Held beliefs without justification

[Nalaar]

Ah. An interesting point. I rather suspect society has very marked opinions about those whose unions may lead to children with all manner of birth defects.



Certainly society in 1985 did.



In 1985, ultrasound scanning of the foetus in utero was a very, very new thing. Moira was one of the first in Wales to have it. She was required to sign a consent form agreeing to entering counselling for termination if the ultrasond scan showed certaind effects including spina bifida. I asked why. I was told point blank that the hopsital had set apolicy whereby the scan would be refused to anyone who was not prepared to abort such a pregnancy, on the grounds that every heterosexual couple who have sex know deep down that any pregnancy that results might not be perfect, but that such chance is (normally) quite small, but that it was considered by the clinicians to be too damaging to the mother's mental health to be given a test for such conditions, to be given the result that you are in fact carrying such a pregnancy, but that you are morally opposed to aborting such.



I put it to you that your claim that we do not take this issue of genetic and or other birth defects into consideration with non-incestous sex to be fatuous.

We don't make it illegal for someone to have heterosexual sex, even if there is a high chance they will pass on hereditary genetic defects unless it is a result of incest, correct?

I don't consider it an "unreasonable" topic for discussion.

Good. Neither do I.

Fair enough. I feel I have provided input to the issues raised int he OP that more than counter your suggestions they are weak or of little real relevance.



I'm not sure there's a lot more I can add.

No worries, thanks for your input.

[johnofgwent]

https://www.culture24.org.uk/science-and-nature/art521294-scientists-create-genetic-map-of-britain-to-chart-immigration-since-ice-age">https://www.culture24.org.uk/science-an ... ce-ice-age">https://www.culture24.org.uk/science-and-nature/art521294-scientists-create-genetic-map-of-britain-to-chart-immigration-since-ice-age

Ah right. To feature in that study you needed all four grandparents to have lived "closely" to each other.  Now I can see how that applies in a lot of cases, but the history of both moira's and my family cannot say that for a good four generations back from me in all directions.

[Borg Refinery]

https://www.culture24.org.uk/science-and-nature/art521294-scientists-create-genetic-map-of-britain-to-chart-immigration-since-ice-age">https://www.culture24.org.uk/science-an ... ce-ice-age">https://www.culture24.org.uk/science-and-nature/art521294-scientists-create-genetic-map-of-britain-to-chart-immigration-since-ice-age

[Borg Refinery]

Interesting.



I wonder what part of that is fear / hatred of the outlander, and what part is the reason aristocrats have weak chins.

And to double down on that, people didn't really move around a lot in the old days. A lot of people here in Hastings haven't moved from far away and have family that trace back locally.



There was a genetics map I posted on ukd which smurfy rather rudely told me off for, dunno if I can find it..

[johnofgwent]

Well it's common in 'European' ancestry folks in England too - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/science/inbreeding-study-uk-dna-university-queensland-biobank-genes-incest-a9091561.html%3Famp">https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indepe ... html%3famp">https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/science/inbreeding-study-uk-dna-university-queensland-biobank-genes-incest-a9091561.html%3famp - apparently part of Yorks are the worst for this (I suspect others are too busy rogering the sheep instead..).

Interesting.



I wonder what part of that is fear / hatred of the outlander, and what part is the reason aristocrats have weak chins.

[johnofgwent]

I do not dismiss it likely, we do however have to square it with the fact that we do not take this into account with non-incestuous couples.  

Ah. An interesting point. I rather suspect society has very marked opinions about those whose unions may lead to children with all manner of birth defects.



Certainly society in 1985 did.



In 1985, ultrasound scanning of the foetus in utero was a very, very new thing. Moira was one of the first in Wales to have it. She was required to sign a consent form agreeing to entering counselling for termination if the ultrasond scan showed certaind effects including spina bifida. I asked why. I was told point blank that the hopsital had set apolicy whereby the scan would be refused to anyone who was not prepared to abort such a pregnancy, on the grounds that every heterosexual couple who have sex know deep down that any pregnancy that results might not be perfect, but that such chance is (normally) quite small, but that it was considered by the clinicians to be too damaging to the mother's mental health to be given a test for such conditions, to be given the result that you are in fact carrying such a pregnancy, but that you are morally opposed to aborting such.



I put it to you that your claim that we do not take this issue of genetic and or other birth defects into consideration with non-incestous sex to be fatuous.

If you don't consider it a reasonable topic for discussion then don't discuss it.

I don't consider it an "unreasonable" topic for discussion. But then I'm a qualified biochemist albeit with a knowledge base primarily drawn from my last activity in the subject some time ago, with personal in your face experience of having children born with defective heart (sarah, who is now in her 30's and a mother in her own right) and other thoracic (emma, who died 15 seconds after birth never having taken a breath, who we aborted at 24 weeks becaue we knew she was not viable) defects.



