Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What is actually wrong with incest?

13567…15

Comments

  • #62
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    bnt wrote: »
    I'm amazed at how short-sighted people can be, to even ask such questions. It reflects a total ignorance of history. We have things good these days, so we forget that actions have real consequences that have nothing to do with "morals" or "norms".

    Last week we had "why is it bad to be a slut?", and the simple answer is STDs. We may take antibiotics for granted, but they are a relatively-recent invention, so it's not surprising that the stigma remains. (As it should: prevention is always better than any possible cure.)

    So with incest, the real risk is of inbreeding, with birth deformities etc. Sure, these days you can use contraceptives, but (once again) that's a recent development. It's a bad idea for objective reasons, no "morals" required.

    The "ick factor" evolved because it helps to keep us from things that are stupid, even if why it's stupid is not immediately obvious. If you're going to remain ignorant of history and science, instinct is all you can rely on. :rolleyes:

    Good points, but just because something might have been logical from an evolutionary or historical perspective, doesn't mean it should be acceptable nowadays. Also, as regards "sluts" and STIs, well mean are just as capable of passing them along, and yet they promiscuous men don't face the same backlash.


  • #63
    WumBuster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭WumBuster


    Laurence krauss was asked by a muslim guy he was debating recently if he thought incest is wrong and he replied ''Its not absolutely clear to me that it is. If the people in question were in a relationship and were in love, and there is no one getting hurt outside of that, and in the case of siblings that they are using condoms etc, then whilst I wouldnt condone it, I would listen to those arguments''. Seems fair enough to me. But a Parent/child relationship is just plain wrong, imo, thats where i would draw the line.


  • #64
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    There are two main aspects to incest and a distinction also has to be made between grooming and consensual incest.

    First the distinction of grooming with regard to incest. This is when a person is psychologically conditioned into loving their bloodline. Usually it occurs from a early age and it's effectively brainwashing a child into accepting sexual abuse. Obviously this is immoral and wrong.

    The first aspect to incest is incest where an offspring will never be produced. This is just two adults doing what they want.

    The second aspect is incest where an offspring is produced. This one is more complicated. Statistically speaking the newborn is at a higher risk of genetic and immune deficiencies. But there are two points here:
    First, we don't stop people with known hereditary conditions (e.g. Huntingon's, Cystic Fibrosis) from reproducing. Second, like the hereditary conditions, it's only a probabilistic risk - there's no guarantee the offspring won't be perfectly healthy.

    Personally, I can't see anything wrong with Incest. What grown adults get up to with their lives as long as they're not harming others and remaining consensual is none of my business. I could never engage in incest but that doesn't mean others couldn't.
    Where I get grayer on my stance is when kids are involved. I'm sort of against, emotionally anyway, but I'm not sure why? I don't think it's fair to assume any potential parents should be singled out when they're clearly one tiny exception to the society's rule of letting others carrying high risks to their offsprings of reproducing. It's hypocritical. And to suggest other wise is also threading the line on eugenics. Though, obviously there may a valid case to be made.

    Finally, ethically there is one more point to make by analogy. Suppose science showed that people who committed infanticide were 90%* more likely to live to 100. Would that mean infanticide becomes more acceptable? The corollary of this is would you make the argument that not committing infanticide is somehow more ideal if science showed people who didn't commit infanticide were 90% more likely to live to 100. From the point of view of ethics, is it fair to use the argument of possible deficiencies in the offspring as a means to say something is wrong? In my opinion it possibly is but the line is a very fine one.

    *I would have used a hundred here but there is philosophy issue of how science actually works and never being 100% certain. If you're okay with idealisations then please use 100%.

    tl;dr if it's consensual I think I'm ok with it. Not absolutely sure why. Good question OP.


  • #65
    Lams
    Site Banned Posts: 59 ✭✭Lams


    WumBuster wrote: »
    Laurence krauss was asked by a muslim guy he was debating recently if he thought incest is wrong and he replied ''Its not absolutely clear to me that it is. If the people in question were in a relationship and were in love, and there is no one getting hurt outside of that, and in the case of siblings that they are using condoms etc, then whilst I wouldnt condone it, I would listen to those arguments''. Seems fair enough to me. But a Parent/child relationship is just plain wrong, imo, thats where i would draw the line.

    If I say gay relaionships are " just wrong" is that enough justification. What logic do you have that a father son sexual relationship is wrong outside of your prejudices.


