Why are most atheists against bro/sis coitus?

[Nostalgia]

A common reason given is that a child of incest is much more likely to suffer from genetic disorders, because most people are carriers of some recessive genetic disorder or another. However, that is a poor argument. We don't argue that there should be laws against people who carry genetic disorders having sex; or old people having sex (I recall reading somewhere that a child from a mother over the age of 40 is just as likely to suffer from complications as a child from a incestuous couple), nor do we permit incestuous couples if one of them is infertile.

Ultimately, people oppose it just because they're squicked out by it. After all, most people consider the idea of having sex with someone in their close family to be disgusting. But that's a pretty bad reason too. Just because we're disgusting by the idea of doing it ourselves is no reason to ban other people from doing it.

Does that mean that incest is okay if it's gay incest?

Hm, that's a good point. It would technically be ok, but some heterosexuals will consider it unfair and I think it's a viable thing to contest. Making it illegal for all is simpler.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Nostalgia

[Redwall]

That's not actually an example of slippery slope; you're saying it's fallacious for him to cite incest as something that may become "fashionable" because you personally believe it's not likely.

What could be considered slippery slope is his implied assumption that the social vogue is determined by the law, but I don't see how that's embarrassing, as we all know that arguments that fall under some tenuous logical fallacy are generally still credible thoughts. Let's try to keep the conversation constructive?

I was quite obviously declaring fallacious the claim made by Dwalin that legalizing incest would lead to a) people thinking to themselves "hey, incest looks pretty fun, let's give it a try" and b) incest subsequently subsequently becoming "fashionable."

That is indeed an example of a slippery slope: Wikipedia says "A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom."

As for keeping the conversation constructive: hey, I wasn't the one bringing up the old "next we'll start allowing murder and rape" line in post #84. I'm attacking Dwalin's points, not his character.

edit: But you are right, I could not have been less of an asshole in my post. Sorry for that, Dwalin.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Redwall

[Constable Reggie]

How? You can instead of punishing incest punish for children born through incest.

This would pretty much institute forced abortion as law, which is no less better than illegalizing it.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

This would pretty much institute forced abortion as law, which is no less worse than illegalizing it.

Arguable, but irrelevant either way. I wasn't talking about the morality of it, but whether it is possible. The point is that it's not impossible to illegalize producing children from incest.

[Constable Reggie]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Roe v. Wade protects choice on abortion, a law against an incestuous birth would violate that right, since said abortion doesn't protect prenatal life or the woman's health. I doubt the Supreme Court would make an exception after 50 years.

I compared it to illegal abortion because it's literally same thing in regards to privacy choice.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Roe v. Wade protects choice on abortion, a law against an incestuous birth would violate that right, since said abortion doesn't protect prenatal life or the woman's health. I doubt the Supreme Court would make an exception after 50 years.

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you telling me that making having children through incest illegal has to involve government mandated use of abortion? That the government can't just punish offenders after the child is born or something?

I'm not following you here.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

They would be indirectly mandating it, since it's the only other option you can take to avoid getting punished. A law forcing you to choose between prosecution under federal/state law (birthing the baby) and forfeiture of your constitutional rights (aborting the baby) is essentially a restriction of your constitutional rights.

In other words, there's only two choices in the situation of a pregnancy, of which it is up to the woman to decide on. Making one of the choices illegal is essentially restricting your right to choose what to do, something protected by the 14th amendment.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Bryan]

Genetic disorders aren't that apparent unless carried out over generations, as someone pointed out.

How do people feel about gay incest? Is that bad? No children are produced, so it should be fine in those people's who were using that as their argument. (Obviously consenting if age.)

[Esau of Isaac]

They would be indirectly mandating it, since it's the only other option you can take to avoid getting punished.

Other than not doing it in the first place. Are states indirectly mandating killing rape victims to avoid getting tried for rape, or something?

In other words, there's only two choices in the situation of a pregnancy, of which it is up to the woman to decide on. Making one of the choices illegal is essentially restricting your right to choose what to do, something protected by the 14th amendment.

In this hypothetical scenario it's not making either one of the decisions illegal, it's making the conception illegal.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

Other than not doing it in the first place. Are states indirectly mandating killing rape victims to avoid getting tried for rape, or something?

Now you're suggesting that a specific group of people aren't allowed to have sex, which is an even bigger invasion of privacy. It would be no different from essentially restricting sex for only people who have genetic diseases by saying that any baby born/concepted (can't tell which you're arguing) knowingly with a chance of a genetic disease passed from the parent is illegal.

In this hypothetical scenario it's not making either one of the decisions illegal, it's making the conception illegal.

You're changing your argument now. Illegalizing fertilization, not birth, of a product of incest is still troublesome because a) pregnancy isn't entirely controllable and predictable, and b) essentially restricting the rights of specifically incestuous couples, something that would be protected into the 14th amendment, by restricting their option to have sex due to reason a.

And even if conception was illegal, what afterwards? Would the state take the baby? Would they allowed have an abortion?

Edited May 7, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

Now you're suggesting that a specific group of people aren't allowed to have sex, which is an even bigger invasion of privacy.