If anything, it is my specific experience of having "sired" such children with absolutely no genetic or family history of such that "empowers" my discussion of the topic. My concern was why you consider it a reasonable one. Your answer, that if i do not think it reasonable then go away, is not sufficient.

I made clear from the OP that this is not something I think we should have in society, and am looking for good arguments against it that do not contradict other things we want in society.

Fair enough. I feel I have provided input to the issues raised int he OP that more than counter your suggestions they are weak or of little real relevance.



I'm not sure there's a lot more I can add.

[Borg Refinery]

And I'll say it right now. It is a fact that the NHS has said for the last ten years that Black and Minority ethnic groups have a higher risk of organ failure than whites and I wonder, I really do wonder, given the degree to which SOME of those ethnic groups practice and abuse first cousin marriage to preserve the control of financial assets, whether that abuse of their children does play some part in creating those medical problems in the grandchildren created as a result f those forced unions....

Well it's common in 'European' ancestry folks in England too - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/science/inbreeding-study-uk-dna-university-queensland-biobank-genes-incest-a9091561.html%3Famp">https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indepe ... html%3famp">https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/science/inbreeding-study-uk-dna-university-queensland-biobank-genes-incest-a9091561.html%3famp - apparently part of Yorks are the worst for this (I suspect others are too busy rogering the sheep instead..).

[Nalaar]

OK, leaving the paedophilia issue out of it, do you at least see that the issue where the incest is across generations is pretty much the same as teacher - pupil (above the age of consent). Namely that one of the two individuals has a controlling influence which may allow them to coerce the other to their will in a way a complete stranger would not ?

Sure. I can imagine situations in which someone is coerced into a relationship they do not want. Such coercion is rightly considered unwanted between a teacher and student, boss and employe etc, and would be considered as poorly in incestuous relationships.

Also, I think you have a pretty poor regard for what little remnant of society remains to us if you cannot acknowledge that the main reason such heterosexual relationships are viewed as taboo by society is the very, VERY real danger of deformed or at best weakened individuals being born to those in such couplings. I can't believe you dismiss such concerns so lightly.

I do not dismiss it likely, we do however have to square it with the fact that we do not take this into account with non-incestuous couples.  

I'm still concerned that you consider this a reasonable topic for debate

If you don't consider it a reasonable topic for discussion then don't discuss it.

and seemingly a reasonable thing to allow in open society

I made clear from the OP that this is not something I think we should have in society, and am looking for good arguments against it that do not contradict other things we want in society.

[johnofgwent]

Yes, as was mentioned before in the thread paedophilia is a a seperate issue to incest. I think the conflation of the two is understandable, but unhelpful.





True, but as mentioned in my previous posts, is a known risk of genetic issues in offspring a reason to make sex between two people illegal? It also does not take into account homosexual relationships which do not have this potential outcome.





In this case it would seem that the issue is arranged marriage, not the fact that they are related. Arranged marriages between non-related people have the same problems

OK, leaving the paedophilia issue out of it, do you at least see that the issue where the incest is across generations is pretty much the same as teacher - pupil (above the age of consent). Namely that one of the two individuals has a controlling influence which may allow them to coerce the other to their will in a way a complete stranger would not ?



Also, I think you have a pretty poor regard for what little remnant of society remains to us if you cannot acknowledge that the main reason such heterosexual relationships are viewed as taboo by society is the very, VERY real danger of deformed or at best weakened individuals being born to those in such couplings. I can't believe you dismiss such concerns so lightly.  



I'm sure you know that until Blair decided for some strange reason to allow conspiracies in back passages in the commons to undermine the stated popular view of the people and not only legalise sodomy but allow sodomists to "marry", society had a VERY different opinion and I rather suspect still does despite stonewall's rantings that it is a step "forward" to embrace such behaviour as normal.



I highlight the issue of arranged first cousin marriage because this is the only legal course by which these genetic defects in the product of such union are allowed.



I'm still concerned that you consider this a reasonable topic for debate and seemingly a reasonable thing to allow in open society. Or is this the next ratchet for the dodgy sexualbehaviour campaign bandwagon. Having legalised sodomy, incest is next on the list to allow in an ever decaying civilisation....

[Nalaar]

Can I assume we can remove these from the area of "debate" here (or are you really up for reopening the arguments put forward by paedophile information exchange ?

Yes, as was mentioned before in the thread paedophilia is a a seperate issue to incest. I think the conflation of the two is understandable, but unhelpful.

I've got a degree in biochemistry. I studied A level biology. I know a fair bit about genetics. I know a bit about limited gene pools. Six Fingered Banjo Players may be a stereotype, but it is not a joke.

True, but as mentioned in my previous posts, is a known risk of genetic issues in offspring a reason to make sex between two people illegal? It also does not take into account homosexual relationships which do not have this potential outcome.

I have every reason to consider my beliefs on marriage between cousins to preserve the control of the financial assets between certain families to be a criminal abuse of control freakery.



