Quote: (04-15-2012 09:11 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:
The discussion about birth-deffects and the states possible financial obbligations is a bit of a red herring. You can be certain that even if they could prove they won't or can't have children together (e.g. The man has a vasectomy) the state will STILL prosecute. It's a little like a witch hunt. They have "offended" the sensibilities of the bourgoisie and they must pay so that everyone else can feel moral, good etc. Even as the prosecuters and public engages in their own numerous kinks. Behind closed doors of course.
I agree with this. I'm sure a lot (I dare say most) of the moral outrage at stuff like this comes from a visceral disgust of the idea of siblings having sex, rather than a consideration for the interests of their children or the burden on society of caring for children with severe disabilities. And you're very right that the mere fact that something offends your sensibilities is no reason at all to think it should be illegal.
But it's also important to recognize that just because most people endorse a bad argument for some position doesn't mean that there aren't good arguments for it. If the majority of people thought that 2+2=4 because the moon is made of green cheese, the fact that their reason for thinking 2+2=4 is bogus doesn't mean it isn't nevertheless true. I think the high risk of birth defects is an extremely compelling reason for prohibiting full siblings from reproducing, which at least partially puts me in these people's camp even though I utterly reject their reasoning.
Where I would differ from the "visceral disgust" position is in thinking that there's nothing wrong with them fucking per se so long as they don't reproduce. So I would agree with you that they should be left alone if one of them gets sterilized.