| Welcome to Coffeetalk. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Incest | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 19 2007, 10:27 AM (269 Views) | |
| Drew | Mar 19 2007, 10:27 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Apparently not Cybersquirt's favorite person
|
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? |
| Poor baby. Couldn't find a fight anywhere else so you had to come here, huh. -Cyber. | |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Mar 19 2007, 02:41 PM Post #2 |
|
Reliant
|
I'd like to read more about the case but to start us off Wiki has some info regarding laws in the US and other countries and inbreeding and does mention, briefly, the case in question. Wiki Incest In theory, an adult/sibling relationship is not harming society. I think it's understandable that relatives raised apart and meeting as adult strangers could find each other attractive and could fall in love. I still think its taboo and I probably wouldn't be friends with them. From what I gather, this couple is harming society by their relationship, and burdening the state (society) by the cost of their children in foster care and 50% of the children have difficulties and will probably cost the state for the rest of their lives. I assume the man's in jail because he keeps fathering children with his sister. If they wish to continue their relationship than one or the other should agree to a long term sterilization which for the male is usually reversible. I think the brother/sister seem freaky. I think parent/child incest is a heinuous crime that deserves the harshest punishment and I think incest should be avoided in general and is probably not terribly healthy and is really gross. ![]() |
| |
![]() |
|
| Drew | Mar 19 2007, 03:01 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Apparently not Cybersquirt's favorite person
|
So, do you think that the government has the right to force the issue of birth control/sterilization I think it would be acceptable for Germany to, say, offer a conditional release contingent on one of the 2 undergoing sterilization. If the couple refused to comply then, I would likely be fine with the couple's imprisonment (and I think it needs to be both members of the couple...the sex was consensual, after all.). |
| Poor baby. Couldn't find a fight anywhere else so you had to come here, huh. -Cyber. | |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Mar 19 2007, 04:18 PM Post #4 |
|
I haz powah!
|
I don't agree with the idea in the video that just because they are brother and sister they are discriminated against from having babies with a significantly higher chance of birth defects/disabilities, there are laws against it for a reason and the consequences of inbreeding are well known. I think that the government should have a right to say over what controls they want to enforce. The way the brother/sister seem so calm about it is freaky, but I guess it its not like they grew up knowing one another is it? |
![]() |
|
| Drin0 | Mar 19 2007, 10:14 PM Post #5 |
|
kicking out the jams
|
I don't think incest is a good thing--it certainly wouldn't appeal to me. But I don't know if a government should be able to declare it illegal. If the rationale behind it is disabled children, then what about disabled adults whose disability may pass to their own children? Following that line gets close to eugenics. If it's not about disabled children, then how is it any more different from a normal heterosexual relationship than being homosexual? It's up to the adults to choose, even if it's a choice I don't agree with. |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Mar 19 2007, 11:15 PM Post #6 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I'm wondering why the children are in foster care: is it because they have disabilities? Because the dad was in prison? Or they are neglected and at risk? If it's because they have a disability, then the couple's statement about wanting to have a family is less than true. All of the stuff about eugenics is by the by: ultrasounds and other tests identify malformations in utero all the time, and people make choices according to what they want. The real reason this is a biggie because everyone thinks "Sex with my brother? EEEWWWWW." That's why God programmed us with sibling rivalry. A good healthy hatred of each other balances out the affection, and you don't have these problems later. Now these two unfortunates have missed the opportunity to wish the other had never been born, and here we are. I am both appalled and sorry for them: on finding out their relationship, they are still so desperate to be together they go through all this. EEEEWWWWW. However, why shouldn't they? What business is it of anyone else? Our instincts are telling us this is horribly wrong and that loud EEEWWWWWW going off in our heads makes us want to put on our jack boots: but really, are they junkies? Child abusers? Direly neglectful? Those are the reasons government services should be involved. Do we really need sibling incest laws? Is there a big rush on brothers and sisters wanting to live together forever and breed? No. This is an extremely isolated case. |
![]() |
|
| Drew | Mar 20 2007, 01:56 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Apparently not Cybersquirt's favorite person
|