EDIT: And there's part of the problem right there. A huge proportion of such relationships that are permitted in law come about through the controlling influence of parents and guardians in arranged marriage and the like.

In this case it would seem that the issue is arranged marriage, not the fact that they are related. Arranged marriages between non-related people have the same problems

[johnofgwent]

OK I'll participate



I see one huge problem right from the start.



I fire up a google search on the word "incest" and instantly find half the plod of the world sit up and look at my IP but the first search that comes back is the one i wanted, the oxford dictionary definition of incest as



"noun"

"sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other."

"the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild."



So let's take this head on. Hands up those whose first thoughts when hearing this term are paedophilia. Or since paedophilia specifically refers to pre-pubescent children, the other term, which i forget now, and which I bloody well am NOT going to run a search for on google or anywhere else, which is the attraction of an adult for a post-pubescent person who has not yet reached the age of consent.



Can I assume we can remove these from the area of "debate" here (or are you really up for reopening the arguments put forward by paedophile information exchange ?



Moving forward though, we now come to the issue of sexual relations between CONSENTING persons whose status in law in the country they are resident is that they are legally free to consent to sex and of whom the law would pay no attention at all were it not for the incestuous nature of their blood relationship.



I've got a degree in biochemistry. I studied A level biology. I know a fair bit about genetics. I know a bit about limited gene pools. Six Fingered Banjo Players may be a stereotype, but it is not a joke. I have every reason to consider my beliefs on marriage between cousins to preserve the control of the financial assets between certain families to be a criminal abuse of control freakery.



EDIT: And there's part of the problem right there. A huge proportion of such relationships that are permitted in law come about through the controlling influence of parents and guardians in arranged marriage and the like.



In short then, I believe there are extremely solid justifications for the belief that almost all incestuous relationships are taboo because the consequences for any children born of such relationships are dire if the riskier side of things comes to light.



And I'll say it right now. It is a fact that the NHS has said for the last ten years that Black and Minority ethnic groups have a higher risk of organ failure than whites and I wonder, I really do wonder, given the degree to which SOME of those ethnic groups practice and abuse first cousin marriage to preserve the control of financial assets, whether that abuse of their children does play some part in creating those medical problems in the grandchildren created as a result f those forced unions....



All of that said, i suppose one is left with the question "what's the harm if I give sis one as long as i wear a condom given she's gagging for it"



well, some places will string you up for it.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_incest#Laws_regarding_incest_between_consenting_adults">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_ ... ing_adults">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_incest#Laws_regarding_incest_between_consenting_adults





And finally, I, like others on this thread, are starting to wonder at the way your mind wanders. I've spent the last couple of months pretty much breaking rocks, hacking down jungle and chainsawing and macheting twenty years of garden neglect in the hot sun and while my mind has wandered through all sorts of thoughts from my past, but I can't say I spent any time pondering this..... Mind you, I never had a sister.

[Javert]

I may be using the term inappropriately, however my understand is that 'restriction of sexual partners due to hereditary genetic concerns' seems to fall within the definition of eugenics to me. If it is not I can find suitable alternative description.

Well it may be me that's using it wrong, but I guess I thought of it more as a term whose advocates claims it is used in a "positive" sense to breed "better" people, rather than the avoidance of negative traits, but, I certainly can't claim to be an expert in the topic.

[Nalaar]

You wanted a justification for the moral argument, there is one.



..As above.



The same arguments apply.



1. Precedent wrt society/others.

2. Abuse of trust/unhealthy/dysfunctional etc.

Fair enough, I have explained why I do not find these compelling arguments, at which point I don't think we have much else to say to each other, thanks.

[Borg Refinery]

I think this raises a few contradictions because you're using the outcome as the factor against incest, but not for disabled people because of input variables.

You wanted a justification for the moral argument, there is one.

They do not chose to be disabled of course. They do chose (in as much as one can) to have children (which I don't think either of us want to deny). Again the problem with the genetic argument is it's one of outcomes, not inputs.

..As above.

It's possible to negate this line of though completely by assuming a same-sex incestuous couple, with no possibility of children resulting from their relationship.

The same arguments apply.



1. Precedent wrt society/others.

2. Abuse of trust/unhealthy/dysfunctional etc.

[Nalaar]

Not at all.



The incestuous types' dysfunctionalism is what's causing this, the disabled people were simply born that way and couldn't help it. Or something happened to them..but the point is that the disabled people can't help it.

I think this raises a few contradictions because you're using the outcome as the factor against incest, but not for disabled people because of input variables.

So you're saying disabled people can help it, and should just choose not to be disabled?

They do not chose to be disabled of course. They do chose (in as much as one can) to have children (which I don't think either of us want to deny). Again the problem with the genetic argument is it's one of outcomes, not inputs.



It's possible to negate this line of though completely by assuming a same-sex incestuous couple, with no possibility of children resulting from their relationship.