Sex or marriage with a cousin. Opinions wanted.

[vashti]

oh, i'm sorry, I thought you were annoyed because this just seems to keep going.
I'd say there are no sides, but that sounds so moral-high-ground-grabbey

No sides? I figured you either supported incest or you don't. I don't. Blix does. Do you?

Basically, I feel that everything that can be said HAS been said. No one is going to change their minds. Why do I keep reading? Because it is like a train wreck - you just have to look.

[Tiay]

I think vashti realises we're going to keep posting for a little while, so it makes no difference.

I agree - or rather, I have always said - that sex between relatives is ok by me as long as they are not too closely related. However, I see why sex with cousins is illegal - research, as far as i know, is still in dispute if cousin-sex increases the risk of defects, so when in doubt why not just make it illegal, there are plenty of fish in the sea!
what else do you want me to agree to? and why can't you see this as a common quest for knowledge rather than an argument?

edit now that I see vashti's latest post:
'incest' often extends beyond what is considered genetically incompatible. so I am only against inbreeding, not incest as defined as a social/religious custom.

[Blix]

Right, even though you haven't presented any reasons besides birth defects as to why it's wrong. Though not everyone has children.

Vashti you really don't know how to debate at all. You present week points then say "I really don't see how you can see it any other way. [I'm right. now stop arguing]."

~Blix

[Blix]

[url]http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/columns/fl.grossman.incest.04.09/[/url]

The report concludes that cousins can have children together without running much greater risk than a "normal" couple of their children having genetic abnormalities. Accordingly, the report potentially undermines the primary justification for laws that prevent first cousins from marrying or engaging in sexual relations with one another.

~Blix

[Tiay]

no.. I .. can't think of another reason right now. I think the crippled children reason will do. Also, as I mentioned a while ago, accidents happen even when you decide not to have children.

the differing definitions of incest and inbreeding is something I didn't know before. I learned something new and now I can define my opinion better; for me that's the point of this, that's why I say there are no sides.

edit:
didn't see the last post blix.
that's just one report. the reports are in disbute, so that's why the law is still there. maybe the law is wrong.

[Blix]

I'd find more reports if I were a lawyer, sense there most certainly are others. Unfortunately I'm not a lawyer. So we'll have to go with that.

However if an accident where to happen they could either...

A) Have an abortion
B) Morning After Pill
C) Live out the pregnancy with the chance of a baby with problems or a perfectly healthy baby. Which is still a safe choice with odds favoring normality. Especially sense the couple was attracted to one another.
D) Don't get married. Don't be with your cousin because of the chance. Or don't have sex at all. (Abstinence)
E) There may be other ways to deal with this

You're not stuck with a child if you really don't want one.

~Blix

[Tiay]

A) what if abortion is also illegal? it is where I live. I am pro-choice myself tho.
B) when I said accidents happen, I was including missing the morning after pill.
C) You'd have broken the contract. Also, even if the baby does not have a defect, it's immune system probably wouldn't be strengthened by parental diversity.
D) The safest rout would be to just avoid cousins altogether even if genetically speaking the risk of defects is small - there are plenty of fish in the sea, why mess with something that might be risky when you don't have to?
E) probably.. I can't think of any off the top of my head.

[Blix]

Okay well those chances are still minimum. If they use only a condom they have more than a 90% chance of being perfectly safe. Then they could use all sorts of things like Spermacide, diaphrams, etc.

If they got drunk one night and didn't use those things well then again we meet the morning after pill. Being smart if they really don't want a child even if they don't remember having sex they'll go get one to be safe, or have some at their place (I'm not exactly sure if thse can just sit around the house or have to bought as they're needed),

Then they can either go somewhere that it's legal and get an abortion or have the bloody child.

~Blix

[Tiay]

and If I felt like It I could find articles about why cousin-sex is genetically wrong. As I said, it seems to be in debate. Experts would have to be super-sure about it before the law would react to it-- that is, if the law is based on genetics at all and not the bible or something.

and what if they're not smart? What if they think they can avoid pregnancy using positions or pulling out? The law has to be solid.. it can't say "only allowed if you're smart" or some such. It has to say if it's allowed or not. And if it were allowed, trust me, someone, somewhere, would have a defect child. And it wouldn't matter that most people weren't even attracted to their cousins, that most cousin-couples didn't have children and were smart/lucky enough not to have an accident, or even that most of the children were normal.

Travelling, or assisting someone to travel in order to get an abortion is illegal too. Rape victims were physically prevented from leaving the country in order to have abortions in Britain.
Or.. Wait, I think they voted on that a few years ago and now you can travel, if I remember correctly.. but still, what if you can't afford to? it's all a big mess.


"the bloody child" "You're not stuck with a child if you really don't want one".. ?

what, give it away for adoption because it's defective?! People who unknowingly pass on a defect, they tend to feel responsible for bringing a life into the world, blame themselves for carrying the gene, etc.. and well, if some people aren't responsible or mature enough to take responsibility, the law-makers figured it wasn't a choice they would leave open.

[Blix]

Well I can't account for stupid laws. Though you may not be pro abortion. I'm not going to argue that here.

If the people are stupid enough to use the pull out method as their soul means of protection then they shouldn't be having a child period.

~Blix

[Tiay]

I said I was pro choice before.

Well.. I suppose it's not a matter of stupidity as much as education. And accidents happen to smart people too.
But anyways. How are you going to make a law for that? Everybody must have an IQ test before becoming pregnant? Everyone's maturity and ability to take care of a child must be assessed before they are allowed to have become parents?

[Blix]

If a law like that were presented I'd be ALL for it.

~Blix

[Tiay]

I think the world needs population control anyway. But such a law would be way too complicated and controversial. Plus you have the problem that when you have humans judging humans, it's always subjective. Hitler had decided that Jewish women weren't allowed to have children. And you can say "that's different", but the second you have a law that messes with such fundamental right, it is open to abuse and corruption.

[Blix]

Yeah. Plus it may become really corrupt. Ah well, can't have it all.

~Blix

[Tiay]

heh, yeah, powerful politicians would all have kids, etc..
anyway, natural selection does a good job too you might say we've evaded natural selection by providing medical care, etc, .. but that's just part of what makes our species strong. There are other animals too who let injured individuals recover.