A spokesman for the upper house said - quite rightly and justly in my opinion - that the often-cited eugenic reason for a law against incest is not something that a civilized society can use as a basis for a law. After all no one seriously considers punishing the drinking of alcohol during pregnancy, or sex between partners who both have a history of genetic defects in their respective family backgrounds. The abuse argument also doesn't carry us very far, since sexual abuse, coercion and rape are already illegal.
Yes, this is exactly right.
Are there any rational moral reasons for upholding this law against what some consider the last sexual taboo?
No.
CallumW…
I don't really see how a relationship or sex between relatives could be morally wrong if both consent and are uncoerced, however the incidence of genetic disease in inbred families when parents are only cousins is much higher than those with access to a more diverse gene pool, and if siblings were to produce offspring the risk would be greater again. This doesn't really seem fair on the children of such a union. But then to legally ban people from having children in circumstances when the risk of genetic disease is particularly high seems to be a gross infringement of their human rights.
Rtambree…
Sexual acts and procreation are two different things.
Right again!
Still, people tried the “deformed babies” argument, so this comment was made by MMAtheist…
Since the concern about birth defects is predictably the big issue here, I'll repeat my question to everyone: should we also start regulating against older women giving birth to children?
"The British Down's Syndrome Association has posted a chart showing the risk of producing a baby with the syndrome at various maternal ages. From age 20 to age 31, the risk doubles. From 31 to 35, it doubles again. From 35 to 38, it doubles again. From 38 to 41, it more than doubles again."
What about smoking and drinking when you're pregnant? Is that illegal in your country? Shouldn't it be if your #1 concern is birth defects?
Jice…
"Because it makes me feel iky," seems to be the only deffence I see, which flat out is on the same page as religious thinking that your view is supperior to that of thoes providing the consent.
Sex /= offspring. We aren't the catholic church here, we allow contriception.
To set a precident that it's ok to legislate against couples who might have children with birth defects is wrong in any free country. Who makes the decision? If I had a certain gene that would give my baby a 20% chance to be born with Crie-de-chat should I be legislated against, reguardless of who my partner is? Because of a slim chance that if I even have a child (gay) that it has a slim chance to not be perfectly healthy?
And what about gay incest? Any arguments about genetics fly out the window in that case and now all you're doing is legislating against brothers/sisters who like to have a close relationship that includes sexual activity.
And I don't really think age plays much of a factor either. If they are 12, it's just the same curiosity we all grew up with which could amount to a few encounters, and if they are 16, then they are adult enough to make up thier own minds and shouldn't have to be worried about going to jail because they enjoy themselves. Anything younger and they probably haven't even hit puberty and it's completely innocent. And if there is an age gap, say 12 and 18, then it's already illegal through other laws.
The only potential I can see for this law is to double charge sex offenders, of the variety in which paretns molest thier childern. Yes, it's incest, but it's also pedophelia which unless Swiss are all ok with that, is probably still illegal, and still carries the same penalties.
Double dipping laws like this don't help prevent crime, or help the victims of thoes crimes. They just make criminals out of otherwise innocent people whos only crime was to not hurt anyone while doing what they like.
Very well said.
Debonnesnouvelles…
In the rare case where an adult decides that he/she wants to have a relationship with another consenting grown up relative, would the law in this case not infringe on their rights not to be discriminated against?
The law already is in place to punish abusers. Should it punish people who are in a rare position of quite genuinely wanting to love someone they are not supposed to love?
Absolutely not.
Debonnesnouvelles looks at Saletan’s argument…
How would "confusing the relationships" provide a rational basis for laws against incest in view of a constitution? Is confusing relationships a crime?
Foundationist follows up…
I can well imagine a scenario where an incestuous relationship might be perfectly healthy, normal and indeed even psychologically beneficial for the couple. So could countless authors and dramatists through the ages who liked to toy with that taboo.
Yes. Just take a look here (NSFW text).
Punishing incest as a criminal offence in itself seems to be based on numerous preconceived notions and prejudices, especially when the law is unspecified enough to even apply to, say, a lesbian affair between adult half-sisters with a small age gap.
The comments I read did not contain any solid reason to deny the right of consenting adults to love, sex, and marriage simply because they are close relatives. There were many comments from allies.
No comments:
Post a Comment