Support NeoGAF

[JoeBoy101]

It's not that it has support, per se, it's that all of the arguments against it can be shown to be faulty or inconsistent with previously accepted principles.

The only argument against it that holds any water is the potential for genetically unhealthy children, but as the OP mentions, the government does not regulate other couples' reproduction on the basis of their genetic risks, so it would not make sense to do so for consenting adults who happen to be related.

It's an issue where every gut feeling we have says it's wrong so it can be difficult to even entertain the philosophical arguments about it.

But, a person with a high chance of passing genetic defects will suffer from this condition regardless of their partner. In this case, the chance of passing the defects is entirely because the choice of partner.

One is afflicted by a condition, the other is driven by a choice.

 

[Kinyou]

But, a person with a high chance of passing genetic defects will suffer from this condition regardless of their partner. In this case, the chance of passing the defects is entirely because the choice of partner.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the chance of the defect getting passed on also partly rely on the genetics of the partner? Like that with Partner A there's a 60% chance and with Partner B a 30%? Then you'd also have to tell that person to not have children with Partner A

I would actually support prevention of certain genetic defects being passed on. I say that as a person with a genetic defect who will probably never have kids because of it.

Okay, if that's your stance then it's understandable.

 

[Sakura]

Never understand the arguments against incest.
Handicapped people, women in their late 30s/40s etc have higher chances of producing children with genetic defects/disabilities. Should we forbid them from having children?
Sounds like some eugenics shit to me.
If a brother and sister want to have sex with each other, well, that's their choice, and they will have to live with it. I don't think they should be thrown in jail over it.

 

[John Kowalski]

If you do want to make the argument that the government has an interest in making sure these people don't have children then thats fine - but not every relationship is held with the intent (or even the possibility) of having children in the first place.

How do you even implement this though? I agree that that would be the preferable case, because there ought to be a governmental interest in guaranteeing quality of life for children in cases where it is the combination of the parents, rather than a single parent, being the primary potential cause for disabilities, but i can't see how something like that would be enforced prefecundation.

The thing i'm thinking of would be some sort of governmental program in charge of helping incestual couples find ways to have children through surrogate mothers/father/adoption/etc., instead of legal consequences for the act of incestuous sex (which is only potentially harmful) or post natal consequences for having had the children.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

There's a strong public health interest in preventing people with close genetic links from reproducing. I'm not sure how far you have to go before the risk becomes non-significant, probably somewhere around first or second cousins. And you can't really regulate based on intention to reproduce, so you have to go broader than that to catch the behavior. That said, I don't know if criminalization is absolutely necessary (strictly speaking about siblings here). Should treat it as a public health concern first and try to educate people why it's a bad idea and risky in case of pregnancy. Of course in this case it sounds like that wasn't working and they had to escalate.

People complaining that the risk is only there with preexisting problems are ignoring the fact that the rule is about aggregated effects and long term impacts. Society wants to encourage genetically diverse reproduction for future population's sake. It's not just about the here and now. And unlike genetic conditions which people may be unaware of, everyone knows who their relatives are.

 

[ronito]

so many confessors will be relieved.

 

[Arksy]

So you can screw a child that you adopt the moment they turn 16?

It's not incest. (In South Aust at least).

Edit: It is in Vic and NSW!

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

One is afflicted by a condition, the other is driven by a choice.

Some couples are at risk of bearing genetically unhealthy offspring but each member of the couple would be at less risk or no risk if they had different partners. For example, there are a number of diseases that are important to screen for if both partners are Ashkenazi Jews. Should such a couple be forbidden by the government from reproducing or forced to pursue reproduction with other partners?

 

[IndoAssassin]

Some dude did an AMA on reddit about his sexual relations with his mother. That was some hilarious reading. Apparently his father knew about it and was OK with it.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

What fucking bullshit. Two HEALTHY siblings with no genetic predispositions will have greater risk of children with abnormalities. We're not talking about people who have a condition they can't control still being able to have children. The morality of the relationship taken by itself, holds no concern to me, but the issue of their children is where my hackles get raised.

But, a person with a high chance of passing genetic defects will suffer from this condition regardless of their partner. In this case, the chance of passing the defects is entirely because the choice of partner.

I don't really care about German law one way or another, but do you guys who argue that incest = abnormal children really understand genetics? There is no magical voodoo that causes a disease/genetic defects when two people related to each other have kids. There may be increased likelihood of disease/genetic defects, but it is not directly because the two people are related. It's just that people who are related are more likely to share the same genetic defects and/or be carriers for the same issues. However, two perfectly healthy people (hypothetically speaking, since this is impossible) could be father/daughter, brother/sister, or uncle niece and have a ton of kids and the likelihood of genetic defects/disease is equal to any two unrelated perfectly healthy people.

 

[JoeBoy101]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the chance of the defect getting passed on also partly rely on the genetics of the partner? Like that with Partner A there's a 60% chance and with Partner B a 30%? Then you'd also have to tell that person to not have children with Partner A.

I would if I could. If the chance is relatively small, than I'd certainly reconsider my stance, but just with this couple: 4 kids with 2 of them disabled. That along is a 50% chance. I'm no fan of eugenics, but this is far more than an outside chance it seems. And again, not because of a genetic condition, but their choice of partner.

I don't really care about German law one way or another, but do you guys who argue that incest = abnormal children really understand genetics? There is no magical voodoo that causes a disease/genetic defects when two people related to each other have kids. There may be increased likelihood of disease/genetic defects, but it is not directly because the two people are related. It's just that people who are related are more likely to share the same genetic defects and/or be carriers for the same issues. However, two perfectly healthy people (hypothetically speaking, since this is impossible) could be father/daughter, brother/sister, or uncle niece and have a ton of kids and the likelihood of genetic defects/disease is equal to any two unrelated perfectly healthy people.

Psychology Today

Why should mechanisms to avoid incest be so widespread both in nature and across human societies? The answer is simple. The problem with having sex close with relatives is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect. Take the results of a study of Czechoslovakian children whose fathers were first degree relatives. Fewer than half of the children who were the product of incestuous unions were completely healthy. Forty-two percent of them were born with severe birth defects or suffered early death and another 11 percent were mildly mentally impaired. This study is particularly instructive as it included a unique control group — the offspring of the same mothers but whose fathers were not the mothers’ relatives. When the same women were impregnated by a non-relative, only 7 percent of their children were born with a birth defect (Figure 1).

A group of genetic counselors reviewed the research on the biological consequences of sex between relatives (consanguineous relationships) (here). They found a surprisingly small increase (about 4 percent) in birth defects among the children of married cousins. Incest between first degree relatives, however, was a different story. The researchers examined four studies (including the Czech research) on the effects of first degree incest on the health of the offspring. Forty percent of the children were born with either autosomal recessive disorders, congenital physical malformations, or severe intellectual deficits. And another 14 percent of them had mild mental disabilities. In short, the odds that a newborn child who is the product of brother-sister or father-daughter incest will suffer an early death, a severe birth defect or some mental deficiently approaches 50 percent.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

Incest in general should be legal, if it's between two adults then who gives a fuck.

The children aspect is more touchy, but that's a different issue.

 

[FairyD]

I think if a grown brother and sister want to do the dirty then we should let them.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

One is afflicted by a condition, the other is driven by a choice.

There are truckloads of genetic conditions that require both parents having the gene in order to pass it to their offspring. It's their "choice" to have kids together, rather than both going and finding other partners, in the same way that two theoretically incestuous people could both find other partners elsewhere. Or it's someone's "choice" to not have kids with their partner who may have a condition that they, alone, can pass on during the pairing.

The idea of brother/sister love is pretty gross but there is no fundamental difference if you're arguing about the ethics of giving birth to a child who may have a condition because of it. I think it's important to point out that the rate of deformity is still very low, it's just higher than it is for average couples - an increase from 2-3% to 5-6% or thereabouts. And we're not talking about three-headed mutant babies that need to be mercy killed to end their suffering.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

If there's no blood relation it's not incest. The law should not make you throw away your common sense like this.

It's not incest. (In South Aust at least).

I thought this was the definition, too, but in some cases it's still classified as incest if it's someone closely related/affiliated, even if they aren't biologically related.

Wikipedia told me so.

 

[Arksy]

I thought this was the definition, too, but in some cases it's still classified as incest if it's someone closely related/affiliated, even if they aren't biologically related.

Wikipedia told me so.

Depends on the jurisdiction. All I know is that incest is quite narrowly defined in my home jurisdiction.

 

[Paper Sparrow]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the chance of the defect getting passed on also partly rely on the genetics of the partner? Like that with Partner A there's a 60% chance and with Partner B a 30%? Then you'd also have to tell that person to not have children with Partner A


Okay, if that's your stance then it's understandable.

I realize my original post wasn't very productive, but it's something I feel strongly about.

 

[kswiston]

Incest in general should be legal, if it's between two adults then who gives a fuck.

I disagree. Parents hold power over their children well into adulthood. Incest between those relations is illegal for good reason. The opportunity for abuse is way too high.

 

[Volimar]

Consenting adults, etc. As long as they make sure they can't have kids. That's just irresponsible.

 

[FUME5]

Uh......I don't actually know where I stand on this one.

 

[JoeBoy101]

There are truckloads of genetic conditions that require both parents having the gene in order to pass it to their offspring. It's their "choice" to have kids together, rather than both going and finding other partners, in the same way that two theoretically incestuous people could both find other partners elsewhere. Or it's someone's "choice" to not have kids with their partner who may have a condition that they, alone, can pass on during the pairing.

The idea of brother/sister love is pretty gross but there is no fundamental difference if you're arguing about the ethics of giving birth to a child who may have a condition because of it. I think it's important to point out that the rate of deformity is still very low, it's just higher than it is for average couples - an increase from 2-3% to 5-6% or thereabouts. And we're not talking about three-headed mutant babies that need to be mercy killed to end their suffering.

No offense, but where are you getting those statistics from? I'm not seeing those same number in my searching, unless we're talking cousins.

 

[riotous]

We don't legislate other people who are at high risk of offspring with medical troubles.

That's the only thing that seems "Criminal" to me; people knowingly basically putting a "potential child" in medical danger. The same could be said for a lot of people though.

2 things that seem "Wrong".. incest.. and legislating consenting adults and their sex lives.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

hmmm and here i thought Germany would go for animals first...

 

[IAmRandom31]

Never understand the arguments against incest.
Handicapped people, women in their late 30s/40s etc have higher chances of producing children with genetic defects/disabilities. Should we forbid them from having children?
Sounds like some eugenics shit to me.
If a brother and sister want to have sex with each other, well, that's their choice, and they will have to live with it. I don't think they should be thrown in jail over it.

Dude the chance of a woman in her 30s giving birth to a child with a disability is damned minuscule compared to the gigantic chance incest has of producing that result. Not even in the same stratosphere.

Ignoring this seems purely selfish and careless and childish to me. Almost like some people are speaking for certain things simply because it's an established rule. Fight the Establishment mentality almost. No matter how ridiculous

hmmm and here i thought Germany would go for animals first...

Well we are all adults here ... I mean why not right?

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

I disagree. Parents hold power over their children well into adulthood. Incest between those relations is illegal for good reason. The opportunity for abuse is way too high.

That's a fair point. Parents grooming their children to eventually become their adult sexual partners is both gross and abusive. In order to determine whether this is good reason to outlaw all incestual relationships between adults, I'd want to know the prevalence of this kind of coupling vs. incest between peers. Or maybe it would just make sense to argue that intergenerational incest should be outlawed and the other kind is permissible.

 

[kswiston]

There are truckloads of genetic conditions that require both parents having the gene in order to pass it to their offspring. It's their "choice" to have kids together, rather than both going and finding other partners, in the same way that two theoretically incestuous people could both find other partners elsewhere. Or it's someone's "choice" to not have kids with their partner who may have a condition that they, alone, can pass on during the pairing.

The idea of brother/sister love is pretty gross but there is no fundamental difference if you're arguing about the ethics of giving birth to a child who may have a condition because of it. I think it's important to point out that the rate of deformity is still very low, it's just higher than it is for average couples - an increase from 2-3% to 5-6% or thereabouts. And we're not talking about three-headed mutant babies that need to be mercy killed to end their suffering.

That's for first cousins. Between siblings, it is a lot higher. 25-40% depending on the study.

 

[Beth Cyra]

I disagree. Parents hold power over their children well into adulthood. Incest between those relations is illegal for good reason. The opportunity for abuse is way too high.

I'm not sure how I feel about Mother/Child or Father/Child.

It is very possible for a child in there 20's to initiate contact with a Parent, and I find it wrong to tell them no and that they are abused for making a choice they want to make.

I do agree that any parent who allows it to happen with a minor should aboslutely be treated as they did something illegal.

 

[JoeBoy101]

That's for first cousins. Between siblings, it is a lot higher. 25-40% depending on the study.

I don't have an issue with cousins because, as he said, the chance is a minor increase. But yeah, everything I'm reading says first relations skyrocket in risk.

 

[Renekton]

Never understand the arguments against incest.
Handicapped people, women in their late 30s/40s etc have higher chances of producing children with genetic defects/disabilities. Should we forbid them from having children?
Sounds like some eugenics shit to me.
If a brother and sister want to have sex with each other, well, that's their choice, and they will have to live with it. I don't think they should be thrown in jail over it.

Your framing is a bit... unfair. People with disabilities didn't choose to be disabled, so it's meant to not to take away from their life even more.

 

[Volimar]

Of course we're all forgetting the real consequences of brother-sister incest.

 

[Sakura]

Dude the chance of a woman in her 30s giving birth to a child with a disability is damned minuscule compared to the gigantic chance incest has of producing that result. Not even in the same stratosphere.

Ignoring this seems purely selfish and careless and childish to me. Almost like some people are speaking for certain things simply because it's an established rule. Fight the Establishment mentality almost. No matter how ridiculous

From googling
"A woman over 35 has a higher risk of having a child with birth defects due to chromosomal issues. When a woman is age 35, her chance of having a baby with a genetic disease is one in 178; by age 48, the chance rises to one in eight."
One in eight does not sound minuscule to me.

Your framing is a bit... unfair. People with disabilities didn't choose to be disabled, so it's meant to not to take away from their life even more.

But they did choose to have kids did they not?

 

[Freshmaker]

Source

What say you? Should consenting adults be allowed to do whatever they wish or is there some reason for society to restrict certain activities?

Generally it's natural not to even want to associate in that manner with someone you grew up with.

The brother and sister in question were raised apart, and they are consenting adults. Had they been raised together, this likely would never have happened.

Obviously there's a difference between that and a dad molesting his underage daughter etc.

 

[maomaoIYP]

I think the German Ethics Council made a good point, in addition I don't feel I have the moral authority to decide what should and should not be done between two consenting adults.
Getting rid of the law doesn't mean that people will start forcing incestous sex upon each other all of a sudden, people who want to do that are already doing that, punishment are of no consequence to someone who has already decided to break the law. A bank robber doesn't consider the imprisonment sentence before robbing the bank - he thinks he won't get caught.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

No offense, but where are you getting those statistics from? I'm not seeing those same number in my searching, unless we're talking cousins.

Might have been for cousins. But does this mean you're ok with Cousin incest being legal? And do you want to ban reproduction of people who have extremely high probabilities of producing offspring with severe defects? And banning the union between people who, if they have children together, would have a very high chance of giving them a genetic condition?

From the child's perspective, it makes no difference whether or not their condition was caused by something that you personally think is ok or whether it was caused by something that you don't. Framing this as the people having a choice seems very odd - and I must once again point out that two people who both do not have a manifested genetic disorder can give birth to a child that has one, with extremely high probability. I actually have a recessive genetic disorder myself that, if paired with someone else who has it, gives a rather high chance of producing a child who will be covered in skin cancers by age 30 because their melanin production and function is impaired. My maternal grandparents both had the gene, and therefore my mother has to get operated on every other year to get them cut out.

 

[Corronchilejano]

Incest in general should be legal, if it's between two adults then who gives a fuck.

The children aspect is more touchy, but that's a different issue.

.

Howeverm one question comes to mind, wouldn't this turn sexual abuse inside a family into a touchy subject? I've... seen some things over here.

TRIGGER WARNING (maybe, I dunno)

Spoiler

I had a gf in her practice in Psychology visiting a family on the outskirts of Bogota. They had to run away from their land after criminals took over and threatened to kill them, so they were in completely foreign territory. Were they came from the law was whoever was the owner of the lands basically, they didn't even own IDs, and the father had actually never been in a city before. His grandfather was the last one to live in one, and his father before him visited the coast a bit but lived far away from anything. That's how this family lived, in an almost Hundred Years of Solitude type of town.

The couple had three daughters and a son. When each girl came of age (I have no idea what that meant when my gf explained), the father deflowered each of them, and one of them ended up marrying a guy who was shot by the gangs over there, she was 15 when she married, and was 17 and had two kids when they arrived. Apparently the deflowering thing was pretty common were they were, but my gf didn't touch the subject of what was happening currently anymore, for fear of what that meant for the family.

So yeah, what was that... ?

 

[$200]

Yeah, I wouldn't want to bring children in this world if that comes with a high chance of them being disabled. I don't know why anyone else would, though. It just feels like one of the most selfish thing to do.

Let them fuck but don't let them make babies. That's my view on incest.

That's my view too. If they want children they can adopt. But making it illegal for two people to be together is just selfish.

 

[JoeBoy101]

Might have been for cousins. But does this mean you're ok with Cousin incest being legal? And do you want to ban reproduction of people who have extremely high probabilities of producing offspring with severe defects? And banning the union between people who, if they have children together, would have a very high chance of giving them a genetic condition?

From the child's perspective, it makes no difference whether or not their condition was caused by something that you personally think is ok or whether it was caused by something that you don't.

Well, as I said, I am okay with Cousin incest because the risk is only a minor difference from normal. And no, I don't want to ban people with high probabilities of producing offspring with severe defects because they have those defects, regardless of their choice of partner. If we're talking about a case where its only specific partners where the risk occurs, than yes, I would ban that, but then I'm not forcing people to get genetic screening before babies either.

Someone struggling with a genetic disease wanting to procreate is not the same as a first-family incestous relationship. The risk seen in this kind of relationship is known and documented. If proven false, or researched to show its overstated, then that obviously changes things.

As for the point on the tendency towards skin cancer, its a question of reasonable knowledge and responsibility. Is it reasonable to have you screen every possible partner for risk of melanin production issues? I certainly don't think so, given what's involved. A brother/sister, mother/son, father/daughter? You don't need the screening there, the risk is right there in your face.

BTW, I know its complete OT, but I have to:

ThoseDeafMutes
Very good! Keep thrusting!

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Might have been for cousins. But does this mean you're ok with Cousin incest being legal? And do you want to ban reproduction of people who have extremely high probabilities of producing offspring with severe defects? And banning the union between people who, if they have children together, would have a very high chance of giving them a genetic condition?

From the child's perspective, it makes no difference whether or not their condition was caused by something that you personally think is ok or whether it was caused by something that you don't. Framing this as the people having a choice seems very odd - and I must once again point out that two people who both do not have a manifested genetic disorder can give birth to a child that has one, with extremely high probability. I actually have a recessive genetic disorder myself that, if paired with someone else who has it, gives a rather high chance of producing a child who will be covered in skin cancers by age 30 because their melanin production and function is impaired. My maternal grandparents both had the gene, and therefore my mother has to get operated on every other year to get them cut out.

I would be in favor of cousin incest being legal. Both because of the very low increase in risk and the much lower likelihood of possible abuse being involved (as they likely lived in removed and separate households). I am not sure how far I would go in terms of those with genetic defects. I would support more health services that help provide tests so that individuals can be informed and educated about the possible risks, dangers and future costs that may be involved in reproduction.

I see the sibling scenario as more equivalent to two people who are already aware that they share a known defect. They're not unaware of the risks and selecting a different partner would drastically decrease the risk for any future child. Where I struggle is where one partner has a defect that by itself creates a high risk of harm. But I think this can be distinguished from situations where it is the combination of partners itself that creates the undue risk, and not simply the presence of one partner's genetic composition, where we can err on the side of personal freedom.

 

[Woo-Fu]

What two(or more, lol) consenting adults do in private is their own business.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

I would if I could. If the chance is relatively small, than I'd certainly reconsider my stance, but just with this couple: 4 kids with 2 of them disabled. That along is a 50% chance. I'm no fan of eugenics, but this is far more than an outside chance it seems. And again, not because of a genetic condition, but their choice of partner.

Psychology Today

My argument and the argument that that article presents don't refute each other. They have nothing to do with each other. What I'm saying is that there's no magic in science. An egg doesn't see a sperm and say "hmmm that looks like my brother's sperm" and then decide to mutate. If you had person A with a certain genetic sequence and person B with another genetic sequence, their rate of defects in children will be equal whether they're related or not. The fact that they're first, second, or third degree relatives have no bearing on their defect rate. Now people who are related are more likely to share defective genes/proteins which in turn are more likely to be passed on to children, but that's not directly because they're related.

You could make the argument that incest is no worse than allowing any two carriers of a genetic abnormality to procreate. The issue with incest is that it's easy to identify and categorize. It's also less controversial than banning random person X from having kids with random person Y.

 

[neogaffer1]

Hey if it's two consenting adults, then I don't see why I have any right to tell them no.

Not really my thing, but I'm not going to disagree with Germany on this one.

.

 

[NullPointer]

Hey if it's two consenting adults, then I don't see why I have any right to tell them no.

Not really my thing, but I'm not going to disagree with Germany on this one.

Exactly. I err on the side of personal liberty unless there's a very compelling reason not to.

If its a matter of the risk of genetic defects in the offspring than that seems like a principle that would apply to more than just incestuous couples, and should be applied in an even handed fashion or not at all.

 

[TimeEffect]

I wonder if saying something like "incest is disgusting" will one day be frowned upon the same way "homosexuality is disgusting" is now.

 

[JoeBoy101]

My argument and the argument that that article presents don't refute each other. They have nothing to do with each other. What I'm saying is that there's no magic in science. An egg doesn't see a sperm and say "hmmm that looks like my brother's sperm" and then decide to mutate. If you had person A with a certain genetic sequence and person B with another genetic sequence, their rate of defects in children will be equal whether they're related or not. The fact that they're first, second, or third degree relatives have no bearing on their defect rate. Now people who are related are more likely to share defective genes/proteins which in turn are more likely to be passed on to children, but that's not directly because they're related.

You could make the argument that incest is no worse than allowing any two carriers of a genetic abnormality to procreate. The issue with incest is that it's easy to identify and categorize. It's also less controversial than banning random person X from having kids with random person Y.

I even highlighted the relevant point:

There may be increased likelihood of disease/genetic defects, but it is not directly because the two people are related.

Are you trying to tell me that the risk of genetic defect of a child between a brother and sister would be no different than that brother choosing a different person to have a child with? Unless he chooses his mother, no other person will hold as many genes in common as his sister. So, YES it is directly coming from them being related. In the case of first cousins, the genes are diluted by several factors, so the risk is much less.

 

[rokkerkory]

these guys can't be serious

 

[collige]

That's my view too. If they want children they can adopt. But making it illegal for two people to be together is just selfish.

How do you prevent them from having children then? Forced sterilization? That doesn't even apply in cases of incest since both parents are genetically healthy. Forced abortions? How would the state know that a given fetus is the result of incest or not? Do we DNA test every fetus? Do we throw parents in jail after the fact? What happens to the child then? Who raises it? What happens if the baby is healthy despite the increased risk?

These are the questions you have to answer when you talk about stopping people from having children.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

I wonder if saying something like "incest is disgusting" will one day be frowned upon the same way "homosexuality is disgusting" is now.

I suppose nothing is impossible given a long enough timeline. It's unlikely to happen in the short term, IMO, as the number of people who are interested in incest is vastly smaller than the number of people who are homosexual. Both homosexuality and the aversion to incest are rooted in biology, so those base rates are unlikely to change substantially over a short time span.

I guess what I'm saying is that the incest lobby will need a million times better PR than the homosexual lobby to gain the same amount of acceptance.

 

[Renekton]

But they did choose to have kids did they not?

They did not choose to be disabled, and have very limited options to prevent their their bad genetics to be passed down. But it's cruel to limit what they can do in life (e.g. marry) because of LifeRNG/God.

As for incest, they are not disabled and have choices, a dude can still have a decent family life without marrying his sister.

So to me, framing this discussion with disabled people in this way is kinda cold.

 

[riotous]

They did not choose to be disabled, and have very limited options to prevent their their bad genetics to be passed down. But it's cruel to limit what they can do in life (e.g. marry) because of LifeRNG/God.

As for incest, they are not disabled and have choices, a dude can still have a decent family life without marrying his sister.

So to me, framing this discussion with disabled people in this way is kinda cold.

A very good point.

 

[Dead Man]

Adult siblings? Yeah, I find it it distasteful as fuck, but it should not be a crime. Parent/child pairing should be illegal due to the power imbalance though.

The issue of procreation is a tricky one though.