I don't think the state should break them up, but I have a serious problem allowing them to breed. They are going to raise their children with the idea that incest is perfectly fine and acceptable, and that is going to seriously affect their children's outlook, making them rather more likely to repeat what their parents have done. The problem is that shit rolls downhill. If their kids have an incestuous relationship (something of which the parents would likely approve...and perhaps even encourage) and reproduce, those kids will be seriously messed up (and I'm not talking about their mental health, either). When one couple keeps it "in the family" it is unlikely to cause any serious damage to the gene pool...but, when it continues, the pool gets more and more polluted. How many generations of incestuous reproduction should occur before the government steps in and puts a stop to it? |
| Poor baby. Couldn't find a fight anywhere else so you had to come here, huh. -Cyber. | |
![]() |
|
| Bex | Mar 20 2007, 03:03 AM Post #8 |
|
puppet dictator
|
Read it again. Mind, I'm just playing around, and gays having kids doesn't affect the gene pool. Still, sometimes I wonder about our cultural biases. I did not watch the video. I can't make any judgement about whether this couple would encourage their children to follow in their footsteps. It is true that multigenerational inbreeding increases the probability of genetic flaws being reproduced as everyone from dog breeders (hip dysplasia) to royal families (hemophilia) can demonstrate. I really can't take issue with anyone's sexual preference provided it's not causing harm to anyone. Harm to potential offspring? I don't know. Andyr (aka Drin0, for our newcomers) raises a good point about eugenics though. In many ways, all you can fairly do is educate people and hope they'll make the right choice. Now, if they wanted a family, what about adoption? Then we really get into an interesting comparison to homosexual couples. |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| Drew | Mar 20 2007, 03:36 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Apparently not Cybersquirt's favorite person
|
@Bex: Sexual orientation is a matter of to whom you are attracted. Given that the children of gay families haven't been shown to be more likely to be gay, it's pretty clear that being accepting of homosexuality doesn't lead to homosexual behavior. Being attracted to people of your own gender does. Incest, however, is a matter of greatly increasing the odds of a laundry list of serious birth defects. I could care less about whether some brother and sister decide to fuck. More power to them. I do, however, have a problem when they decide to reproduce and then encourage their kids to reproduce, too. If your sister is hot, and you've been raised believing it is perfectly alright and harmless to fuck your sister, you aren't likely to leave the house when you're looking to get laid. That's not a morals or ethics problem. It's genetic problem. |
| Poor baby. Couldn't find a fight anywhere else so you had to come here, huh. -Cyber. | |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Mar 20 2007, 02:15 PM Post #10 |
|
Reliant
|
I think there probably is a correlation between incestuous behavior between adults leading to possible incestuous behavior between the children. Abusive parents do actually influence their children's behavior not only within the family but also future relationships. The cycle of violence and all. I assume these kids will need a whole lot of counseling too which I again assume will be paid for by the state. I think it's a good thing that society on the whole is opposed to incest. As to the sterilization aspect, well, either the brother or sister should consent to voluntary sterilization. Why I think the two are freaky is threefold, one the body language on the video seemed odd but that aside, I think having four children in four years that are fostered and suffering from disabilities would cause most sensible people to rethink their actions, and yeah, even though I believe it is possible to fall in love with a previously unknown sibling :hurl:, I still think it's pretty odd to pursue a sexual relationship with a known sibling. In New England, we had a case of incest (more than one, I'm sure), basically, a 13 yr old girl left New Hampshire and went to work in one the mercantile factories in Massachussetts in the beginning of the 20 th century. She was either raped or seduced by a factory foreman and impregnated. The child was given up for adoption at birth. Years later, the mother and son meet as strangers, fall in love and marry, there are no children. They are married devotedly for some years when it is discovered they are related. Most people were very sympathetic to their plight. I can't remember the end of the story. Sorry. It's not an unknown situation but I doubt this story would have reached national prominence were not children involved, the disabilities of the children and the number of children, and the State (Society) is burdened with care of the disabled children, possibly for life. The couple's argument that adult incestuous relationships should not be discriminated against because it causes Society no harm may be true but not in their case. <_< As to eugenics, in the US, it is now advised that every pregnant woman be