Incest

Remove all ads!

This link was posted in an unrelated thread but I found it interesting and worthy of discussion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/n...storyid=6421839


An interesting story. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not convinced incest should be legal, and, in my opinion, this couple shouldn't be allowed to reproduce under any circumstance. What I'm uncomfortable with, here, is the fact that Germany has actually imprisoned the man for this. While personally against abortion, I could even accept Germany forcing an abortion in a case like this, but would like to hear arguments on both sides about that. I can definitely understand requiring the woman to take birth control shots, an IUD, or, if the couple agrees to it(I am uncomfortable with the idea of forced permanent sterilization), sterilization of either the man or woman...but, prison? I think that's carrying things a bit too far. I certainly think Germany has to discourage this kind of thing and that they also have a duty to protect the gene pool...but I'm left uncomfortable by the fact they've imprisoned him. The news story doesn't go into a lot of detail, but it's unclear whether the romantic love between these two began before or after they knew they were brother and sister. Would the answer to that question make a difference?

At any rate, what does everybody else think? How should the government handle cases of consensual incest between adults? How should it handle pregnancy in such cases? What should it do with the children of such a union? Does government have the right to interfere at all in such situations... or does it have a responsibility to do so? I'd be intrigued to hear all opinions on this subject...especially the "really offensive" ones. I have a feeling that there exist plenty of potentially "really offensive" ways to look at this issue from any angle. Thoughts?

 

I'm interested to see who here would come out in favour of this couple.

I will. I disagree with sending the guy to jail, certainly. I even disagree with the pair of them not being able to be together.
The reason that incest has been a taboo for so long was the issue of children. We've pretty much made people able to have sex without children, but incest is a pretty ingrained taboo, which gets in the way of objective debate on the subject.

Finally, the girl is pretty hot.

EDIT: Actually, let's have some more. I read about this a few days ago in the paper. The Guardian, if you must know, one for the lefties among us. From what I can remember (the paper is now in some godforsaken recycling plant, where it's going to be dumped in a landfill, like most recycling) some otehr countries in Europe (shock horror, CIVILISED countries) have laxer rules on incest than Germany and the UK. Is Holland one? I honestly can't remember.

I believe the UK has recently added to incest laws, meanign that adopted children, children in foster homes and such cannot have relationships with members of the family before or after the age of consent for those involved. Wrong. No blood relation, no need for the law.


And no, I don't have a sister

 

As far as I know, the couple has repeatedly violated the law. It has three children already. I don't think they are too stupid to use contraceptives, so they activly challenged legislation.

Also, the law is only against procreation, IIRC. The man has had a voluntary vasectomy, so he can not beget any more children.

 

Force an abortion!! I am pro-choice but to force an abortion on a couple simply because they are siblings? Where next first cousins? A child that will be born with Downs Syndrome, various forms of autism, Cystic Fibrosis, Cerebral Palsy; are these next on the list?

Every time I hear arguments like that certain words ring alarm bells in my head, Dachau, Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Final Solution, Ethmic Cleansing, Eugenics. Again where would you stop you're poor you can't have a child, your genes are full of mutated recessives you can't have a child, you live in Eritrea you can't have a child, you're ginger you can't have a child.

I am not condoning incest (it's dangerous genetically), but dracoian measures like enforcing abortion or sterilisation or birth control is worse imo.

We supposedly live in a more enlightened age and yet the proposed measures making it ok are dark age medieval, reacting to the word not the situation.

 

The taboo around incest is a very sensible thing, considering the known risks of inbreeding. It also serves the purpose of clarifying that sleeping with your siblings is much more than just undesirable and unhealthy - it's wrong, period - no matter what these two confused fools think. If anything the case underlines the need for such a law, because evidently there are people around who need its guidance. And frankly, I couldn't care less how earnest the nature of the relationship is.

I think that gutting § 173 StGB would set a bad precedent in taking away the stigma and thus suggesting that incest is 'normal'. No matter how miserable that couple is off, the law is there for a very good reason. Sure, they're consenting adults now, but they're still siblings. I know that 'open the floodgates' arguments are inherently weak, but then: How do you explain a girl that wants to have consenting sex with her daddy or a son who wants to do his mother (or the other way around) that it's wrong, period -- after all brothers and sisters were allowed incest in the Leipzig case.
Now before anyone says that's a really stupid justification argument -- it clearly is. But then, in the interviews I saw the Leipzig couple didn't exactly impress me with their razor sharp intellect. I think you need to be more than a little dumb to continue a relationship after learning that you have had sex with your sister or brother. And as if to confirm me, they have four children, two of them with disabilities.

Where we are at the medical aspect: When siblings have a child together, there is only a 50% chance that it will be healthy when it is born. It's bad enough when children have disabilities. It's irresponsible and reckless when it is predictable.

I am against abortion in such cases, but I'm all for taking the children away from these parents, because they are obviously in many ways severely disoriented.

 

As Fabius said, he was imprisoned only because he chose to ignore an earlier sentence.

They were aware of their familial relations.

Nope. It prohibits sexual relations between close relatives, and is some 500 years old, btw.

The couple has four children, two of which suffer from genetical defects.

Now, I think the government should have no say in relations among consenting adults. In case siblings feel attracted to one another, fall in love, it ought to be their business what to make of it, and no-one elses. But only so long as they are mature enough to see that having children under these circumstances is irresponsible, uncaring. If they fail in that respect the government needs to step in.
These two here have consciously produced offspring again and again. Two of their children will have to live with the consequences of that unfeeling couple's actions. I find that to be quite sickening.

