uhhh... you can't fertilize sperm with sperm. Now using some science you can fertilize and egg with a regular cell I believe (cloning). Neither of those act that you have mention have ever been done. Now you did have a lot of other good points throughout, but this one stuck me as odd.Okay then, moving on to whether or not incest should be legal. I don't care what you do with you body, as long as it doesn't effect anyone else. The main problem here has been repeated several times. If there is a future child you have effect that child's life, physically, mentally, and/or emotionally. That child wasn't able to pick if he wanted his dad and mom to be siblings. This kindof parallels my thoughts on abortion. The parents have already made a choice. They should be allowed to go back on that choice. The child should choose if he wants to life or die (however primitive that sounds). Now going back to incest. The posible future child should have the say in this. Since it is not possible at this time to see into the future and ask, the act of incest itself should be illegal. I believe that incest entirely on its own should be illegal, and not just procreation, due to the fact that you can't control something like that. You can't say "if you practice incest you have to take the pill and wear a condom," because you can't control what people will do in their private homes.That is one hundred percent untrue. If you fertilize a sperm with another sperm, or an egg with another egg, of which both have been done, the resulting child will indeed have horrible genetic deformities.
Incest, should it be legal?
Started by
Guest_Triss
, Jun 09 2008 03:29 AM
209 replies to this topic
#101
Guest_HierosTheDivine
Guest_HierosTheDivine
-
- Guest
Posted 03 July 2008 - 09:49 AM
#102
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 03 July 2008 - 02:13 PM
I was thinking he made a typo, since it was absolutely ridiculous. I laughed, myself.uhhh... you can't fertilize sperm with sperm. Now using some science you can fertilize and egg with a regular cell I believe (cloning). Neither of those act that you have mention have ever been done. Now you did have a lot of other good points throughout, but this one stuck me as odd.
Doesn't your argument go against itself?I believe that incest entirely on its own should be illegal, and not just procreation, due to the fact that you can't control something like that. You can't say "if you practice incest you have to take the pill and wear a condom," because you can't control what people will do in their private homes.
#103
Guest_HierosTheDivine
Guest_HierosTheDivine
-
- Guest
Posted 03 July 2008 - 03:05 PM
Sorry for my English (you know me). I'll break it down into bullets to make more sense:1) I believe that you would have to make incest entirely illegal2) I believe that a law just against the procreation or incestuous people would not work because there is no way to regulate it. (you can't watch their every move)3) If we had a law banning the whole thing, a child would be less likely to be born of incestuous parents. If we only ban procreation there will be more cases of children.Does it make sense now? I wish my English was as good as my math.HierosDoesn't your argument go against itself?
#104
Guest_Midnight Mistress
Guest_Midnight Mistress
-
- Guest
Posted 03 July 2008 - 03:08 PM
i think it shouldnt be legal because your subjecting the children brought for these kind of relationships to loads of genetic dieseases, however the incest of step children who havent spent that much time together as brother and sister isnt so wrong, little or none of the same genes.
#105
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 04 July 2008 - 03:15 AM
You misunderstand. You say "make it illegal so incestuous couple won't have kids, because there is no way to regulate it". How do you regulate incestuous couples in the first place? The Thought Police?Sorry for my English (you know me). I'll break it down into bullets to make more sense:1) I believe that you would have to make incest entirely illegal2) I believe that a law just against the procreation or incestuous people would not work because there is no way to regulate it. (you can't watch their every move)3) If we had a law banning the whole thing, a child would be less likely to be born of incestuous parents. If we only ban procreation there will be more cases of children.Does it make sense now? I wish my English was as good as my math.Hieros
#106
Guest_HierosTheDivine
Guest_HierosTheDivine
-
- Guest
Posted 04 July 2008 - 05:11 AM
So your saying it doesn't even matter if we make it illegal or not due to the fact that they is no way to enforce it? I guess that's true... That kindof destroys my points... In fact it destroys everyone's post, unless we are talking under the assumption that you will get caught and brought to justice (if it was illegal).You misunderstand. You say "make it illegal so incestuous couple won't have kids, because there is no way to regulate it". How do you regulate incestuous couples in the first place? The Thought Police?