tested for Down Syndrome (I believe) and in most cases if the test is confirmed positive most of the pregnancies are terminated. Here's one problem with the test, it is unable to determine how profoundly affected the child will be. A child could have a very mild case or be devestatingly affected. In the past, Down Syndrome children were institutionalized and had numerous health problems and I believe were not expected to live past thirty. Today with advances the Down Syndrome child may be expected to live a relatively healthy life and be integrated happily into society. One charming aspect of the Down Syndrome child is they have very sweet personalities. It's a tough question. Some will opt to have a child with Down Syndrome, many will not. We had case of a college professor, late 30s, who opted to keep her child who was profoundly disabled by Down Syndrome, the professor suffered from postpartum depression and when the child was 6 months, the Professor killed herself and the child. While it is tempting and possibly even technically correct to lable this 'eugenics' perhaps the subject is more profound and I tend to believe it is individual choice but then again, the State or Society does have a right to intervene if they are expected to foot the bill. Personally, I have some doubts that the children's disabilities are the result of the incest but still it is a question and a risk that the couple, I assume, willingly took repeatedly and yet expects Society to pay for their choice. Harvard is doing an incest study in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Riyadh has the highest known concentration of first cousin marriages in the world. I wonder what their conclusion will be. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Mar 20 2007, 09:48 PM Post #11 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I love it when you read my posts. :rolleyes: Despite the fact you are all ignoring me, I am going to bravely blather on. Drew is seriously underestimating the EEEWWW facor. It is the real reason incest is taboo. Normal people say it at the idea. Society hasn't got together and discussed it: it's a visceral reaction. Would the couple raise their children to believe nookie with each other is OK? The woman has a different surname to the man: avoiding it on purpose? And would the children, who have been raised knowing their relationship - and having engaged in all the sibling rivalry and disputes and jealousy and hatred that is part of growing up - want to have sexual relationships with each other? I'd say no. The EEEWWWW reaction would set in. As to the question of eugenics vs welfare state: Do the children have disabilities? Why are they in foster care? Regullus seems sure they have disabilities, but I didn't get that from the video, which is leaving out a lot of information. I say again, if those two have had children as they contend, to make a family, and then give up their children: well, I'd say the government is dealing with the man properly. And the woman should be in prison, too. (That's putting aside my initial emotional response.) It's clear that they have a long history of support from welfare services: and I'm laying money they both have serious mental issues, neglect, abandonment, etc etc. Not often a good place from which to make babies. The deal is: be responsible parents, look after your children, or suffer consequences. We don't ask for sterilisation of people we fear will stuff up parenting - that is eugenics, and I am very uncomfortable with that: but we do remove children from families where they are at risk. Is this what has happened? Is the prison sentence for not looking after the health and safety of his children? If however, they are not giving up their children voluntarily, and are good parents, then leave them alone. They're sick and weird, but so are a lot of people. |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Mar 21 2007, 12:36 AM Post #12 |
|
Reliant
|
I almost put in my post the phrase, "As Eral has already mentioned... but as always I am fighting with a rambunctious tiny over the keyboard, I forgot. However, the information about the children's health is in the Wiki link which you appear to have neither followed nor read. <_< :D |
| |
![]() |
|
| Drew | Mar 21 2007, 03:09 AM Post #13 |
![]()
Apparently not Cybersquirt's favorite person
|
I'm not worried about how well they do or do not parent. I'm worried about the fact that everyone carries and passes on unexpressed genes for several various deformities, mutations, and other genetic abnormalities. These conditions are unexpressed because such traits are normally recessive. Since it is rare that two non-blood-related people will both carry the non-expressed gene for the same deformity or abnormality, it is rare that these negative traits will ever express themselves. Not so for siblings. It is highly likely that such couples will both carry the same non-expressed negative genes, and there is a 25% chance that, for each defect for which the couple is heterozygous (carrying one gene), that the defect will express itself. The real nasty part is that it is also highly likely that the couple will be mutually heterozygous for more than one such negative trait. In other words, their child might dodge the Downs Syndrome bullet only to have an arm growing out of his ass instead. Genetics is a big consideration. |
