may not have any more of a likelyhood of having children who are handcapped than Joe Soap on the street corner! At the same time I do believe having a sexual relationship with close family eg brother/sister/cousins that could result in children are not fair on those children because the odds of something going wrong - genetically is increased double fold especially if there are any history of defective genes in the family!

I think from my point of view rather than the state or law that these relationships are not moral, acceptable or very fair on the children that they produce! OK everything could be fine and there may not be any problems at that time but what of the next generation down the road?

Also, with this case there actually is a problem that obviously is gene based and these children are left with problems for the rest of their lives - I don't think this is fair, actually I think these two (brother/sister) are very selfish and only thinking of themselves to be honest! There is no indication of the age of the sister at the time of the start of the relationship, if there is a big gap etc, maybe she was taken advantage of and doesn't really understand the implications of what is happening to her! This is only a thought and I suppose there will be a barrage of comments to the contrary, but a lot of sexual abuse happens in this way - in that the younger person doesn't really know what is going on!

I think DamoDLK is trying to get at the fact that there are people out there who will take advantage of others who do not have a full understanding of where they are or what is happening to them/or can not communicate with others to say what is going on and this has happened in the past in a lot of institutions and I do agree with him in the sense that these incapacitated people could be taken advantage of, and I would have called it sexual abuse more so than Statutory Rape!

To get back to the points in hand:

I am judge and jury of my own mind and that is all I can be and I am saying what I am saying from my own point of view not anyone elses!

I was asked for my opinion on 'real love' as you want to put it, in the thread you started, I would not call it real love because I consider all love to be real, in the sense that I love my brothers, sisters, children, parents, grandparents..... AND I ALSO LOVE MY PARTNER!

Real in the sense that you are referring to in my humble opinion is a sexual love for the other person, I am only trying to say that maybe the real loves of a family nature are getting mixed up with the sexual love for this person! In other words because they don't have close family ties - having met up late they are confused about their feelings. I want to say at the same time this is only my opinion and do think what has happened to this brother/sister is very sad!

The last two points you make are related to each other and I can see where you are coming from but these are two individual adults who can find out the odds of conceiving a child who has their genetic defect fairly easily if they want to! I don't think this is really a legal issue it is more a private issue between these two consenting adults who should look for all the information before going ahead to have children - by the way they can still have a sexual relationship with the use of birth control to prevent pregancy if this is what they want to do?

To conclude, I feel bringing in handcapped or disabled people into this arguement isn't really that fair really because they can not help the way they are and there is nothing in our law to say they can not meet, fall in love and have children if they want - the same is not true with a relationship between brother/sister!

I do think the law is right in not allowing these relationships between close family members and it definitely should still be regarded as incest!!!!

seamus

adamd164 wrote: »

He proposes (based on the research of others) that we are evolutionarily programmed to be sexually turned off by those who we grow up in close association with.

It would make sense. Those that we spend the most time with as children would likely be related to us to some degree. Programming us to be drawn to mate with outsiders to the group will maintain a much larger gene pool and introduce stronger genes to the community.

I imagine that the bulk of the anti-incest laws were drawn up before it was possible to make any kind of link between incest and genetic defects. It was probably a moral issue more than anything.

There is no massive link between incest and genetic defects, at least not in the first generation. Your main problem is that the child's possible gene make-up is limited. Ideally, when one parent has a "defect" or is otherwise genetically disadvantaged, the other parent won't have that defect and their dominant "healthy" gene will override the faulty one.
When you have two siblings, the odds of both parents having a defective gene for a particular characteristic, increases. The child isn't going to become a 3-finger, blithering freak, but there is a higher likelihood of things liks epilepsy, congenital heart defects and so forth.

The real big problems happen when incest continues to occur in further generations. It's like continually making a photocopy of a photocopy - the number of imperfections accumulates. Of course, evolution doesn't need protecting from this. Eventually, children of generations of incest will be sterile. Those non-sterile will potentially pass on their defective genes to offspring (and into the wider pool), but natural selection will prevent those genes from spreading very far. Nature doesn't need our protection. It's been doing fine for millions of years before we came along with our high-falutin' ideas of morals and ethics.

So the only real "moral" issue with incest is whether it is right to expose potential offspring to an increased risk of defects. Whether we can/should legislate this is then another matter entirely.

adamd164

blue shimmering wrote: »

Why would the children of two handicapped people be any more likely to have children who are also handicapped - some of the reasons for them being handicapped in the first place could be related to not taking folic acid etc... There could have been problems with their birth and so on.... They may not actually be gene related so would not show in their offspring!

Good lord man, my entire point is based around two genetically disabled persons SPECIFICALLY in cases in which potential children will have a high risk of inheriting the disability.

AngryBadger

The only reason there should be a moral conflict here is if children are introduced into an incetsuous relationship.

Assuming that two consenting adults happen to meet each other and become romantically/sexually involved without prior knowledge of the relationship between them. fair enough, best of luck to them. Should they be having kids, personally I don't think so. The reason being if incest occurs between two adults who have never been let's say conditioned to it, that's fine, but when you have a child raised in an incestuous relationship that's their established norm. Which means they are likely to pursue a similar relationship purely because they think that's what's done. Obviously there are other social issues which are going to be touched on by incestuous parents.

On those grounds alone i don't think it's particularly fair to raise children in an incestuous situation.

Then of course there's the health aspect. And I have to say the arguments put forward here have, shockingly, made me reconsider where I stand on that one. There is obviously a huge health risk where incest occurs, but similarly if someone is born with a genetic syndrome of some kind, or some condition they could potentially pass onto their offspring, should they too be prevented from having children. i'd have to say no, but then I'm also arguing against incestuous couples having kids, at least partly on the basis that those children may have severe genetics problems, or their kdis in turn , or any of the myriad scenarios psoted here so far.

I must think on this...