Uh, no, I'm saying in this scenario they would not be allowed to conceive with specific people. It doesn't matter if it's a bigger invasion of privacy.

You're changing your argument now. Illegalizing fertilization, not birth, of a product of incest is still troublesome because a) pregnancy isn't entirely controllable and predictable, and b) essentially restricting the rights of specifically incestuous couples, something that would be protected into the 14th amendment, by restricting their option to have sex due to reason a.

a.) This doesn't change whether it's possible to illegalize it

b.) There are already laws regarding incest on the books

And even if conception was illegal, what afterwards? Would the state take the baby? Would they allowed have an abortion?

I don't know. I don't care. I wasn't arguing for feasability, but possibility. I don't care whether it would be unfair, I'm saying that it's within the power of the government to illegalize producing children through incest. I still don't know why the hell you're debating this with me.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

Uh, no, I'm saying in this scenario they would not be allowed to conceive with specific people. It doesn't matter if it's a bigger invasion of privacy.

This is literally the same as illegalizing incest, unless you're suggesting that pregnancy is mutually exclusive from sex.

a.) This doesn't change whether it's possible to illegalize it

b.) There are already laws regarding incest on the books

a) of course it does, because it would be unconstitutional via 14th amendment

b) you were the one who initially suggested it was possible that instead of illegalizing incest, you could illegalize the birth of a product of incest

I don't care whether it would be unfair, I'm saying that it's within the power of the government to illegalize producing children through incest. I still don't know why the hell you're debating this with me.

They don't have that power, since it's discriminatory without the initial incest laws.

[Esau of Isaac]

Whatever. You got me. The legislative branch of the government has no powers to create laws because you say the courts would surely overturn it. The almighty head of the judicial system has spoken, all rise for the honorable Constable Reggie

[Constable Reggie]

You may be seated Nonononono, Congress definitely has the power to try and pass those laws (you weren't arguing this). Upholding and enforcing them is an entirely different matter (this, you were).

Edited May 7, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

Upholding and enforcing them is never a sure thing, but I never argued the government would definitely succeed. I didn't even argue that it would be very tenable. I just argued that you can conceptually legalize incest without legalizing pregnancy from incest. I still have no idea why you are arguing with me over this.

[Constable Reggie]

Except you can't, because, again, the 14th amendment exists with Roe v. Wade (or simply the 14th amendment if you're arguing conception and not birth) being precedent. They can try and illegalize it, but if that's what you're arguing, why bother bringing that up in the first place? It'd be like bringing up that Congress can pass a law that dissolves the executive branch.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

You're arguing from a legal standpoint, I'm arguing from a logical one. And what you're saying is not nearly so slamdunk as you describe. It wouldn't be rendered blatantly unconstitutional on its face.

[Constable Reggie]

What's not so slamdunk about it? From your two possible arguments:

Birth: goes against Roe v. Wade's interpretation of the due process clause, of that it protects women's choice over pregnancy, by forcing women to perform an abortion to avoid prosecution, essentially the parallel opposite to banning abortion

Conception: goes against Lawrence v. Texas' interpretation of the due process, of that it protects personal decisions "relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education", illegalizing pregnancy essentially forbids you from having sex, because pregnancy can not be entirely controlled.

If you bring up the issue that potential infant defects constitutes justified state interference, why haven't they made laws forbidding people with passable genetic diseases from having babies?

Edited May 8, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

Birth: goes against Roe v. Wade's interpretation of the due process clause, of that it protects women's choice over pregnancy, by forcing women to perform an abortion to avoid prosecution, essentially the parallel opposite to banning abortion

It wouldn't conflict because the woman would not be state-mandated to choose one over the other.

Conception: goes against Lawrence v. Texas' interpretation of the due process, of that it protects personal decisions "relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education", illegalizing pregnancy essentially forbids you from having sex, because pregnancy can not be entirely controlled.

I am not seeing in Lawrence v. Texas how it is specifically applied towards impregnation through incest. Wouldn't the fact that there are still state laws prohibiting incest argue against your argument that it's so clearly unconstitutional?

If you bring up the issue that potential infant defects constitutes justified state interference, why haven't they made laws forbidding people with passable genetic diseases from having babies?

Because it's not as disgusting to the populace as incest is? I don't know. I don't care either. I'm not arguing whether it's just, I'm arguing whether it would be possible. Why in the name of god are you splitting hairs over something so utterly unrelated? Jesus Christ.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

It wouldn't conflict because the woman would not be state-mandated to choose one over the other.

Surely you can go past surface-level thinking and understand that banning one of the options forces you to perform the other.

I am not seeing in Lawrence v. Texas how it is specifically applied towards impregnation through incest. Wouldn't the fact that there are still state laws prohibiting incest argue against your argument that it's so clearly unconstitutional?

I brought it up because it's the most recent case to affirm that private sexual activity, of which that doesn't necessitate a significant state interest, is protected by the due process clause (the only possible state interest specific to incestuous couples, as I brought up, is potential health problems). Obviously there's no cases regarding incestuous pregnancies because incest between two legally consenting and directly related adults, as far as I know, has never been challenged federally.