| Poor baby. Couldn't find a fight anywhere else so you had to come here, huh. -Cyber. | |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Mar 21 2007, 02:55 PM Post #14 |
|
Reliant
|
More details: Couple stand by forbidden love Apparently, some people don't read the links, here's the highlights: 1. The brother served two years for incest. 2. Of the four children, one is living with them. A toddler called Sofia. 3. Two of the children have special needs. A boy was born two months prematurely and suffers from epilepsy and has learning disabilities. A girl has special needs. I don't know what that means. 4. The brother was adopted as a child and met his sister at 23 and they fell in love after their mother's death. 4. The brother voluntarily underwent a vascectomy in 2004. 5. I think they are both unemployed. 6. He's 30! She's 22. Figure out the whole pregnancy timeline. Am I reading this right? Yes. If she's 22 in 07 and he had vascectomy in '04 that means the first pregnancy occured when she was... 15? & Yeah, this is one freaky situation. I think the age of consent is 13 in Germany but I'm thinking this is a really sick and unhealthy situation and relationship. Apparently, in their community, people are supportive of their plight. My mother has a friend who when she was 13 was molested by her brother who was 18 or 19 and going to Harvard at the time. The sexual relationship lasted until she was 18. My mother's friend has always said that she liked the relationship and it never bothered her. She said she liked the attention, she was emotionally neglected by her mother. I love my mother's friend but she's a little wacked. A good woman but I for one think it affected her. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Mar 22 2007, 01:41 AM Post #15 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
A sting!! A veritable sting!!
:o For your information, missy, I did so read the link. Admittedly, I skimmed. The bit actually about the couple was fifty paragraphs down the page and I did miss it the first time. As it doesn't answer my questions, I will maintain outraged honour and Woundedness until I get bored.
HA!! I would make a few snippy comments about posting a huge link when the relevant information is contained is a tiny fragment fifty paragraphs down the page, however, I am aware of your difficulties maintaining contact with the world while Lily experiments with the delete button, and also I know you can beat me to an etymological pulp so I'll stick to Woundedness. :) "Special needs" covers the spectrum from difficulty learning to intellectual disability. I'd suggest the girl has an intellectual disability: the man's being coy about it because it's not a point in his favour. Drew: I am not suggesting anyone abolish the laws on incest, but given that he has had a vasectomy, the likelihood of a child being born with an arm growing out of it's bum is pretty slim and we can stop panicking. I am assuming the incest charge he was imprisoned on relates to his relationship with this woman: if he's up on incest charges for relations with other sisters, please put him in prison again. Otherwise, maybe they should be left alone. The example of Regullus' friend supports my contention that these are seriously stuffed up people. They're a special case. A seriously icky special case, and the earliness of the first pregnancy (15? :'( ) gives rise to concerns about the woman being the victim of her predator brother. (Have they both got a shrink? I really hope so.) But you don't take children from their parents unless they are at risk or neglected. I know children who are still living with their junkie mothers - whom in my opinion are neglected and at risk. If they are bad parents, Ok: forget it. But if not, well, let them try to find some happiness. As much as they can, given that they are so badly stuffed up.
Absolutely. But I think it comes down to: how much freedom do we allow people to make bad choices? |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Mar 22 2007, 01:51 PM Post #16 |
|
Reliant
|
I have lots of questions about this case. What happened to the mother? Yeah, I do wonder if the brother wasn't involved. Why was the brother adopted? Are they full brother and sister? Why are three of the children in foster care? Is the father still alive or are there other siblings floating around? And on, but I don't think any of the answers is going to change my initial opinion. I disagree with you, Eral, I do think it should be illegal but I think prosecution should be discretionary and the penalties too. If this truly was a case of two adult siblings falling in love and acting upon their love, maybe. But this case is just so dysfunctional to me although I do agree I don't think there is much point in further interference from the State/Society except for concerns over the children. My only further comment is I am surprised that the initial age of the sister and the subsequent multiple pregnancies are not noted or particularly highlighted in the reporting that I saw. The case is presented as two adult sibling that fell in love and met for the first time as adults and that is not the case. I linked the entire Wiki article on purpose, <_< to give an overview on the subject of incest not just the individuals. I too am now Wounded.
