The increased chance of birth defects seems a bit immoral. Also there’s a good chance childhood trauma is at play for siblings to want to bang, or at the very least some questionable power dynamics, that are worth at least looking into. Supposing none of that is an issue I guess I’m not going to yuck someone else’s yum even if I feel weird about the whole thing 🤷♀️
Obviously it’s against the law because folks that are prone to inbreeding are not necessarily equipped to make those assessments. The same as anything.
You know what? I think letting racists ruin eugenics gives them one extra “fuck you” to the human race.
If I use a revolver to play Russian roulette with a baby, they’d bury me under the prison. Why is it fine for parents with documented genetic conditions to do the same?
Who’s to say what conditions qualify? And what even is a condition? Homosexuality was in the DSM not long ago.
If the parents’ families have, say, a history of heart disease, we can all agree heart disease is bad, right? So they should be penalized for wanting children?
What about people with red hair? If we collectively decide to pathologize having red hair, are we going to sterilize all the gingers?
Do we try and prevent people with autism from being born? Down’s Syndrome?
I’d rather see better detection and genetic therapies, myself. Inform the parents and let them come to their own conclusion about whether or not to have children.
It’s definitely possible to establish reasonable thresholds - you could draw parallels to abuse/neglect laws. There are things that many people may find grotesque and objectionable that aren’t considered abuse/neglect. There are definitely historical and modern examples of those laws being applied unfairly, particularly to the disadvantaged. Boundaries may flex across regions or cultures, But it’s fair to say society as a whole supports abuse/neglect laws, and that they’re generally beneficial for children.
I’d rather see better detection and genetic therapies, myself. Inform the parents and let them come to their own conclusion about whether or not to have children.
A perfectly reasonable take, but even that falls in-scope of eugenics.
Eugenics isn’t inherently bad. If you prefer dating humans without genetic defects, congratulations; you’re a eugenicist.
Do you prefer blondes or brown hair? You’re preferring genes again! Don’t like people with potato bodies? There you go preferring genes…
Find out your fetus has a genetic defect and won’t live past five even if you birth them, so you abort? Cheer on genetic therapies that could solve such issues? Congratulations, you’ve practiced eugenics!!
Eugenics itself is not bad. It’s the racist fuck desire to want to “cleanse” the “race” of humanity that’s bad.
yuck someone else’s yum even if I feel weird about the whole thing 🤷♀️
I’m quite the same honestly, but like you said - there isn’t a need to be a dick about it, already a surplus of them around.
In terms of birth defects, that may be right. But it really depends on the generation of in-breading. A single generation wouldnt do much harm but has the potential to if it continues. Of course, about the trauma and power dynamic bits, that may be a hit or miss as it doesn’t really hold.
That is correct, and that is why we shouldn’t make any wild assumptions which dont hold up to the facts. This is essentially shooting blindly within the smoke - there are better ways than relying on assumptions or the “feel”.
In cases of close family sexual contact, consent is not a matter of a simple statement. There are lots of reasons why a person might make a statement of consent while they are in fact unwilling or unable to consent. This is always true, but particularly so in dealing with close family sexual contact.
On the one hand anything between consenting adults is good and valid.
On the other hand, incest is too ingrained of a taboo for me yet.
The increased chance of birth defects seems a bit immoral. Also there’s a good chance childhood trauma is at play for siblings to want to bang, or at the very least some questionable power dynamics, that are worth at least looking into. Supposing none of that is an issue I guess I’m not going to yuck someone else’s yum even if I feel weird about the whole thing 🤷♀️
Obviously it’s against the law because folks that are prone to inbreeding are not necessarily equipped to make those assessments. The same as anything.
Yeah, but it seems a bit eugenical.
It sort of also assumed that just because relatives are fucking that they’ll even have a kid.
You know what? I think letting racists ruin eugenics gives them one extra “fuck you” to the human race.
If I use a revolver to play Russian roulette with a baby, they’d bury me under the prison. Why is it fine for parents with documented genetic conditions to do the same?
Who’s to say what conditions qualify? And what even is a condition? Homosexuality was in the DSM not long ago.
If the parents’ families have, say, a history of heart disease, we can all agree heart disease is bad, right? So they should be penalized for wanting children?
What about people with red hair? If we collectively decide to pathologize having red hair, are we going to sterilize all the gingers?
Do we try and prevent people with autism from being born? Down’s Syndrome?
I’d rather see better detection and genetic therapies, myself. Inform the parents and let them come to their own conclusion about whether or not to have children.
It’s definitely possible to establish reasonable thresholds - you could draw parallels to abuse/neglect laws. There are things that many people may find grotesque and objectionable that aren’t considered abuse/neglect. There are definitely historical and modern examples of those laws being applied unfairly, particularly to the disadvantaged. Boundaries may flex across regions or cultures, But it’s fair to say society as a whole supports abuse/neglect laws, and that they’re generally beneficial for children.
A perfectly reasonable take, but even that falls in-scope of eugenics.
While I tend to agree, that’s a highly controversial view (see eugenics).
My brother in christ, the conversation is explicitly about eugenics, I don’t need to see shit!
Eugenics isn’t inherently bad. If you prefer dating humans without genetic defects, congratulations; you’re a eugenicist.
Do you prefer blondes or brown hair? You’re preferring genes again! Don’t like people with potato bodies? There you go preferring genes…
Find out your fetus has a genetic defect and won’t live past five even if you birth them, so you abort? Cheer on genetic therapies that could solve such issues? Congratulations, you’ve practiced eugenics!!
Eugenics itself is not bad. It’s the racist fuck desire to want to “cleanse” the “race” of humanity that’s bad.
Why’d you have to bring my potato body into this?
Colloquially eugenics refers not to personal preferences, but to collective imperatives, as far as I know.
I’m quite the same honestly, but like you said - there isn’t a need to be a dick about it, already a surplus of them around.
In terms of birth defects, that may be right. But it really depends on the generation of in-breading. A single generation wouldnt do much harm but has the potential to if it continues. Of course, about the trauma and power dynamic bits, that may be a hit or miss as it doesn’t really hold.
Incest is almost never between two consenting adults. There is almost always an inappropriate power dynamic, coercion, and/or grooming.
I don’t think we have enough data to make that assumption.
No, it’s pretty well studied.
That is correct, and that is why we shouldn’t make any wild assumptions which dont hold up to the facts. This is essentially shooting blindly within the smoke - there are better ways than relying on assumptions or the “feel”.
I think we do.
But then the problem is the grooming not the incest so grooming should be the taboo
Both can be Taboo, and should be.
So in the cases where it is not, you’d allow incest?
I agree, as long as consent is stated then no harm is done. Consent between people is important; but in these cases, they should know where they stand
In cases of close family sexual contact, consent is not a matter of a simple statement. There are lots of reasons why a person might make a statement of consent while they are in fact unwilling or unable to consent. This is always true, but particularly so in dealing with close family sexual contact.
…yet?
They’re working on it apparently
Yeah. To not be upset about it seems logical and fair.
But I still feel uneasy.