07 Mar 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziI gave you two chances to argue decently, but your arguments were flimsy and fueled by hostile emotion.
then if you are tired to argue decently, and use the "you're stuuuuuupid i am not playing with you anymore" method, go have a child with your sister or mother because you are right, it is not a crime
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
07 Mar 07
2 edits
I would support legal action against these two people only if any of the children were handicapped in some way, I mean (anti-) incest laws should only be there to prevent this kind of problem in the first place: I know there are moral ideas about how it is wrong, but lets focus on the possible handicap part.
Beyond this it isn't any of my damn business and shouldn't be anyone elses.
07 Mar 07
The post that was quoted here has been removedThis was a very hot topic on another site, but there no one addressed the issue that the sister was initially a minor when they began. Intervention should have been immediate.
Although I find the idea morally repugnant, I have to go along with my belief that consenting adults who aren't in commited relationships with someone else are free to choose their partners.
- Joined
- 27 Apr 03
- Moves
- 29108
07 Mar 07
I think that there ia a point missing from the argument here and that is that people bearing hereditary diseases have not set out to have children perpetuating those diseases. Very often, they haven't even known about any genetic transmission or the risk of it before conception and haven't had knowledge of any such until after the birth of their progeny.
In the case of incest, the risks are known and have been deliberately flouted. This is as morally reprehensible as an AIDS carrier deliberately setting out to infect a sexual partner without their knowledge.
The child has no choice as to its birth, but the parents have a choice as to its conception. Therein lies the moral revulsion, that somebody, knowing the risks, would deliberately set out to flout them and hang the consequences for their own children.
07 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightwestyou are unbelievable. you are fine with a 10% chance of your child being handicaped. that he would have to need someone to wipe his ass for the rest of his life. that you could live with yourself knowing that a human being(and your child at that) has to suffer for a lifetime. and you call me fascist. if had a six shooter with one bullet, i wouldn't point it at my sister and fire, just because i have 1/6 chances i don't miss. there are some risks no responsible adults would take, it is really remarcable that you don't see this.
Leaves a 90% chance that your kid would be fine.
You are plain wrong and your views on this topic are nothing other than fascist.
Sorry.
07 Mar 07
Originally posted by reader1107fine. let them have sex all they want if they have the moral fiber of a platypus. but not have children. and 4 of them at that. that is when it stops being a moral issue and becomes a crime.
This was a very hot topic on another site, but there no one addressed the issue that the sister was initially a minor when they began. Intervention should have been immediate.
Although I find the idea morally repugnant, I have to go along with my belief that consenting adults who aren't in commited relationships with someone else are free to choose their partners.
07 Mar 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfthere is a chance the children are not handicapped in any visible way. perhaps they develop a disease later on. or they can't synthesize insulin very well, or whatever. or maybe they are perfectly ok. if a guy fires an uzi in a crowd and nobody gets hurt, he still gets thrown in jail for breaking the law.
I would support legal action against these two people only if any of the children were handicapped in some way, I mean (anti-) incest laws should only be there to prevent this kind of problem in the first place: I know there are moral ideas about how it is wrong, but lets focus on the possible handicap part.
Beyond this it isn't any of my damn business and shouldn't be anyone elses.
07 Mar 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziBad history.
reproduction is supposed to enlarge and enrich our population. that is why we don't marry our sisters or mothers, so we have a greater chance to find someone with whom we can produce extraordinary offspring. anything that can be done to ensure this is okay, including not to have children if you carry a genetic disease.
egypt had a great civilisation but al ...[text shortened]... orld would you have children? 10% chance your kid would have it and it still would be too much.
Bad legal "philosophy" (the right to procreate IS a fundamental right).
Bad political philosophy. Nazi-style eugenics.
08 Mar 07
Originally posted by no1maraudersays who? so the chinese are wrong? should they allow 1 billion chinese have as many little chinese as they want? should a woman with aids be allowed to have a child? i don;t understand you people. so it is right to have a child with your sister, but when i say that handicapped people should not have children likely to be handicapped, you cry nazi. who are you trying to fool?where are your arguments besides "i am cool, i have the fundamental right to have children, regardless how many diseases i transmit the poor kid"
Bad history.
Bad legal "philosophy" (the right to procreate IS a fundamental right).
Bad political philosophy. Nazi-style eugenics.
08 Mar 07
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziAre you over the age of ten? If so, you should try to present your ideas in a rational manner and maybe even work on your spelling and punctuation. When it looks like you could benefit from it, I'll give you links showing that, contrary to your belief, it is a fundamental right to have children if you so choose. That's my argument and I don't need another one, Kiddo.
says who? so the chinese are wrong? should they allow 1 billion chinese have as many little chinese as they want? should a woman with aids be allowed to have a child? i don;t understand you people. so it is right to have a child with your sister, but when i say that handicapped people should not have children likely to be handicapped, you cry nazi. who are the fundamental right to have children, regardless how many diseases i transmit the poor kid"
EDIT: You might also consider what effect the fact that Egypt was a dominant civilization for thousands of years and many of the Pharoahs were products of incestual marriages while they were leading this great civilization has on your "argument".
08 Mar 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI do not know why I even bother.
Are you over the age of ten? If so, you should try to present your ideas in a rational manner and maybe even work on your spelling and punctuation. When it looks like you could benefit from it, I'll give you links showing that, contrary to your belief, it is a fundamental right to have children if you so choose. That's my argument and I don't need another one, Kiddo.
Let us try the above one at a time, more clearly and with capitals where grammar demands it so you understand better. Because i do think you need help. Professional help.
1. The China has over 1 billion people between its borders. Rather than allow all families to have as many children as they want, they limit to 1.
2. A woman has AIDS. She knows she has AIDS. She wants to have a child. She really wants a child. Rather than murder her child, she chooses to adopt.
3. A man has a hereditary disease that causes a very horrible disease to his children, 100%. Should he have children? Does he have the right?
Hope this helps. If it doesn't, go google "A complete idiot's guide to why having children with your mother is wrong"
08 Mar 07
EDIT: You might also consider what effect the fact that Egypt was a dominant civilization for thousands of years and many of the Pharoahs were products of incestual marriages while they were leading this great civilization has on your "argument".[/b]you fail to remember that many such retards were so convinced they were the sons of Ra that they didn't participate in the decisions. and that the dynasties were constantly changing, adding fresh blood. plus the progress was hardly the pharaoh's fault. it wasn't the pharaohs who built the pyramids, it was the architects