:( :lol: |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Mar 23 2007, 09:19 AM Post #17 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Regullus: we are saying the same thing. I don't think the laws should be abolished: but discretion should be exercised in this case. The couple are so messed up, it's either continue imprisoning the man or accepting they want a relationship. Given that they won't be having be having more children, and that social services are clearly keeping an eye on them, it seems less cruel to make an exception. I believe there is a lot more information we are not being told: probably because it makes an already unpalatable story even more suss. I am making my judgement based on quasi-emotional grounds, and am aware that my conclusions may be completely off. But I do feel this is a tragic story, of two seriously disturbed people who are trying to find some happiness, in an unfortunately sick and twisted way. I think it is completely unfair for you to be wounded, too: now I have to grovel to you and apologise. :lol: The Wiki article did provide background: the reason I didn't read it all in detail is that it's an area I'm familiar with through my professional training. I did not mean to be dismissive, and will lament abjectly before your gate until you forgive me. :'( I must say, I apologise well. :) |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Mar 23 2007, 02:44 PM Post #18 |
|
Reliant
|
Tis true, you do apologize fulsomely. B) I'm glad we agree. I hope he doesn't 'fall in love' with his daughter too. :( |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Mar 23 2007, 10:36 PM Post #19 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
EEEWWWWW. Hopefully, he isn't a predator, and this relationship really is to try and fix what was broken. |
![]() |
|
| Blood_Raven | Mar 23 2007, 11:34 PM Post #20 |
![]()
Come burn with me.
|
Sick bastards. |
|
TheFrozen North forums. Where it's at. Mood for today: Perfection | |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Aug 15 2007, 01:47 PM Post #21 |
|
Reliant
|
The Incest Brother/Sister Story Via Salon The article focuses more on the right to bear potentially disabled children than the actual brother/sister which the writer agrees is an icky situation. To combat the couple's argument, according to the article, a brother/sister incest has a 50% chance of producing challenged offspring which in this case, as we have noted are being cared for by the state and since the state is involved the situation becomes a societal responsibility, etc. Most disabled people and most women over 40 don't actually have such a high risk. 1 in 2, is a very high known risk. Dwarfism is a 25% risk if two little people marry and while little people can definitely have health problems, they are usually physical in nature. Of course, many dwarfs have average sized parents and no known history of dwarfism. Down syndrome, the big risk in over 40 pregnancies, is very low and they're different levels of severity. In one of those funny statistical huh moments: Women over 40 have a higher risk of a down syndrome child but women under 40 have more down syndrome children. Why? More women under 40 have children. The risk of a down syndrome child is nowhere near the statistical risk of a brother/sister incest. Still, as long as the brother can no longer reproduce, I don't think it matters whether the couple are together or not. As we concluded sometime ago. ![]() Redundancy, its a Reg. specialty. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Aug 16 2007, 12:12 AM Post #22 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Redundant? Never! This story is compelling. The team selling the story to us should have a go at converting the Pope to Buddhism, after this. They are great at manipulating information. Who'd have thought anyone would pitch this idea? I have thought about this story for a while now. It's about individual freedom vs social responsibility. The two people involved want their personal freedom, but seem a bit hazy on the responsibility. In order to accommodate this difficulty, they want to change the social contract. Not going to happen, kids. Do we interfere in personal freedom when it impacts on the larger society? (Yes, we do.) Is it fascist to do so? (That's the one we go all bleeding heart on.) If I abrogate my responsibilities, I lose freedoms. That has to be a consequence of democracy, if it is going to work. |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Aug 16 2007, 03:06 PM Post #23 |
|
Reliant
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Table 32 · Next Topic » |








I too am now Wounded.
:( :lol: 


8:40 AM Jul 11