#107
Guest_HaagenDasz
Guest_HaagenDasz
-
- Guest
Posted 04 July 2008 - 11:03 AM
It should be legal because I find it very hot. Brb going to sister's room.POINTS were deducted for this post by Daft PunkPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
#108
Guest_asdfth12
Guest_asdfth12
-
- Guest
Posted 05 July 2008 - 02:44 AM
This is perhaps the only time im going to use something from the bible in a post.. hopefully.According to the bible god destroyed the world. he left noah, his wife, their 3 sons, and their wives.So basicaly, going by the bible, the world was repopulated by 3 brothers and their wives.So going by the bible, no matter who you have sex with, you would be doing one of your reletives.Going by the bible again... i don't think the ten commandments say anything agenst incest. Anyway that aside...Incest... that word strikes fear into many. but why? How come the word milk doesn't strike fear into everybody? Simple. its because they describe diffrent things. Their was no book by which everything was already named. PEOPLE HAD TO MAKE THE NAMES THEMSELVES!All incest is just a name. In another world asdbgrw could mean the same thing as incest.
#109
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 05 July 2008 - 07:16 AM
You're still forgetting the issue of inhibiting genetic diversity, spawning the potential of a lot of diseases.
#110
RockMaster
-
- Member
-
- 210 posts
Serpent
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 07 July 2008 - 04:50 AM
Wow, I've rarely seen the Bible used more innapropriately than this. Allow me to point out the flaws here:1) Who said that the Ten Commandments were the only laws ever? Leviticus is chock full of'em, and I know for a fact that specific laws against incest are in either that or Deuteronomy.2) It doesn't matter if we were created or evolved, there wouls still be only a few humans with which to establish genetic diversity. I highly doubt that suddenly a hundred sexually mature humans spring out of the primordial ooze and start making babies. ^_^; And we're all related in one way or another no matter what, really; we all share a common genetic lineage.3) Incest is just a name, but a name represents something. In this case, incest represents a generally stupid act all around, be you religious or not.This is perhaps the only time im going to use something from the bible in a post.. hopefully.According to the bible god destroyed the world. he left noah, his wife, their 3 sons, and their wives.So basicaly, going by the bible, the world was repopulated by 3 brothers and their wives.So going by the bible, no matter who you have sex with, you would be doing one of your reletives.Going by the bible again... i don't think the ten commandments say anything agenst incest. Anyway that aside...Incest... that word strikes fear into many. but why? How come the word milk doesn't strike fear into everybody? Simple. its because they describe diffrent things. Their was no book by which everything was already named. PEOPLE HAD TO MAKE THE NAMES THEMSELVES!All incest is just a name. In another world asdbgrw could mean the same thing as incest.
#111
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 07 July 2008 - 06:00 AM
When we started out, we likely were a lot more genetically, uh, let's say plentiful. Several types of animal can do inbreeding without ill effects for a few generations - with humans, it's different.Evolution moves forward, by the way (the reason most people don't like their siblings is that their DNA and instincts tell them not to), and so incestuous relationships are rare because they are a disadvantage to proper evolution - something to which genetic diversity is key.2) It doesn't matter if we were created or evolved, there wouls still be only a few humans with which to establish genetic diversity. I highly doubt that suddenly a hundred sexually mature humans spring out of the primordial ooze and start making babies.
; And we're all related in one way or another no matter what, really; we all share a common genetic lineage.
#112
Guest_LUIGIIMHOME
Guest_LUIGIIMHOME
-
- Guest
Posted 07 July 2008 - 09:29 PM
no no nooooo that is gross. it should not be legal.POINTS were deducted for this post by -Wade-Please refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
Edited by LUIGIIMHOME, 07 July 2008 - 09:30 PM.
#113
booo95
-
- Active Member
-
- 70 posts
Hatchling
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 08 July 2008 - 03:38 AM
I personally say that it shouldn't be legal. It is possible that there will be a baby and that it will have some sort of genetic illness due to the genes being too similar. We are lucky that we are currently okay as we all come from some inbred thing as I doubt humans were just created full grown and plentiful so yeah.
#114
Guest_Littlecricket
Guest_Littlecricket
-
- Guest
Posted 08 July 2008 - 04:52 PM
I not think incest should be legalI have lots of reasons but I not want to post themIŽm sure you all understand yes? ^^Sorry... did I go off topic?I not understand why I was punished for posting my opinion...POINTS were deducted for this post by hookshot!Please refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
Edited by hookshot-, 09 July 2008 - 08:50 PM.
