[gringochileno]

(04-14-2012 04:25 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 03:50 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

Finally, I'm going to have to keep insisting that the evidence has falsified your position. If prohibiting sibling procreation carried a genuine danger of leading to eugenics, we wouldn't see the universal rejection of eugenics that exists today, independent of countries' policies toward incest.

I will summarize what we've learned from this discussion so far...

This incest scandal shows that, despite the antipathy towards limiting people's reproductive rights, it is still viewed as legitimate to forbid two consenting adults from reproducing when the risks are too "high". In other words, the "switch" that allows the collective to decide who should breed is already in the "on" position, despite the bad memories of the late 1930s, early 1940s.

It would be foolish to claim that forbidding incest will lead to eugenics in our era. The spirit of the times is such that eugenics is deeply repulsive to most people and, thus, will be seen as illegitimate to the collective.

But, the spirit of the times can and will change. In another era, say, 200 years from now, since the "switch" is already in the "on" position and unlikely to ever be in the "off" position, then eugenics may become a reality. If the giant social experiment that is liberalism fails, our descendents will adopt policies that counter those of our time, since it is only normal for the child to rebel against the father. Ideological trends and fads are fickle beasts. A mere economic crisis can make society shift from one end of the ideological spectrum, to its opposite.

You are still assuming that what constitutes an acceptable degree of risk is utterly, completely arbitrary, and something that only depends on whatever the "spirit of the times" happens to be. That is what I am denying.

Your mistake is reasoning from the indeterminacy of borderline cases to the nonexistence of any objective limits on the amount of risk we're willing to tolerate. That generalization simply doesn't have any basis; again, there are ways to make this quantitatively precise, but the case of first-degree relatives is so far from the gray area that we should be able to agree just as reasonable people making heuristic judgments. If not, I can direct you to some resources on quantitative risk-modeling.

Besides, even if everything you say were true (it's not), it's not like having your "switch" in the "off" position would be any barrier to a future society that really wanted to move toward a policy of eugenics. There's no argument for eugenics that wouldn't also be an argument for moving the switch to "on." All it would do is increase the number of children born with serious inherited disabilities, which I think you'll agree with me is a very tragic consequence if you've ever met someone with one of those.

[gringochileno]

One more thing...

I'm skeptical that the "switch" you describe is even a useful concept, in the sense of an absolute prohibition on the state telling anyone that they can't reproduce, regardless of the consequences. The key phrase, of course, is "regardless of the consequences." Really? I don't think you can possibly deny that if the consequences were severe enough, you'd have to allow restrictions on reproduction.

To make the point with an extreme example, say you had certain knowledge that if two particular people reproduced, their offspring would go on to become a psychotic dictator and kill millions of people. Suppose further that this is certain to occur, unless the state actively prohibited them from reproducing. Would you allow the state to prevent these people from procreating if it was the only way to save millions of lives? Of course you would (I predict). But in doing so, you've just admitted to a case where it's legitimate to prevent consenting adults from reproducing because the risks are "too high" (in this case certain, and of large magnitude).

So I would argue that the "switch" as you describe it would always be in the "on" position. The difference between you and me is only in where you set the cutoff point--once again, a difference of degree, not kind. But the whole purpose of the "switch" concept was to erect some kind of inviolable barrier that prevents the government from restricting reproduction by consenting adults in all cases, so I'd argue that it's not a useful concept.

Consequences matter. That's why you can't ignore the quantitative nature of the risks.

[Icarus]

(04-14-2012 05:04 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

I'm skeptical that the "switch" you describe is even a useful concept

This discussion reminds me of the Anwar al-Awlaki affair. Should the U.S. Government have the right to kill al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, on charges of terrorism? Wouldn't that set a dangerous precedent? From a legalistic viewpoint, the political opposition could be declared "terrorist" and legally killed. This is slightly ridiculous, since most Americans view the execution of al-Awlaki as legitimate, whereas political assassinations are considered illegitimate. Either way, al-Awlaki was killed.

However, what is considered legitimate by the collective changes over time and space.

(04-14-2012 05:04 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

That's why you can't ignore the quantitative nature of the risks.

I am extremely skeptical of quantitative reasoning in social sciences. One can quantify risk, but one should also keep in mind that lying with statistics is the most sophisticated form of deceit.

[gringochileno]

(04-14-2012 05:18 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 05:04 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

I'm skeptical that the "switch" you describe is even a useful concept

This discussion reminds me of the Anwar al-Awlaki affair. Should the U.S. Government have the right to kill al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, on charges of terrorism? Wouldn't that set a dangerous precedent? From a legalistic viewpoint, the political opposition could be declared "terrorist" and legally killed. This is slightly ridiculous, since most Americans view the execution of al-Awlaki as legitimate, whereas political assassinations are considered illegitimate. Either way, al-Awlaki was killed.

