The_Raven on 14/1/2008 at 22:12
Quote:
I'm aware of the higher health risks for a possible child, but if they choose not to have one, then I don't see any the problem. Anyway, there are plenty of couples where both persons know they are a carrier of a genetic disease, and yet still choose to be together and have children.
That's pretty much my opinion on the matter as well. One thing to note, is that in the case of other couple, the chances are a lot lower of both of them carrying the exact mutated, recessive genes that are the root of a lot of diseases. Even if they share the same phenotype, ie both have been diagnosed with the same disease, then you still have to consider all the other mutated, recessive genes that they have that aren't presented in their phenotype; due to the fact that "healthly", dominant genes are keeping them at bay. The chances of offspring having as many problems from this union are a lot smaller than the offspring of genetic siblings.
Even if both parties consent to the fact that it would be grossly irresponsible to have kids, unless they both get vasectomies/tubal ligation, then accidents do happen. I can't think of any of the usual birth control methods that are 100% effective. Then again, I'm not that educated on the matter either.
DinkyDogg on 14/1/2008 at 22:50
Do you also make it illegal for alcoholics or crack addicts to have sex, then? And what about those who know they have a potentially heritable genetic disease - should they be banned from having sex?
It would be irresponsible for a crack addict or a pair of siblings to get pregnant, but a ban on consensual adult sex for these groups seems kind of Draconian.
Spaztick on 14/1/2008 at 22:55
Quote Posted by SD
To a large extent I agree with you. In this day and age, a prohibition against incest seems an absurd infringement of the human right to consent to sexual relations with another adult.
But our society is full of weird and illogical sexual taboos and restrictions like that. I mean, it's okay to kill an animal, but try having sex with one, and you'll probably end up in the clink. Someone explain that one to me please :)
Because nobody wants the image of a man plugging a sheep burned in their mind.
DinkyDogg on 14/1/2008 at 23:06
I suppose you've never seen hens in battery cages. The image of a man boning a sheep is far more pleasant.
The_Raven on 14/1/2008 at 23:28
Quote:
It would be irresponsible for a crack addict or a pair of siblings to get pregnant, but a ban on consensual adult sex for these groups seems kind of Draconian.
That was exactly what I was trying to say.
Scots Taffer on 15/1/2008 at 00:21
Quote Posted by AR Master
be comforted by the [small] one in your pants
in psychology, i believe they call this "transferrence"
SubJeff on 15/1/2008 at 00:52
No, what you're doing is called deflection.
Deflection away from us bringing up your sister itt.
I see what you're saying SD but I think you've taking the liberalism too far. I can't quite say why, but it's just. too. far. man.
mopgoblin on 15/1/2008 at 05:50
Quote Posted by The_Raven
Even if both parties consent to the fact that it would be grossly irresponsible to have kids, unless they both get vasectomies/tubal ligation, then accidents do happen. I can't think of any of the usual birth control methods that are 100% effective. Then again, I'm not that educated on the matter either.
There's a contraceptive implant that is significantly more effective than sterilisation, and some other methods have failure rates comparable to sterilisation.
SD on 15/1/2008 at 07:57
Quote Posted by AR Master
SD comes roaring in to defend siblings fucking, perhaps while sweatily flipping a wallet-sized photo of his hot sister/cousin between his fingers, no one surprised
yeah cos we lieberals only stand up for rights when its our own that are being infringed
D'Juhn Keep on 15/1/2008 at 08:05
When I told my girlfriend (no relation) this, her response was why would they separate twins at birth? Which is quite a good point really, isn't that unusual?