This is the debates section, you can only post discussion and you didn't provide any, sorry.
#115
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 24 July 2008 - 05:49 AM
Well, even if we were to go off of the creation theory for this one, then humans would have started off more genetically "plentiful". Obviously we would have started off with inbreeding for a few generations, but if that continued to happen for too long, the genetic structure of humanity would've gotten far too contaminated to survive.Anyway, I'd argue that the reason most people don't like their siblings is because they're taught about the different kinds of "love". Although you would need to use your argument in order to support evolution I suppose.When we started out, we likely were a lot more genetically, uh, let's say plentiful. Several types of animal can do inbreeding without ill effects for a few generations - with humans, it's different.Evolution moves forward, by the way (the reason most people don't like their siblings is that their DNA and instincts tell them not to), and so incestuous relationships are rare because they are a disadvantage to proper evolution - something to which genetic diversity is key.
#116
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 24 July 2008 - 06:24 AM
That's pretty much what I meant. It stopped because it wasn't beneficial for our species.Well, even if we were to go off of the creation theory for this one, then humans would have started off more genetically "plentiful". Obviously we would have started off with inbreeding for a few generations, but if that continued to happen for too long, the genetic structure of humanity would've gotten far too contaminated to survive.
...Because they're taught about the different kinds of love? Mind elaborating on that?Anyway, I'd argue that the reason most people don't like their siblings is because they're taught about the different kinds of "love".
#117
Guest_Tessa Leigh
Guest_Tessa Leigh
-
- Guest
Posted 24 July 2008 - 11:36 PM
It should stay illegal, bad blood would stay in the family, maybe even make new forms of disease? Blood clots could become more common for sure.
#118
Guest_GunmanJag
Guest_GunmanJag
-
- Guest
Posted 25 July 2008 - 06:33 AM
i think it should be legal, whether or not if it is dangerous for health related reasons. i mean, if two people are to the point where they want to get married or have sex, they'll do it whether it is legal or not. i don't think legalizing incest would create some horrible genetic problems because frankly, i don't think a lot of people would engage in the activity. i believe that individuals should have the right to love whoever they want. it is their choice. plus, just because you have sex, doesn't mean you're going to have a baby.
#119
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 27 July 2008 - 05:42 AM
They're are different kinds of love. The kind of love you have for a family member, the kind of love you have for a friend, the kind of love you have for a spouse...unfortunately, sometimes people have misconceptions on how to properly display each kind of love....Because they're taught about the different kinds of love? Mind elaborating on that?
#120
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 27 July 2008 - 08:31 AM
Let me guess; you're one of those guys who think gayness and so forth can be taught?They're are different kinds of love. The kind of love you have for a family member, the kind of love you have for a friend, the kind of love you have for a spouse...unfortunately, sometimes people have misconceptions on how to properly display each kind of love.
#121
Guest_KurisuChan
Guest_KurisuChan
-
- Guest
Posted 27 July 2008 - 12:53 PM
Well, Incest gives genetical problems, But im kinda torn with this coz in the bible it indirectly says that incest have been commited to repopulate the world. But correct me if im wrong.anyway, IMHO, I consider it taboo.
#122
Guest_Bloodeye1912
Guest_Bloodeye1912
-
- Guest
Posted 27 July 2008 - 04:10 PM
Incest really is the choice of mature, post puberty, post high school people, if they were never abused and are mentally stable, I say let them do what they want..., so I have to say yes...
#123
Guest_trancebam
Guest_trancebam
-
- Guest
Posted 27 July 2008 - 05:56 PM
I'd rather not get into a nature versus nurture argument here, so let's stay on topic.Let me guess; you're one of those guys who think gayness and so forth can be taught?
#124
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 27 July 2008 - 08:02 PM
It's perfectly on topic, because it's directly linked to the topic at hand. You're basically saying gays are gay because they were raised to be gay, and that incestuous people are incestuous because they were raised to be. How can you support that with logic and evidence?I'd rather not get into a nature versus nurture argument here, so let's stay on topic.
#125
stock
-
- Dragon's Elite
-
- 8,558 posts
so full of ruin
Reputation: 315
Perfected
Posted 27 July 2008 - 09:55 PM
If people aren't taught things from their surroundings and the experiences they have throughout their lifetime, how else would you propose they learn?
