Incest remains punishable in Germany

[spartan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/27/germany.kateconnolly

This story got me thinking about what a Socialists general opinions on incest are suppossed to be?

For me it is an issue of personal autonomy where if they arent physically hurting someone else with their relationship then they should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want.

I posted this in OI so that i could hear opinions from all sides in this sticky issue.

[AGITprop]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/27/germany.kateconnolly

This story got me thinking about what a Socialists general opinions on incest are suppossed to be?

For me it is an issue of personal autonomy where if they arent physically hurting someone else with their relationship then they should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want.

I posted this in OI so that i could hear opinions from all sides in this sticky issue.

Interesting question. The only thing ever in my opinion stopping people from being incestuous was religion. I see nothing wrong with people practicing incest.

[Sentinel]

Any sexual activity between consenting adults should indeed be their own business, it is not the place of the society to intervene in such matters. See these previous discussions:

Incest (http://www.revleft.com/vb/incest-t58124/index.html?t=58124&highlight=incest)
Incest (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=42619&highlight=incest)

[apathy maybe]

I concur, any "socialist" that doesn't agree that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is not a real "socialist" at all.

As has been discussed in the two previous threads, the issue of children is not an issue at all.

[RedStarOverChina]

So long as they don't try to reproduce idiot offsprings, who cares.

[Apollodorus]

I think it is illegal here because it is unfair on the children. I do not see why it is not an issue.

[Forward Union]

So long as they don't try to reproduce idiot offsprings, who cares.

Urban Legend. There are no reported serious defects from first generation inbreds. Probably most of our ancestors inbred a fair bit.

[Bright Banana Beard]

My step-sister tried to have relationship, but I told her I just don't want to be the burden for the family position and she agreed with me, we still have our private moment that is not a big deal.

[Self-Owner]

For me it is an issue of personal autonomy where if they arent physically hurting someone else with their relationship then they should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want.


lol. I'm sure you're unaware, but this is pretty much exactly what libertarians like myself believe. As Nozick puts it, to think otherwise would mean criminalising capitalist acts between consenting adults - can you come up with a coherent reason why this is any different?

[flpwch]

Well the problem basically lies in the idea that there is a possibility of genetic defect (in the case of prolonged inbreeding, blue people as an example) and the fact that children would subject these inbred children to horrible amounts of verbal torture. After dealing with that all of that child's life, I doubt the child would be well-adjusted or barely suited for society without a vast amount of visits to the psychologist. Thought it may be getting in the way of two adults, the reason they do it is for the child.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The genetic problems associated with inbreeding are overstated. If we are going to somehow protect non-existing persons with legal decree, we would have to ban sex for a host of different people. Laws meant to help future, non-present generations fall under a larger slippery slope.

[RedStarOverChina]

Urban Legend. There are no reported serious defects from first generation inbreds. Probably most of our ancestors inbred a fair bit.
Inbreeding, even between cousins could result in serious medical conditions such as hemophilia.(see European royal families)

People having sexual relations with their relatives should be tolerated, but not if they want to give birth. It's not like a serious violation of their rights anyways, they can always adopt.

Frankly, I dont understand why anyone would want to give birth to children.

[Zurdito]

The genetic problems associated with inbreeding are overstated. If we are going to somehow protect non-existing persons with legal decree, we would have to ban sex for a host of different people. Laws meant to help future, non-present generations fall under a larger slippery slope.

I think slippery slope is nearly always an invalid argument. To my knowledge plenty of societies have banned incest for producing unhealthy children, and haven't markedly gone down a slippery slope towards anything more profound. Your statement seems needlessly based on fear, to me, almost liek a libertarian saying "all interference with individual rights is bad, once it starts, there is no way back", and to me it rules out some measures which could be progressive.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think slippery slope is nearly always an invalid argument. To my knowledge plenty of societies have banned incest for producing unhealthy children, and haven't markedly gone down a slippery slope towards anything more profound. Your statement seems needlessly based on fear, to me, almost liek a libertarian saying "all interference with individual rights is bad, once it starts, there is no way back", and to me it rules out some measures which could be progressive.

