Panda On Smack
Can't get enough of FH
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,030
Ewww...
- Thread starter Panda On Smack
- Start date
Chilly
Balls of steel
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,047
its not up to them, its illegal. And it pollutes the gene pool.
Tom
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 17,687
Just like disabled people having children then?
yaruar
Can't get enough of FH
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 2,617
Frizz
Can't get enough of FH
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,684
And there was me thinking we were talking about legality...
Skyler
Fledgling Freddie
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 688
Well as Tom said, what about disabled people, people with hereditary conditions?
Maybe we should make it like Gattaca, only the best gene matched couples can have children, so we make an elite race where any defects are gone?
While yes, I don't think everyone should start doing things with their family, it's their choice and it doesn't effect me what they do.
Tom
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 17,687
Because they haven't reached puberty?
Dukat
Resident Freddy
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 5,396
The thing is, just because disabled people/people with hereditary conditions are allowed to have chilren, it doesnt make incest/inbreeding any better.
The fact that it increases the chances of disabilities by 50% is reason enough tbh.
What about thier children?
Born into an inbred family, two of them have learning disabilities or special needs, one of them has epilepsy? They didnt get a choice as to whether they were born with an extra 50% chance that they're going to have some sort of disability.
Surely they should have rights? I believe that this law protects the 'potential children' of inbred families - it isnt fair to them to allow it imo.
ECA
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 9,466
So disabled ..people who are not rich enough to provide a reasonable childhood etc.. no children for them either due to not having a reasonable stand of life?
Interesting debate whenever this comes up, I typcially fall down on the side of eugenics.
who would have guessed that though?
Chilly
Balls of steel
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,047
It's inbreeding, it's bad for the gene pool, it's illegal, it's nasty.
And if I was a vulcan, I would say that disabled people having children is bad because it DOES polute the gene pool and lower the effciency of a society. However, I am not a vulcan (or romulan) and can see that our society is based on compassion and sterilising disabled people is not an option.
And if I was a vulcan, I would say that disabled people having children is bad because it DOES polute the gene pool and lower the effciency of a society. However, I am not a vulcan (or romulan) and can see that our society is based on compassion and sterilising disabled people is not an option.
Dukat
Resident Freddy
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 5,396
So disabled ..people who are not rich enough to provide a reasonable childhood etc.. no children for them either due to not having a reasonable stand of life?
Interesting debate whenever this comes up, I typcially fall down on the side of eugenics.
who would have guessed that though?
I believe if the parent cannot provide a reasonable standard of life for a child then it is unfair of them to have one.
I dont know if I like the idea of it being controlled per se, just that I think people should excerise common sense when deciding on such things. I guess I'm just being naive and idealistic there though
ECA
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 9,466
I don't know, do you want a baseball bat in your rectum?
My point is - are we alive? Are we just physics? As physical matter we should obey the laws of physics yet to posses a consciousness we must defy all conventional physics. Can we die? Or do we merely transmute from one state of being and existence into another state of being?
Now stroke my peen.
Calaen
I am a massive cock who isn't firing atm!
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,538
I think its a strange topic. I cannot even think about having sex with a relative, its wrong.
But what if this guy met his sister in town? He was adopted as a child so would not know her from squat same situation different circumstances I guess.
With regards to disabled, I cannot really comment, I do not have any friends or family with any disabilities and I have great respect for the parents/carers of disabled people all over the world.
But I could not knowingly bring a child into this earth knowing there was a higher than normal chance of being born with a disability.
I do not think I could handle it.
But what if this guy met his sister in town? He was adopted as a child so would not know her from squat same situation different circumstances I guess.
With regards to disabled, I cannot really comment, I do not have any friends or family with any disabilities and I have great respect for the parents/carers of disabled people all over the world.
But I could not knowingly bring a child into this earth knowing there was a higher than normal chance of being born with a disability.
I do not think I could handle it.
Calaen
I am a massive cock who isn't firing atm!