 

I agree. To please their ego, they were playing russion roulette with the health of their offspring, in full knowlegde of the risk. Sickening.

And it would still be sickening if they spend their days merrily humping each other without procreation. The government would have been completely unaware of that, and had probably even let them be if they were aware. We don't have the government snooping around in our bedrooms.

The only reason it made its way to the courts was that they chose to have children -- repeatedly and seemingly incorrigibly. The latter point is why the guy had to go to jail. Having been sentenced for incest and been on probation, he repeated the offense. Form that the judge concluded he didn't really understand that he did something wrong and that he thus was in need of a sanction.

 

Well there's a loaded sentence. One of those disabilities is epilepsy. iirc, not a severe case, either. It's all very well to say two of the have defects, bt if you don't qualify your statement, it's misleading, if not incorrect.

 

About him being sent to prison: Well, that, along with monetary fines, is probably the only two ways that a democratic government has to counter these kinds of situations. They can't just tell him to stop it and expect him to do it. But alas, not even imprisonment seems to have worked. What I can't understand is why the woman wasn't also imprisoned.

It's against the law, it's unethical, it's (by a enormous majority seen as) wrong.

 

IMO, every man and woman is an indivitual and has the right to choose for himself. Even though certain things have to be discouraged, perhaps even punished, by law, matters like this cause no harm to anyone. Gene-pool? You must be kidding me...

It's the same thing as with polygamy: if you have exactly one wife or none at all, you're okay. But if you do happen to be lucky enough to get two, oh-boy; all hell is loose. Imagine if another of these was a sibling. Now that would cause an interesting juridicial case in this draconian system.

There's a pretty pair who has had three adorable kids for years, but suddenly Mr. Detective comes to the door and reveals to everyone that they are related. POOF: they are suddenly ugly and totally sickening. A bit drumming about the matter and people start demanding their sterilization, euthanasia of the kids, and imprisonment for life ("without possibility of parole", as continued by a TV-serie called Oz). I find this rather ludicrous.

 

The most difficult part about law is IMO to leave personal views out of legal considerations. So, a point I sadly have to make is that, the way § 173 StGB was conceived, their appeal to the Bundesverfassungsgericht has a chance for success.

I don't like that one bit.

 

@Wordplay: Read "Under The Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer before you judge polygamy so generously. Polygamy is about a hell of a lot more than just taking more than one wife.

Regarding incest...in the middle east, it is acceptable and common for first cousins to marry. The rate of birth defects in the middle east is consequently far higher than the western world in which such unions are very uncommon (and usually illegal). It's far worse with siblings.

 

Justify that. Find an ethical system to prove your point, and I'll find one to contest it. Ethics is a big area. You can prove anything to be ethical, if you try hard enough.

 

If we allow polygamy, we must allow polyandry, too. I wonder how much that would change the number and compositions of its supporters.

As for incest, it can be a pain to define it. In Bulgaria, I couldn't marry a third cousin of mine. In other countries, afaik marrying a first cousin is fine - and historically it has been allowed in many countries. As for adopted siblings or such that have entered the family by remarriage, there is no health issue with that I guess. However, from a social and psychological standpoint it can lead to somewhat strange and possibly unequal relationships and possibly abuse.

Is that a significant reason? I'm not sure myself.

 

It can easily be argued that it is unethical to knowingly and purposefully produce offspring who will carry all manner of birth defects (which they will then pass on to their children) when such is easily avoided by not !?^@ing your sister.

 

Well, arguably, it does cause harm to someone, the children who do suffer from disabilities. I think its generally agreeable that siblings should not have children. The government is then faced with a very limited number of possibilities should siblings fall in love, or lust, or whatever it may be in any particular case. I think the best idea is to give the couple a choice. Either break it up or choose one of you to be sterilized. This way it isn't really forced, the couple does have a choice, and they can still have kids, just not with each other. If they want to adopt, more power to them. If they think it is acceptable for the non-sterile partner to have a child with someone else, that's their business. If the woman isn't sterilized and wants to be artifically inseminated from a random sperm donor (or whatever), then so be it, so long as the child is not a combination of their DNA.

That being said, I don't support abortion or euthenasia for children who are already concieved. Jail time for both, sure, they broke the law, but you shouldn't punish a child for the crimes of the parents.

 

@NOG: I would argue that jailing the parents punishes the child. Otherwise, I do agree with you.

 

Well, it is arguable that any action agaist the parents may punish the child, but I think a situation of minimal damage can be taken. It may also be wise to take the children away from the parents entirely, depending on the status of the state's social services. If the couple is foolish enough to have children when they know it is illegal (and wasn't a freak accident of some kind, like a one-night fling before they knew they were related, or a random reversal of the vasectomy) you have to question their ability to make wise decisions for their children.

Sometimes I wish there was some kind of test you had to pass before you were allowed to have kids. Then I remember the kind of people who would probably end up making the test.

 

There's nothing loaded or incorrect about it. Half their children suffer from genetical/birth defects, as is to be expected. That's clear enough for me. Epilepsy just being one abnormality... so there are others the child has to contend with. You're not saying these defects are within the normal range, massed as they are?

Perhaps you might want to qualify your statements. For it appears as though you advocate procreation in incestuous relations, and that cant possibly be your point of view.

 

@Drew: Mind you, that would imply that people past a certain age should not likewise not be allowed to reproduce.