You're asserting that logic does not play a critical role in the debate. Being hypocritical on where one frames the debate certainly does denote weakness in reason. The problem lies in the fact people do not always think and act critically. I also take offense to being compared to a shill of Alex Jones. :D

I think my statement is blatantly obvious. Proponents wanting to protect future, non-existing people are usually on the anti-choice side of the abortion debate. There may not exist a culture that prohibits sex beyond a certain age limit, but there are laws and social restrictions in place that limit what people (in particular, women) can do. The only logical argument against preventing incest is to ensure that any possible offspring will be properly developed. However, if we're to assert the needs of an unborn (even non-existing) child, this also means women shouldn't drink or smoke.

Nevertheless, we're probably both on the same side of the debate...

[#FF0000]

Urban Legend. There are no reported serious defects from first generation inbreds. Probably most of our ancestors inbred a fair bit.

It was my understanding that this was only true with cousins, and not brothers/sisters.

[EricTheRed]

The problem with many incestuous relationships is they're often coercive and are roughly analogous to some kind of rape. It's like religious polyamourus relationships - very rarely is the person who's being manipulated given any sort of choice in the relationship.

That isn't to say that there aren't consensual incest relationships, but in cases of parent/child, brother/sister, brother/brother, sister/sister - to some extent, I'd even say cousin relationships - there are often coercive mechanisms that aren't conducive to free relationships. This is largely the reason why there are laws in some areas against it, because it's largely bad.

[Raisa]

You are both adults and you and your sister want to fuck?

I think the state should have better things to do then bother you for that, because then you cant be honest when we ask who made the baby when they get pregnant.....
Which should be a mandatory abortion unless it is past five months, in which case the sister should hve a choice.

I thknk abortion is disgusting too, but I think it is wrong for two asshole people to bring a disabled child into this world that they made fucking their family members like that.

[Raisa]

Thats fucking gross, incest.
Whatever the case they shouldnt reproduce if they are immediate family

[TC]

lol. I'm sure you're unaware, but this is pretty much exactly what libertarians like myself believe. As Nozick puts it, to think otherwise would mean criminalising capitalist acts between consenting adults - can you come up with a coherent reason why this is any different?


Because captialism is not an exchange between freely consenting adults, it involves coercion and threat of violence (i.e. if you don't sell your labour you starve, which is coercive, if you try to prevent starvation another way, such as by theft, you face state violence).

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Urban Legend. There are no reported serious defects from first generation inbreds. Probably most of our ancestors inbred a fair bit.
Are you sure? I thought there were scientific reasons why incest would lead to defects. I heard that from my science teacher, anyway.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

I'll leave incest to royalty and rednecks. (somebody please quote or sig this)

I'd say anything that endangers the genepool by stagnation is a bad thing but because we are all inbred to a degree (albeit in the distant past) it doesn't take much to cause mutation. Familiy groups share the same genetic weaknesses and thus genetic illnesses are common, thus the term "incest survivors."

[Sentinel]

Are you sure? I thought there were scientific reasons why incest would lead to defects. I heard that from my science teacher, anyway.

In the german brother-sister case we discussed (in the thread I linked to) there were documented birth defects -- epilepsia in one of the children, while the others had 'special needs'. The risks might be exaggerated though, and I'm no expert in this.

Certainly there is a decent chance that two siblings have healthy offspring, but from documented cases it would seem that the risk for complications is atleast elevated.

I don't support any bourgeois legislation against incest, however -- the society should instead act by offering counceling and support.

[graffic]

anyone [/B]would want to give birth to children.

You mean through inbreeding?

[Zurdito]

You're asserting that logic does not play a critical role in the debate. Being hypocritical on where one frames the debate certainly does denote weakness in reason. The problem lies in the fact people do not always think and act critically. I also take offense to being compared to a shill of Alex Jones. :D

I think my statement is blatantly obvious. Proponents wanting to protect future, non-existing people are usually on the anti-choice side of the abortion debate. There may not exist a culture that prohibits sex beyond a certain age limit, but there are laws and social restrictions in place that limit what people (in particular, women) can do. The only logical argument against preventing incest is to ensure that any possible offspring will be properly developed. However, if we're to assert the needs of an unborn (even non-existing) child, this also means women shouldn't drink or smoke.