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,538
DaGaffer
Down With That Sorta Thing
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 18,981
*Agees with Calaen shock!*
Incest is rightly one of our greatest social taboos because thousands of years of history have shown the damage it causes. Throwing in a "well, what about disabled people?" argument doesn´t alter that. My personal view on the whole disability thing is that if you `know that you have a serious congenital defect then you shouldn´t have kids, but there are plenty of disabled people who have perfectly healthy children. As we learn more about genetics, hopefully we´ll be able to stop genetic defects being passed on, but of course the definition of ´genetic defect´will be subject to debate (you can argue blue eyes are a genetic defect; all depends on your POV). However, no amount of gene therapy will make incest OK, because there are too many potential problems.
Skyler
Fledgling Freddie
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 688
Dukat there are millions of older women getting pregnant knowing that the risk of downsyndrome and other things are huge at a certain age, are you denying them children too, is what they do wrong?
I think there are two seperate arguments here really..
#1 - Incest,
Yes, it's wrong (I can remember people saying this of homosexual relationships too once upon a time!)
Yes, it's weird (again, people said this about gay people)
But ultimately it is down to individuals and their circumstances. These two in particular hardly knew each other through their entire lives and got reunited and something happened between them, it's hardly the same as growing up with brothers and sisters and having sex with them is it?
#2 - Responsibility over conceiving despite risks for the baby..
On this subject incest is the least occuring cause of birth defects and other problems, but it should still be grouped in the same section.
Should people not conceive if there is a risk that child wont be what is considered 'normal'? There are millions who would disagree and have missed out on having children because of this...
It's a broad subject
I think Dukat hit it right when he said the parents should make sure they are capable in every way of supporting a child once they bring one into the world, whether it be suffering from specific conditions or not.
I think there are two seperate arguments here really..
#1 - Incest,
Yes, it's wrong (I can remember people saying this of homosexual relationships too once upon a time!)
Yes, it's weird (again, people said this about gay people)
But ultimately it is down to individuals and their circumstances. These two in particular hardly knew each other through their entire lives and got reunited and something happened between them, it's hardly the same as growing up with brothers and sisters and having sex with them is it?
#2 - Responsibility over conceiving despite risks for the baby..
On this subject incest is the least occuring cause of birth defects and other problems, but it should still be grouped in the same section.
Should people not conceive if there is a risk that child wont be what is considered 'normal'? There are millions who would disagree and have missed out on having children because of this...
It's a broad subject
I think Dukat hit it right when he said the parents should make sure they are capable in every way of supporting a child once they bring one into the world, whether it be suffering from specific conditions or not.
Chilly
Balls of steel
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,047
Skyler, with respect to #1
The social taboo is placed on the siblings who grow up together and THEN do the nasty. The *reason* for the social taboo has nothing to do with growing up together, it's an unhealthy mixing of genes that is more likely to result in a significant defect than with a partner of distant relation. We have evolved this behaviour over the years and every now and then social pressures distort these deep down feelings and incest is fashionable.
As to gay people: I have no problems at all with gay people BUT if everyone became gay the human race would have 50 years to live! Weird shit is fine for the minority but deep down we all know that the "right" thing to do is marry your 5th cousin and sire many fine young children and work as a productive member of society all your life.
~shrug~
Broad and full of arguments but thats most of my take on it.
The social taboo is placed on the siblings who grow up together and THEN do the nasty. The *reason* for the social taboo has nothing to do with growing up together, it's an unhealthy mixing of genes that is more likely to result in a significant defect than with a partner of distant relation. We have evolved this behaviour over the years and every now and then social pressures distort these deep down feelings and incest is fashionable.
As to gay people: I have no problems at all with gay people BUT if everyone became gay the human race would have 50 years to live! Weird shit is fine for the minority but deep down we all know that the "right" thing to do is marry your 5th cousin and sire many fine young children and work as a productive member of society all your life.
~shrug~
Broad and full of arguments but thats most of my take on it.
Chilly
Balls of steel
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,047
Example:
Brother and sister both have a recessive gene for, say, autism (if one exists?). If the sister goes off and marries a bloke with no recessive gene for autism, the child is still a carrier for this recessive gene BUT it will not b expressed. Ie - no autism. If the same sister does the sideways shuffle with her bro (and he has the same recessive gene for autism) then the child will have the gene expressed due to both parents having the same recessive gene and develop autism.
Genetics 101
Note: autism is probably not caused in this way, I was using it as an example.
Brother and sister both have a recessive gene for, say, autism (if one exists?). If the sister goes off and marries a bloke with no recessive gene for autism, the child is still a carrier for this recessive gene BUT it will not b expressed. Ie - no autism. If the same sister does the sideways shuffle with her bro (and he has the same recessive gene for autism) then the child will have the gene expressed due to both parents having the same recessive gene and develop autism.
Genetics 101
Note: autism is probably not caused in this way, I was using it as an example.
SilverHood
FH is my second home
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 2,409
What Chilly said really, though it applies to all genes, not just "disease ones".
For example, if anyone has ever been to the channel islands. You'll notice that the average height of a person is lower than that of the mainland UK.
Inbreeding has diminshed the gene pool, so that in most cases, the gene determining height is the same for virtually everyone. ie short.
When a local marries another local, both sides generally check their family records to make sure they're not related within the last 10 generations.
To use chilly's example, gene A is reccessive, B is dominant.
You have 2 genes.
BB means you suffer the effect of the gene.
AB, BA and AA means you aren't effected by the gene (or the effect is something else)
You get one gene from each of your parents. Lets say one is AA, the other is AB
you have a chance of the following combinations of gene
AA
AA
AB
AB
0% chance of dominant gene. So you're safe.
Then, lets take another example: What if both you and your partner are AB?
AA
AB
AB
BB
25% chance of a dominant effect from the gene.
50% chance to become a carrier of the gene.
Then you have incest. Say both are AB. 25% chance right?
What happens if there's incest in the second generation? 50%?
What about their kids? They'll have a bigger chance of being a carrier.
Inbreeding makes that BB combination a much much higher odd than if the child got its genes from someone with an AA gene. (ie someone not related).
Incest was made illegal because it goes against natural selection. Whether what they're doing is right or not... well, these days, so many things go against natural selection that I don't really care.
For example, if anyone has ever been to the channel islands. You'll notice that the average height of a person is lower than that of the mainland UK.
Inbreeding has diminshed the gene pool, so that in most cases, the gene determining height is the same for virtually everyone. ie short.
When a local marries another local, both sides generally check their family records to make sure they're not related within the last 10 generations.
To use chilly's example, gene A is reccessive, B is dominant.
You have 2 genes.
BB means you suffer the effect of the gene.
AB, BA and AA means you aren't effected by the gene (or the effect is something else)
You get one gene from each of your parents. Lets say one is AA, the other is AB
you have a chance of the following combinations of gene
AA
AA
AB
AB
0% chance of dominant gene. So you're safe.
Then, lets take another example: What if both you and your partner are AB?
AA
AB
AB
BB
25% chance of a dominant effect from the gene.
50% chance to become a carrier of the gene.
Then you have incest. Say both are AB. 25% chance right?
What happens if there's incest in the second generation? 50%?
What about their kids? They'll have a bigger chance of being a carrier.
Inbreeding makes that BB combination a much much higher odd than if the child got its genes from someone with an AA gene. (ie someone not related).
Incest was made illegal because it goes against natural selection. Whether what they're doing is right or not... well, these days, so many things go against natural selection that I don't really care.
Thadius
Part of the furniture
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,824
Hmmm, they have kids taken away yes? Im sure they were having a normal life.
Yet you have kids with crackheads for parents who go around smashiung up cars, beating up old people and all sorts of shite.
I know who id rather have as parents, even if they are brother and sister
Yet you have kids with crackheads for parents who go around smashiung up cars, beating up old people and all sorts of shite.
I know who id rather have as parents, even if they are brother and sister
Dukat
Resident Freddy
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 5,396
Yea Thad, what you are saying is right in a way - there are far worse parents in the world than those who inbreed, but like I said, that doesnt make inbreeding any less bad.
When it comes down to it, you need to think of the rights of the yet-to-be conceived child. Atleast the crackhead parents are giving thier children a fair chance of not being born with a disability.
The way that inbreeding parents put thier own desire for a child before the 'potential' child's own wellbeing means that you could argue that from a certain point of view, the "crackhead" parents are better than the interbreeding parents.
There may well be worse parents out there, but that on its own doesnt change anything: thieves are not as bad as murderers but they are still arrested for thier crime.