Should incest be allowed? breeding between challenged people?

When reading about somebody objecting to incest in another thread something occurred to me, since many people do want to allow incest but only between consenting adults, and that they should not be allowed to breed because the children have a chance of being somehow deformed, in mind or physically. While there is evidence to the contrary (many monarch-families have been in-breeding for a long time without many problems for example), if we assume that this is true then should we allow people that are challenged to breed, due to the high risk of deformed children, according to the same logic?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Could you please lend a few medical journals or some sort of sources that would lend credence to your claims. Saying that monarchs didn't have messed up children some 500 years ago doesn't prove anything.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

this thread isn't even about that. it even assumes that people who think that inbreeding does result in deformed children. just answer the thread question.

so why would you not allow incest, even when children are not the result, and it is between two consenting adults?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well then I am just confused. If your question is should incest be allowed I simply say no... But if you would like to have a more educated answer I recommend elaborating a little on the premise that you are going off of.

 

I voted no.
Incest exposes dysfunctional genes and causes genetic disorders to spread.

 

No, it's wrong

 

according to the same logic challenged people also shouldn't be allowed to breed, do you agree?

 

s0meguy I have no clue what you are saying... some mental disabilities are not transmittable so how are you grouping incest with mental retardation. I mean incest can cause mental problems but that's the only connection I see.

 

That's a good one.
I think that's slightly different though. Challenged people can't help the fact that they are challenged.. it would be morally wrong to keep them from reproducing on those grounds.
But I don't think challenged people, as you put it (I'm assuming you mean mentally disabled people), can take proper care of an infant.
Also, I rethought my earlier statement.. if it's certain the child will be disabled as well, these challenged people should imo not be allowed to reproduce.
Maybe they can have a baby by means of IVF though, were they can select genetically healthy zygotes, if there is a change of a healthy combination.

 

so it is still possible that disabilities are transfered from challenged people to their children. it is the same logic as with incest.

 

Please restate your question. I have no clue what you are asking... Now are you asking if disabilities can be transferred? Just take what Enmos said above.

 

Heck, I can't get past the word 'breed'. Sure you wouldn't rather use 'mate'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh no, that's what animals do... ! lol

 

What are the odds of two close relatives producing children with a pronounced genetic defect?

At least according to this source: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13686645&BRD=1706&PAG=461&dept_id=72001&rfi=6
it is between 7 and 31 percent in direct relations and 2.8 to 7% for uncle/niece and aunt/nephew relations, but not at all a well studied question.

Then again,the alternative for those children is never to be born at all, pre-emptive abortion, against the will of the would be parents.

As I am of the opinion that the pre-born have no rights at all, I have to side with giving people the liberty to choose for themselves. 31% sounds high to me, but why should I judge who pokes what into what hole if it isn't harming me? That said, I am more comfortable with the societal ban on incest, but I recognize that that's just my conditioning speaking, not a evidence of some objective taboo imposed by the universe.

 

I used the word to indicate the difference between having sex for pleasure and having sex for offspring (breeding)

english isn't my first language too.

the point of the thread was just to point out the hypocrisy of not allowing incest breeding, but allowing disabled people to do it, while they both have the same perceived disadvantages.

 

incestuous couples can't help that they are in love. i remember some health official describing the risks of inbreeding, they seemed relatively low if you ask me. just behavioural stuff.

notice how many people think incest 'is just wrong'? its just like homophobia or racism, its blind prejudice. the inbreeding argument is trumped by condoms. i read an essay suggesting incest is despised within all cultures because its necessary for the culture to thrive. inbred babies make up a crappy populace.

also, how the op is saying do we stop retarded people, should we stop dumb people too? they're likely to make dumb babies, isn't lack of intelligence a similar obstacle to that faced by retards?

 

It may be "blind prejudice" but it's that for a reason (I think taboo is more accurate).
Genetic variety is important to keep the population healthy. It's why gene flow is an important factor, especially in small populations where inbreeding may otherwise weaken the genepool.
Why do you think normal people are disgusted by the idea of having sexual intercourse with ones sibling ? It's genetically hardwired.

 

no incest leading to breeding should not be allowed, it can result in Downs babies and many other ill and sick babies

 

I think most people would think, as long as it's just their families, or only a select few families, then no one would care. But, if by chance, deformities do occur, would they not claim for special rights? , I think the last thing the health system needs is a whole new class of welfare, there are enough babies sick without deliberately risking adding more.

 

If you look back at history, you will notice that many people attempting to keep power in their own hands interbred, and that there was no special taboo against it. In Roman Egypt most of the recorded marriages were brother/sister for several centuries up to the time of Cleopatra.

I suspect that an aversion to sexual desire for those one grew up with is common, but that "disgust" is cultural. Culture has a good reason to avoid incest, to keep the population as a whole healthy, but it's clear that the level of overt repulsion has varied from society to society. That said, it's too easy to sit back and declare the things I believe to be "universal" and biological, I may well be projecting my cultural bias.

As for "challenged" people, I am opposed to the mentally challenged having children only because I doubt their capacity to fully appreciate the magnitude of the burden they are taking on. If I were satisfied that they understood it and were accepting the burden, I'd have no problem with it.