Eugenics, Incest, and Ethical Considerations

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Note: I have no opinion on this issue at the moment. By virtue of that, I would favor inaction by default. I am open-minded as I tend to have such an approach to most things. Hence the thread.

Here is the issue. If parents and children, or brothers and sisters, are having children (not relationships), does the state have business intervening. Genetically speaking, it could be argued that the child has a significant chance of living a poor quality life and/or making society worse off.

Here is a random article giving an idea of what we're dealing with here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1504045/?page=1

Should couples be able to roll the dice on having a healthy child when the odds are so stacked against them? Should they be able to do so if there were a 99% chance the child would have horribly life threatening and painful conditions? This seems difficult to justify, but perhaps it can be done.

Could the child simply be euthanized? People have a right to their body, but they have no right to things outside it. However, after the fetus can feel pain, would certain conditions make existence in the womb an excruciating experience for the organism inside? Does this warrant consider? If so, are there any non-liberty infringing options? Should any action be taken?

The obvious problem I see is "everyone and their mother" (is this a sexist expression? If so, why?) seem to believe incest is "wrong" and it's "obvious" but eugenics receives near-pedophilia levels of disdain. Yet we already engage in eugenics freely, by testing ourselves. We simply do not apply it coercion to others. If that's not an option, would eugenics be encouraged? I have some genetic conditions. They aren't actually that bad, but they are a strong motivation for my desire not to have children. Should society be praising me as a great person? If they do this, does it necessarily demean those who choose not to? I think not, but I've seen arguments like that made and would be interested in any such viewpoints.

Here is our little simple format because I ramble:

1. If incest is wrong, it is wrong because society and/or children are harmed.
2. If incest is wrong, it is justifiable for the state to ensure children do not result from incestuous relationships, assuming their actions are justifiable within a moral or political context.
3. Most people accept that restrictions on incest are acceptable.
4. Although these people could be mistaken, we can take it for granted as true because it "just seems obvious." 3 and 4 are obviously some targets for potential critique here.
5. If restrictions on incest are acceptable because of their consequences, non-incestual relationships that result in similar results because of the knowing actions of sexual partners, restrictions should be placed on these relationships in the interests of fairness and consistency.
6. Slippery slope arguments about the difficulty of implementing a policy are not legitimate. Life is complex. Slippery slope arguments need to establish a consistent pattern of causation that suggests a problem, not simply beg the question.
7. Eugenics policies should be encouraged far more than they are in current societies.

Now I don't know a lot of leftists, but I see a lot of them defend prohibitions on incest while berating eugenics, which has a vary broad definition. Can we reconcile these two? Should we go to the side of complete equality? Can a leftist legitimately support coercive policies (directly or indirectly) that encourage eugenics? Or is it simply non-consistent for a leftist to support such policies?

Thanks

[Calmwinds]

Eugenics just largely has a fear of KKK/Nazi assosiations and such, and eugenics is NOT that.

But to the 'have little chance of having healthy children, I would easily support them having a try and support euthanasia in the case the child has large inclinations toward violence, mental problems, or a deformity that would decrease happiness for herself and her parents.

I do not think support towards benevolent eugenics makes one an inconsistent leftist. Though support malevolent eugenics would lead to genocide, and that clearly we do not want. Things like removing repeated violent criminals from society (As the vast majority of crime is done by them) and not letting them reproduce is a good kind of eugenics.

[Uppercut]

As far as eugenics goes, I support a woman's right to abortion 100%. It's a personal choice. If the child has a strong chance of inheriting a serious hereditary disease (40% or so) or if it is already confirmed the child will have problems of the like, I think restrictions need to be put in place for that kind of circumstance. Some mothers may not like it though, or view it as going the route of Nazi Germany.

Incest, I'm a little iffy on. I support a liberal sexual policy, but I think legalizing incest is taking it too far. If a couple does choose to engage in incest...well, they can just keep it to themselves.

[vyborg]

Incest taboo has nothing to do with health. This is a classical rationalistic recontruction of modern science. Incest taboo are linked to the development of ancient society.

I advise you to read some antropological book (Levi Strauss and others) on the topic

[Belisarius]

Incest taboo has nothing to do with health. This is a classical rationalistic recontruction of modern science. Incest taboo are linked to the development of ancient society.

I advise you to read some antropological book (Levi Strauss and others) on the topic
the incest taboo is also the core of the oedipal complex of freud and lacan in psychoanalysis.

[vyborg]

the incest taboo is also the core of the oedipal complex of freud and lacan in psychoanalysis.

I agree, I advise in particular, the books of the french babies psycoanalist Francoise Dolto. She was catholic....unfortunately...still she was very deep and interesting

[Invincible Summer]

Eugenics just largely has a fear of KKK/Nazi assosiations and such, and eugenics is NOT that.

But to the 'have little chance of having healthy children, I would easily support them having a try and support euthanasia in the case the child has large inclinations toward violence, mental problems, or a deformity that would decrease happiness for herself and her parents.

I do not think support towards benevolent eugenics makes one an inconsistent leftist. Though support malevolent eugenics would lead to genocide, and that clearly we do not want. Things like removing repeated violent criminals from society (As the vast majority of crime is done by them) and not letting them reproduce is a good kind of eugenics.


BUT THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL!!!!










No, I'm just kidding. Sort of. I generally agree with what you're saying about eugenics.

[mikelepore]

Incest isn't "wrong." It's dangerous because a large number of the offspring are mentally or physically defective due to the manifestation of recessive genes.

[Meridian]

BUT THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL!!!!


No, I'm just kidding. Sort of. I generally agree with what you're saying about eugenics.
As soon as you start talking about "benevolent eugenics", or the rights of its victims, you are not talking about the "rights of the individual". You are talking about the right to live for masses of people.

[vyborg]

Incest isn't "wrong." It's dangerous because a large number of the offspring are mentally or physically defective due to the manifestation of recessive genes.

This also happens all the time with other kind of genetical combination. And science could easily overcome the problem. The point is not medical, it is a problem of relationship between human beings

[mikelepore]

You know when we are able to say that "science could easily overcome the problem"? Only looking back after science has already done it. Eradicating the smallpox virus, that was easy ... it was easy once everyone was vaccinated ... but not so easy for the first 3000 years.

[elf]

Incest isn't "wrong." It's dangerous because a large number of the offspring are mentally or physically defective due to the manifestation of recessive genes.
What about between same sex couples, or when one or both in the couple are sterile, or in another situation where no children can result? It isn't wrong, and it isn't dangerous, so should it be stopped?