Nevertheless, we're probably both on the same side of the debate...


Hopefully we are on the same side, for the record I wan't calling you a libertarian, just picking a point about that particula arguemnt you made.

Regarding the highlighted part: if a woman is going to choose to have a baby then I think it would be reaosnable that she shouldn't drink heavily or smoke whilst pregnant if the science proves that this would likely damage the baby (I don't know the science and don't want to get into an arguemnt about that side of the issue), otherwise she will be bringing an unhealthy child in the world destined to suffering.

This is not the same as telling a woman that she has to spend 9 months pregnant, then painfully force a baby out of her body, and then spend 18 years caring for it.

Regarding people's freedom to drink and smoke in all circumstances, are you in favour of drink driving or bars allowing smoking, then?

[bootleg42]

I'd even say cousin relationships - there are often coercive mechanisms that aren't conducive to free relationships.

I've seen people in this and I haven't seen any coercive mechanisms in it.

But the case with cousins is not incest in most of the world. If anyone has more info on it, please do post.

[spartan]

I can understand those who say that relatives shouldnt have sexual relations because they could potentially have disabled kids, but lets remember that it is only a potential risk when relatives have children.

Plus if they know during pregnancy that the child is going to be disabled then they have the option of abortion.

Also in a Socialist society there wont be the stigma attached to having disabled children as there is in a Capitalist society, so there will be services that help parents out with disabled children.


I thknk abortion is disgusting too, but I think it is wrong for two asshole people to bring a disabled child into this world that they made fucking their family members like that.

I dont understand what you mean?

Do you mean that the idea of on-demand abortion as an available procedure for all at whatever stage of the pregnancy is disgusting or the way it is done whilst having the procedure is disgusting?

[pusher robot]

Also in a Socialist society there wont be the stigma attached to having disabled children as there is in a Capitalist society

Why would that be the case?

[Black Cross]

Do you mean that the idea of on demand abortion as an available procedure is disgusting or the way it is done when having the procedure is disgusting?

I think Raisa was saying that the act of destroying the feotus/child/whatever (I don't want an abortion argument, cos they annoy me) is wrong. Also, that incest is unfair for the child (if it turns out to be deformed in some way)

Obviously I don't give a crap what two consenting adults, related or not, do on their own time as long as no one else is significantly hurt by it. That said, if there is substantial evidence showing that there is a significant risk of some sort of birth defect, that, to me, would warrant action taken against inbreeding (not the sexual act alone). It just seems unfair to the child is all.

[Bud Struggle]

Why would that be the case?

It seem Communist like to stick their wildest hopes and aspirations onto what happens "after the revolution." No police, we'll all love one another, no crime, everybody living happily together, no money, all love happiness and sunny skys.

Quite the idyllic world.

Let the guy have his dreams. :thumbup1:

Come on people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now.

Old hippies. :)

[Black Cross]

Why would that be the case?

Why would we disapprove of something someone is born with? That's backwards. Not to mention it creates marginalization, which i assume all of our comrades are against.

[Black Cross]

It seem Communist like to stick their wildest hopes and aspirations onto what happens "after the revolution." No police, we'll all love one another, no crime, everybody living happily together, no money, all love happiness and sunny skys.

Quite the idyllic world.

Let the guy have his dreams. :thumbup1:

Come on people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now.

Old hippies. :)

No crime? No cops? You sure about that Tom? Or are you just talkin out your ass like usual? And what's wrong with being a hippie? And why don't you explain, without using your bible if you could (if only for my sake), why this stigma should go on? You know, for a bible believer, you're pretty judgemental. oh wait...

[Bud Struggle]

No crime? No cops? You sure about that Tom? Or are you just talkin out your ass like usual? And what's wrong with being a hippie? And why don't you explain, without using your bible if you could (if only for my sake), why this stigma should go on? You know, for a bible believer, you're pretty judgemental. oh wait...

[edit] Sorry. I was mistaken.

[spartan]

Why would that be the case?

In a Capitalist society alot of people see having a disabled child as being a huge financial burden due to the cost of caring for the child (Which in most Capitalist countries is alot of money when you factor in the implements that you need to take care of the child and any future deterition of the child's condition, this isnt including the fact that some countries have privatised health care which puts an extra strain on people and their finances when caring for disabled people).

In a Socialist sociey there wont be any fianacial burden to anyone so the stigma of disabled children being a financial burden will naturally disappear.

[Black Cross]

[edit] Sorry. I was mistaken.

No worries.

[Dejavu]

In a Capitalist society alot of people see having a disabled child as being a huge financial burden due to the cost of caring for the child (Which in most Capitalist countries is alot of money when you factor in the implements that you need to take care of the child and any future deterition of the child's condition, this isnt including the fact that some countries have privatised health care which puts an extra strain on people and their finances when caring for disabled people).

In a Socialist sociey there wont be any fianacial burden to anyone so the stigma of disabled children being a financial burden will naturally disappear.

Yet in most capitalistic countries the disabled children receive the best care on the planet. Modern technology (capital) and skilled doctors are suited to deal with the various disabilities.
On top of that many of the organizations dedicated to treating certain illnesses are actually religious charities. Its not uncommon to see hospitals like ' St.Mary's, 'Jewish Hospital", or even some Islamic facilities specialize in treating disabilities. Furthermore the charities that donate to these causes are overwhelmingly religious in character and get more money to intended recipients than government welfare programs since at least 75 cents to the dollar is lost in overhead costs with the government.

[Zurdito]

[quote]Yet in most capitalistic countries the disabled children receive the best care on the planet.

so in every country in the world except for Cuba and North Korea, disabled children uniformally recieve the best care in the planet?

uh huh.

or are countries like Guatemala, Kenya and Georgia, for example, somehow not capitalist?

[Zurdito]

It seem Communist like to stick their wildest hopes and aspirations onto what happens "after the revolution." No police, we'll all love one another, no crime, everybody living happily together, no money, all love happiness and sunny skys.

actually if you go to private housing complex for rich people, there is no crime from neighbours to each other and no real need for security (there probably is from the home owners to their workers in the workplace but that's another issue), simply because everyone is rich and financially secure and has easy lives.

therefore, logically, if everyone was rich and secure and had easy lives, then the whole world would be like that. fear crime and policing would be very minimal. if in some communities it's possible to live like that TomK, why couldn't all of us live like that, provided the material basis? Or is it possible for some communities to acheive a certains tandard of living but impossible for others? That's a bit stupid, as clearly human beings are capable of creating such communities, so why not universally?

Also, if you said to someone 500 years ago hwo the future would be, I'm pretty sure most would react by saying: "yeah sure, we *elect* our leaders, we have "human rights", we will travel round the world, we will have heating an plumbing, we will live to be 80 years old..yeah right. fucking hippy (or whatever their equivalent would have been)".

so actually, your attempt to take the piss out of commies ended up jsut taking the piss out of yourself for not having the vision to see beyond the constraints of the crappy mediocre world we live in today.

[pusher robot]

In a Capitalist society alot of people see having a disabled child as being a huge financial burden due to the cost of caring for the child (Which in most Capitalist countries is alot of money when you factor in the implements that you need to take care of the child and any future deterition of the child's condition, this isnt including the fact that some countries have privatised health care which puts an extra strain on people and their finances when caring for disabled people).

In a Socialist sociey there wont be any fianacial burden to anyone so the stigma of disabled children being a financial burden will naturally disappear.

You're making the logical mistake that assuming there won't be a financial burden means there won't be a burden. But of course there will be. Every disabled child is another one that can't provide, only take, which means that the workers who do provide must now work harder, completely for the benefit of someone else, or receive a smaller portion of the fruits of their labor, so that somebody else might take it.