Incest Should Be Legal
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Why should our disgust dictate someone's consensual* private life?
*My definition of consensual is where both people are adults and both want to be in the relationship. Another thing is that there cannot be a power imbalance, so they must be similar in age.
There are many relationships people find disgust in; that maybe you even partake in. Such as, a homosexual relationship, an interracial relationship, and polyamorous relationships. Even though some people may not find it right; if it doesn't harm anyone, it should be allowed. You can't help who you love.
You may be saying "What about the child? This will harm the child" and I agree with you there for some cases. However, it is a free country, and if people want to make the unwise decision to keep the inbred baby; so be it. Not to mention, it would be hard to regulate. Plus, we don't prevent other people from marrying or denying them reproductive rights based on increased odds of a genetic disorder or disease.
It is a free country, love is love.
Pro is basically saying we should have the freedom to abuse our children because love is love. As incest can easily cause genetic defects and early deaths it is difficult to justify incest at all. Pro says we allow genetic disordered people to have sex — but the statistics are far more muddy than inbreeding, which has had a severely bad reputation. Unless pro can prove it causes as much death and harm as incest, the comparison falls.
Let me ask pro, does he think human cloning should be legal? It also causes severe disorders in the human cells but you could say the scientist’s love exists in some form.
I will admit, first-degree relatives have a high likelihood of their offspring being disabled in some way.
However, this does not apply to cousins. These numbers can occur naturally in non-incestuous relationships. Some people just have a higher likelihood of their children being disabled. But you don't see people opposed to those parents, do you?
The only reason why people see a romantic cousin relationship as wrong is because of their culture. In the Middle East, this is not seen as taboo. Some examples are: Qatari, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates. Some parents even encourage the cousins to marry through an arranged marriage!
And on the human cloning subject, we can do a debate on it.
Pro has conceded that first degree relatives bring about an unnecessary about of genetic diseases.
He admits that incest is based on culture. So who is to deny this very culture, the majority of the world? Pro has not given a plan to be able to actually legalize incest. Unless he is able to convince the entire culture of the different countries around the world, marrying your relative will always be controversial. So we couldn't implement the legalization.
He has not given a stance on human cloning. I will take it to mean he is against human cloning, and that he agrees that we should minimize suffering of children, regardless of how much "love" is there.
Note: I do support human cloning, I just don't want to talk about it unless we get into another debate. Also, why do you keep calling me he?
I will focus on the cousin to cousin relationships, and only those for the remainder of the debate as your questions have persuaded me.
In most countries, cousin marriage is legal. So your point is not relevant.
Pro claims that the majority of countries legalize cousin marriage. Her link is broken.
Anyways, I feel like the doubling of the risk is unnecessary amount of risk. It's just too much. Why accept extra risk when you don't have to?
The link to the image: https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NINTCHDBPICT000424335997.jpg?strip=all&w=951
And like I said before, these numbers can occur naturally in non-incestuous relationships. Some people just have a higher likelihood of their children being disabled. But you don't see people opposed to those parents, do you? For example, women who give birth when they are over 40 have an extremely high likelihood of complications. As well as people who have a family history of birth defects.
You don't want cousins to marry because of your disgust. But like I said in the beginning, why should our disgust dictate someone's consensual relationship?
pro ignores the fact that people over 40 have difficulty actually getting pregnant and retain their pregnancy, reducing the effects of the possible disability. The pregnancy possibility combined with genetic defect is too much to accept. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/parenting/pregnancy/baby-after-40.html)
Pro keeps asserting that I am disgusted. Obviously I would be disgusted that you would have a high chance to abuse your child and make it difficult to live in the future. I am surprised that Pro is *not* disgusted at child abuse.
In your first paragraph, you state "people over 40 have difficulty actually getting pregnant and retain their pregnancy, reducing the effects of the possible disability. The pregnancy possibility combined with genetic defect is too much to accept." That would mean that the people who keep attempting to get pregnant are ignoring the risks. Your point doesn't make sense.
In your second paragraph, you say that cousins having children together is a form of child abuse. I looked at the definition [physical maltreatment or sexual molestation of a child.] and do not see the correlation. Can you explain your reason as to why this is child abuse to you?
the point is that the risk of age 40+ is low while incest is unacceptably high, while still being able to get pregnant. Pro says the child abuse has to be the legal definition, but does not consider that ruining the child's future may be similar to this.