  • #66
    IM0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,390 ✭✭✭IM0


    Anita Blow wrote: »
    Genetics.
    We all have autosomal dominant & & recessive genes. Autosomal Dominant genes only require one copy of the gene for it to be expressed (So one parent).
    Recessive traits require 2 copies of the same gene for it to be expressed, so both parents would need to pass the gene onto their child. Examples of those include Congenital deafness, PKU, Cystic Fibrosis, Anaemia & various other chronic conditions.
    Between 2 unrelated people, the chance of both of these having a given recessive gene are quite low, as they would both have to have the faulty gene. However if the gene runs in the family, and their offspring have a child, the chance of them both carrying the faulty gene is massively increased & so some recessive disorders may be expressed in their child.
    Incest also has implications on the child's immune system.

    by that logic then you wont be far from assuming that anyone who has an illness in life is because they are a result of an incestous relationship. there is chance in everything in life and its mostly 50 50. if we took all risk seriously no one would be left alive, they would just lie in a heap on the ground and die until the urge to live became so great that they ventured outside the cave even if they were going to be eaten by a bear on the way to getting food for reluctant survival. you cant seperate life and risk. its not possible :o
    if you were born its your job to live as long as possible, your job that life gave you


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    northernpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 198 ✭✭northernpower


    IM0 wrote: »
    curious whats the scientific explanation for that one? sounds like something someone religious said once and everyone said ok tbh

    every sperm is different and unique in EVERY SINGLE MAN< AND THEY HOLD DIFFERNT DNA DEPENDING ON WHAT MICROSOCEND YOU ARE CURRENTLY IN. 1000 SPERMS ARE PRODUCED IN SECONDS AND THEY ARE ALLLL DIFFERENT so it makes zero sense, and like the OP said, places that have not been touched much by westerners and religions ride eachother like rabbits and there is nothing wrong with them. plus if you think about it, back in the day thousands and thousands of years ago you would be fighting you father to **** your mother. it makes 100% evolutionary sense, you keep the genes in the family and produce more of the same ones. but like I say we decided this was not the way to live anymore so psychologically evolved zand left this natural animalistic way behind. the only thing natural that humans do now is have bodily functions and sex, everything else is what we decided is going to be civilised made the rules and stuck to them...well most of us do, for those that dont we have jails :)

    The combination of DNA is different yes, but in Mendelian genetics if you and your sister both carry a recessive gene for some disease you multiply the potential to pass two recessive alleles on to an offspring - that's why incest is wrong in nature, there's a far less chance of you and someone unrelated carrying the same recessive genes and passing this on to offspring


  • #68
    Yakult
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 7,944 Mod ✭✭✭✭Yakult


    Aren't we all related anyway


  • #69
    IM0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,390 ✭✭✭IM0


    Yakult wrote: »
    Aren't we all related anyway

    in a 7 degrees of seperation kind of way!


  • #70
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Pre-natal gene therapy, once perfected, will practically eliminate the primary downside/moral-issue relating to incest (while raising a ton of its own moral issues), so it's a taboo which I'd say is going to eventually disappear permanently.


  • #71
    oldyouth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,754 ✭✭✭oldyouth


    Cousinstown in Wexford didn't get it's name by accident you know.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    IM0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,390 ✭✭✭IM0


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Pre-natal gene therapy, once perfected, will practically eliminate the primary downside/moral-issue relating to incest (while raising a ton of its own moral issues), so it's a taboo which I'd say is going to eventually disappear permanently.

    along with the notion of being human, we are slowly reaching the end of the high point of human civilisation, everything will start to go backwards at some point, at some point we will decide "**** civilisation!" and it will be like the way rwanda was in the 90's. its only a matter of time, and god knows how long that will be, centuries, or milenia, but it WILL happen at some point :(:mad::o:rolleyes::) I dont know which one of those to use, probably the notion that we think life is bad now Ill go with a :o


  • #73
    Anita Blow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,935 ✭✭✭Anita Blow


    IM0 wrote: »
    by that logic then you wont be far from assuming that anyone who has an illness in life is because they are a result of an incestous relationship. there is chance in everything in life and its mostly 50 50. you
    You're taking a slant on it that doesn't have any real basis in fact.
    I'm not assuming anything; genetic inheritance is a fact. If a person has a hereditary condition, who do you think they got it from?
    If a man who has a recessive gene has a child with a woman who doesn't, there is 0% chance of that gene being phenotypically expressed. If they both have the gene, that 0% chance jumps to 50%.
    IM0 wrote: »
    if we took all risk seriously no one would be left alive, they would just lie in a heap on the ground and die until the urge to live became so great that they ventured outside the cave even if they were going to be eaten by a bear on the way to getting food for reluctant survival. you cant seperate life and risk. its not possible :o
    if you were born its your job to live as long as possible, your job that life gave you
    That's a nice sentiment. I'm not too sure I'd be comfortable taking such a massive risk with my children's lives, especially when the risks are lifelong medical defects.


  • #74
    WumBuster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭WumBuster


    Lams wrote: »
    If I say gay relaionships are " just wrong" is that enough justification. What logic do you have that a father son sexual relationship is wrong outside of your prejudices.

    because its absolutely grotesque. Even if it is between consenting adults.