If you didn't mean the birth of a product of incest in your initial post, what exactly are the differences, according to you, between banning incest, and banning conception from incest? Can incestuous couples be allowed to marry if only the second law applied (I'm not asking for your personal opinion on this, I'm asking of your legal definition of your possible law)?

I'm arguing whether it would be possible.

Erm, precedent law decides whether it would be possible (I've been arguing legality, not just), unless you've been arguing possible only in the manner of "Congress can pass a law about it" possible. If you did, I expect better from you.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

Surely you can go past surface-level thinking and understand that banning one of the options forces you to perform the other.

No it doesn't. To relate to an earlier sentiment, are rapists force to murder their victims after raping them to avoid getting caught?

I brought it up because it's the most recent case to affirm that private sexual activity, of which that doesn't necessitate a significant state interest, is protected by the due process clause (the only possible state interest specific to incestuous couples, as I brought up, is potential health problems). Obviously there's no cases regarding incestuous pregnancies because incest between two legally consenting and directly related adults, as far as I know, has never been challenged federally.

You mentioned federally, but does this not apply on a state level?

If you didn't mean the birth of a product of incest in your initial post, what exactly are the differences, according to you, between banning incest, and banning conception from incest? Can incestuous couples be allowed to marry if only the second law applied (I'm not asking for your personal opinion on this, I'm asking of your legal definition of your possible law)?

I don't know. I didn't bother much thinking about it because it was a single sentence completely unrelated to legalese that was subsequently taken and formed into an unrelated argument.

Erm, precedent law decides whether it would be possible (I've been arguing legality, not just), unless you've been arguing possible only in the manner of "Congress can pass a law about it" possible. If you did, I expect better from you.

When I say a guy with a gun can kill a man, I'm not arguing whether he is legally justified. I am saying that there can be a distinction between allowing incest and allowing incestuous pregnancies. I have no idea how you are still finding trouble grasping this and going off on an unrelated legal tangent I never brought up and don't care to talk about.

[Constable Reggie]

No it doesn't. To relate to an earlier sentiment, are rapists force to murder their victims after raping them to avoid getting caught?

In this case, the rapist already performed the crime (killing the victim afterwards doesn't suddenly absolve you of guilt, legally). A pregnant woman hasn't.

How can you not understand illegalization of the birth of a baby, and illegalization of the abortion, are equally infringing on a woman's choice to her pregnancy? If one of them was already outlawed, why wouldn't the other be?

You mentioned federally, but does this not apply on a state level?

The point was that no one challenged the constitutionality of the (extremely various and diverse) state incest laws, as far as I know. No one seems to have an issue with them, so who cares, right?

I am saying that there can be a distinction between allowing incest and allowing incestuous pregnancies. I have no idea how you are still finding trouble grasping this and going off on an unrelated legal tangent I never brought up and don't care to talk about.

But you can't legalize incest without authorizing them to have children.

How the hell else do you expect me to take your initial post (that specifically said "children born through incest", not simply pregnancies) when it was in response to this?

Edited May 8, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

In this case, the rapist already performed the crime (killing the victim afterwards doesn't suddenly absolve you of guilt, legally). A pregnant woman hasn't.

Well, couldn't she be guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime before the fact? >_>

How can you not understand illegalization of the birth of a baby, and illegalization of the abortion, are equally infringing on a woman's choice to her pregnancy? If one of them was already outlawed, why wouldn't the other be?

Because it's a specific circumstance instead of the thing itself. You can illegalize slander and libel while still keeping free speech a right.

The point was that no one challenged the constitutionality of the (extremely various and diverse) state incest laws, as far as I know. No one seems to have an issue with them, so who cares, right?

So why would anyone care in this case, then?

How the hell else do you expect me to take your initial post (that specifically said "children born through incest", not simply pregnancies) when it was in response to this?

Because the United States isn't the be-all end-all for making rules? When you hear "You can't legalize incest without authorizing them to have children," do you instantly place those words within the United States legal framework? Seriously?

Edited May 8, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

Well, couldn't she be guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime before the fact? >_>

Grasping at straws.

Because it's a specific circumstance instead of the thing itself. You can illegalize slander and libel while still keeping free speech a right.

You're going to have explain how illegalizing the birth of an incestuous baby is not illegalizing the birth of a baby. What makes incestuous birth a circumstance that warrants state interference?

Defamation is not considered protected speech (I'll also bring up the fact that the burden of proof on the legitimacy of defamation is heavily on the plaintiff).

So why would anyone care in this case, then?

Maybe they wouldn't; still would be unconstitutional to outlaw pregnancies resulting from it.

Because the United States isn't the be-all end-all for making rules? When you hear "You can't legalize incest without authorizing them to have children," do you instantly place those words within the United States legal framework? Seriously?

This is an incredibly weak argument that holds no merit after so many responses. If you weren't talking about it in the context of the US, why didn't you say so in your immediate post, let alone any post before this one? Why did you continue arguing in the context of US law instead of pointing out that you simply meant it in general?

Edited May 8, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Knife]

Nobody cares, get back to the incests. I will be eating popcorn in this corner.