BenoitRen wrote:There's a law against it because it is commonly accepted that it is not acceptable. I already explained why. Consider also that the possible result of sex is always offspring, which we have determined in this case will not be healthy. Yes, you can use protection, but what if it fails? What if she forgot to take the pill?
Then there's the problem -- that they weren't careful enough, not that they did incest. See, caution is the key; the guy could get a vasectomy, which is 99.85% effective, (and I'll bet the 0.15% are those who didn't wait until their sperm count was exactly 0 like they're supposed to) and they could use a rubber, and the girl could go on the pill and make sure she remembers to take it... if they're honestly that worried about conceiving a pregnancy, or they could simply refrain from penile-vaginal sex and do other kinds. And then if they still somehow get unlucky, then yeah I suppose an abortion would be in order. People can call it murder all they want, but I don't think it's really murder if the offspring is honestly that horrible a thing to bring into to existence in the first place. But even if it is, call it a necessary evil, if you will; the couple did everything in their power to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, and by some freak chance they conceived one anyway. It's either that or go through with the pregnancy, which society has deemed a big no-no, or drive themselves flipping mad because they can't have the relationship they want -- or maybe even need -- when the chances of producing offspring are slim to none, anyway.
I think that just 'cause there's a slim chance something may go wrong doesn't mean we should be super-paranoid and avoid it at all costs. We take our chances all the time -- when we go outside during a thunderstorm, we could get struck by lightning, when we drive there's a chance we could get into a fatal accident, when we move to certain places there's a chance we may get a tornado once in a while... heck, there's no guarantee that the Earth won't cease to exist tomorrow due to some unforeseeable cosmic accident that is beyond human comprehension... but we still live out our lives and take the best and most precautions we can, and hope for the best.
Anyways, we're just talking fertile and heterosexual incestuous couples here. Obviously two men can't produce offspring together, nor can two women, or couples that are infertile... yet if they had sex, they would be committing the "crime of incest".
Sure, it's not directly hurting anyone... except maybe our standards.
Maybe so, but those standards are hurting certain people and can be revised, whereas people can't help how they feel for each other. I know they can control their actions, but I believe they shouldn't have to suppress their urges in this case.
I have to seriously ask where you draw the line. Would you think that it's okay for a son to have sex with his mother? Or a daughter with her father? If no, why is it okay for siblings to have sex? They're also of the same blood, and from the same parents.
I care not who has sex with whom, as long as they're consenting and being careful. I believe it's their business and no one else's.
I think it's stupid that a friend would smack me upside the head (only half-playfully) for suggesting that I consider a certain distant cousin of mine whom I hadn't seen in nearly two decades easy on eyes.
I agree it's stupid. ZOMG thought crime!
Yeah, I mean she wasn't even that closely related to me. They called her a distant cousin to me, but I have doubts if "cousin" is really the right term seeing as how her parents aren't my parents' siblings... so I don't know what she is to me. I think she was the daughter of my dad's mom's nephew, but it's been about five years since that reunion so I don't know for sure if that's correct.