  • #75
    Stereomaniac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,166 ✭✭✭Stereomaniac


    Man this thread has really made me think thoughts that I don't want to. Still I love you, my cousins!


  • #76
    Singularity 1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭Singularity 1


    Well it was good enough for Adam and Eve.


  • #77
    IM0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,390 ✭✭✭IM0


    Anita Blow wrote: »
    You're taking a slant on it that doesn't have any real basis in fact.
    I'm not assuming anything; genetic inheritance is a fact. If a person has a hereditary condition, who do you think they got it from?
    If a man who has a recessive gene has a child with a woman who doesn't, there is 0% chance of that gene being phenotypically expressed. If they both have the gene, that 0% chance jumps to 50%.

    That's a nice sentiment. I'm not too sure I'd be comfortable taking such a massive risk with my children's lives, especially when the risks are lifelong medical defects.

    chemistrisy is a fact, physics is a fact [well some parts of it are] everything else is a paradyme subject to change. :o


  • #78
    IamtheWalrus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,075 ✭✭✭IamtheWalrus


    It's a good question OP. Some very smart people agree with you.



  • #79
    Singularity 1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭Singularity 1


    daddyorchips wrote: »
    On the other hand what is wrong with beastiality?

    Good question. You can kill and eat animals but you can't ride them. But if the animal had a choice.........?


  • #80
    the keen edge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭the keen edge


    Gawwd Damn, that Mary Louise has got the finest ass this side of the Yellow River.
    Hell I don't care if shes my sister, that's my business.


  • #81
    Too Tough To Die
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,056 ✭✭✭Too Tough To Die


    Singularity 1 wrote: »
    Good question. You can kill and eat animals but you can't ride them. But if the animal had a choice.........?

    I once watched a slightly unsettling documentary about a woman and her love for her horse. She genuinely seemed to love him and he genuinely seemed to love her, so who am i to judge? But i suppose it will remain unacceptable until horses can march through cities in hotpants waving rainbow flags.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    caustic 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,314 ✭✭✭caustic 1


    Wrong, just wrong.


  • #83
    Lams
    Site Banned Posts: 59 ✭✭Lams


    WumBuster wrote: »
    because its absolutely grotesque. Even if it is between consenting adults.

    Ok so what if someone thinks gay relationships are absolutely grotesque??

    Is that enough justification for it to be wrong?


  • #84
    DaveDaRave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 387 ✭✭DaveDaRave


    WumBuster wrote: »
    because its absolutely grotesque. Even if it is between consenting adults.

    i know plenty of people with that view on homosexuality.


  • #85
    wandatowell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,435 ✭✭✭wandatowell


    Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »
    My sister is ugly.

    Yeah but I aint fussy


  • #86
    returnNull
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭returnNull


    this is why it shouldnt be allowed :)

    http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3792109/Brother-and-sister-in-lift-sex.html


  • #87
    WumBuster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭WumBuster


    Lams wrote: »
    Ok so what if someone thinks gay relationships are absolutely grotesque??

    Is that enough justification for it to be wrong?

    Your takin the piss. i dont know why you are dragging homosexuality into this debate. Thats found to be acceptable in society, and i got no problem with it whatsoever. i think incest if legal in society would lower moral guidelines and values and compromise the family structure.And of course there are the biological implications too. There are plenty nihilists out there who proclaim that you can hump anything and it dosent matter but as a moralistic citizen of humanity i believe its wrong and is against the integrity of humanity.


  • #88
    bobwilliams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,050 ✭✭✭bobwilliams


    my sis is a ride but i wouldn't ride her,i've thought about it a lot,had a few peddles about doing her but i defo defo wouldn't ride her.......i think.

    Anyway op is a sicko......actually op is a total troll.


  • #89
    Lams
    Site Banned Posts: 59 ✭✭Lams


    WumBuster wrote: »
    Your takin the piss. i dont know why you are dragging homosexuality into this debate. Thats found to be acceptable in society, and i got no problem with it whatsoever. i think incest if legal in society would lower moral guidelines and values and compromise the family structure.And of course there are the biological implications too. There are plenty nihilists out there who proclaim that you can hump anything and it dosent matter but as a moralistic citizen of humanity i believe its wrong and is against the integrity of humanity.

    So basically your argument boils down to "it feels wrong". To plenty of people homosexuality "feels wrong". That clearly isn't good enough justification.


  • #90
    Joe prim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Joe prim


    Zaph wrote: »
    I'm really hoping you mean you wouldn't condone it.

    He doesn't know the difference between condone and condemn, he is Bertie Ahern


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    cena
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,141 ✭✭✭✭cena


    What ever your into.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement