Wrong and freaky? Yes. Worth a criminal prosecution?

[Touring Mars]

As I said, it's certainly wrong and freaky. But I can't see any merit to throwing taxpayer's money away on a criminal prosecution or gaol term for an act between two adults who agreed to it with absolutely no danger to any other person.

You have to ask yourself what the point of the law is in order to address whether or not breaking that law is worthy of serious punishment. In order to legislate against incest in all of its forms, the net is thrown pretty wide - most of the laws against incest are designed to protect children from abuse from family members or people who are in a position of "familial" responsibility towards children. The laws against incest between two adults is seemingly an extension of that, and presumably takes into account the possibility of aspects that may not even be evident to the alleged "victim", i.e. grooming, coercion etc....

I see the purpose of the law to be more of a deterrent than a justification for punishment. The law being there says to people "no matter what your reasons or excuses, you are prohibited from having sex with this person on the basis of your position of power/authority over that person"... it protects people who don't know they need protecting from people that they trust. However, in the case of two completely "innocent" parties who genuinely fall into an incestuous partnership with each other (i.e. brother and sister, or father and daughter etc.), I'd agree that 2 years in jail would seem to be an extremely harsh punishment. But I guess every case is unique and the familial history/dynamics would no doubt be alot more complex than a simple "we just fell in love with each other" may betray. I'd imagine that a parent-child relationship would be far harder to justify/explain than a sibling relationship, though, but it would all depend on how the relationship was fostered in the first place. Oddly, I don't know if anyone could rightly explain in a court of law precisely how they came to be in love with someone without it sounding weird in some way or another!

 

[Sureboss]

"It all started when I was suckling..."

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

I don't feel particularly at risk from an inbred child. If I did, I'd go insane every time I heard mention of the Royal Family.



What child?

As I said, it's certainly wrong and freaky. But I can't see any merit to throwing taxpayer's money away on a criminal prosecution or gaol term for an act between two adults who agreed to it with absolutely no danger to any other person.

We are protecting that potential child, because an inbred child has such a high chance of being mentally challenged, and diseased, it is unfair to allow such in-humane acts that could lead to the birth of that child. It's also possible that the child, if known as an inbred, could lead to be a murderer if picked on his whole life- but that's plucking at straws now.
Just because something doesn't affect you Famine, doesn't mean it doesn't affect, or have a high potential to affect, others. eg. 9/11 didn't affect me or anyone I know personally, the pilots were only doing what they thought right, so by your logic it's OK, does that make it OK? No, of course not.

 

[FoolKiller]

We are protecting that potential child, because an inbred child has such a high chance of being mentally challenged, and diseased, it is unfair to allow such in-humane acts that could lead to the birth of that child. It's also possible that the child, if known as an inbred, could lead to be a murderer if picked on his whole life- but that's plucking at straws now.

But your argument doesn't hold up. Because you see, if we were to outlaw everything that had the potential to create a child that has any kind of developmental problems then we would have to basically take every pregnant woman and lock them in a padded room.

You are protecting something that doesn't exist. You are basing your law on a chance that there will be a pregnancy and that the pregnancy will lead to severe developmental problems. Neither scenario is 100% guaranteed.

And when Famine says he isn't threatened or affected by an inbred child he is referring to the fact that none of us are. The only person that could be affected is a child that does not exist. And if an incestuos couple wants to have a child, so what? Sure the child may have problems. But who doesn't? Should all parents go through a licensing process to guarantee they can create and raise a healthy child? How would this be any different than two people with similar genetic defects having a child?


Or, by your argument, does that mean that if one or both partners in this couple gets a surgery to guarantee no children they be can allowed to make like rabbits?

 

[niky]

Now all we have to do ligate every woman below 16 and above 30 and the world will be perfect.