However, what is considered legitimate by the collective changes over time and space.

You're still assuming the same subjectivism that I pointed out above in identifying the views of "most Americans" of what's legitimate with what actually is legitimate (the comparison is more sketchy here because we don't have very precise ways of measuring the risks and benefits, but it's your example, not mine).

Look, I think rules can be useful things--it's probably for the best that we have absolute protections on freedom of speech, even if it leads to suboptimal results in some individual cases for the sake of the overall good. But I can't see this reasoning justifying an absolute laissez-faire attitude toward reproduction. Letting brothers and sisters have kids is sufficiently harmful, and sufficiently different from other cases, that I don't see any remote possibility of a slippery-slope effect outweighing the immediate costs.

Quote:

I am extremely skeptical of quantitative reasoning in social sciences. One can quantify risk, but one should also keep in mind that lying with statistics is the most sophisticated form of deceit.

Medical research isn't generally classified as a social science. Risk modeling is actually a fairly mature field and there are tried-and-true ways of measuring people's tolerance for risk using time-tradeoff and other methods.

We're not talking about something from an article in an obscure sociology journal here. The methods I'm talking about are the same ones used by doctors every day to make treatment decisions.

[Caligula]

Risk modeling is quite mature by now. Google actuarial science.

[ManAbout]

(04-14-2012 02:05 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

A: We (taxpayers) have to foot the bill for the healthcare needed to look after the defective products of these unions.

What taxpayers? You live in the US. Your country doesn't give a fuck about anybody. Every man/woman/child for him/herself. If a brother and sister want to have a retarded child and foot the bill for it with their own medical insurance, why do you care?

In cases where there is such a concern about the tax payers footing the bill for other peoples' bad habits then why not ban other such scenarios? Smoking? What is the cost to the medical system from smoking related illnesses? And from junk food? And all those other activities that have been proven to be detrimental?

[Excelsior]

(04-14-2012 07:26 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

What taxpayers? You live in the US. Your country doesn't give a fuck about anybody. Every man/woman/child for him/herself. If a brother and sister want to have a retarded child and foot the bill for it with their own medical insurance, why do you care?

About this incestuous couple, are they going to be paying for all of the other allowances their deformed offspring will need (special schooling, transport, etc)? If they can't afford it, then who does? When enough of these retards are produced via these unions, are my insurance premiums going to remain the same, or is the company going to increase them to cover its ass as it spends more taking care of these invalids? Will the burden on many state-funded county/state hospitals increase as more of these invalids show up in their emergency rooms?

Furthermore, how many of these incestuous retards are going to qualify for Medicare and Medicaid due to disability (which is common among incestuous children) or low income? I suspect quite a few, and you and I will be paying for them. You want to increase that bill?

A lack of universal healthcare is not going to justify this. There is no upside to incest, and there is no escaping the consequences regardless of which healthcare system plays host to that madness. It is bad for the taxpayer, almost uniformly bad for all of the children produced, and it is bad for society as a whole. That people are willing to stand here and defend it boggles the mind.

Quote:

In cases where there is such a concern about the tax payers footing the bill for other peoples' bad habits then why not ban other such scenarios? Smoking? What is the cost to the medical system from smoking related illnesses? And from junk food? And all those other activities that have been proven to be detrimental?

Do people not understand the notion of risk tolerance and the cutoffs therein? We've already talked about this.
Yes, smoking causes issues. Pregnancies among older females do the same thing. Risk is everywhere.

The goal is not to eliminate all risk, it is to eliminate unreasonable amounts of risk. When you have a practice that has, at best, a 1/3 chance of producing child morbidity (a number that has risen in other studies), it is generally wise to eliminate it.
Older female pregnancies and junk food consumption simply do not bring up the same levels of morbidity as incest. In fact, there aren't many things that do. For that reason, they are not going to get the same attention.

In any case, extensive campaigns have already been launched against smoking and I suspect a long campaign against obesity and the food that causes it will be next. You can make of that what you will.

[NuMbEr7]

edit

[Spike]

In Holland we just started talking about forced anti conception for people who are not able to nurse children like mentally retarded people or heavy drug addicts. Its still a taboo talking about it but there are lots of good arguments for doing this. A new law proposal is in the making.
- About 50 to 80 children die due to direct results of physical abuse, most of them don't live to be 4 years old. (that's a lot for a small country)
- children of (teenage) drug users are already addicted to drugs when born and face a live of health misery

I'm for this and would even dare to say that i'm for forced sterilization for heavy drug abusers, people with down syndrome, heavilly retarded people and people convicted of multiple rapes, murder or child abuse.

[Bad Hussar]

A lot of very sensible comments here - especially from Athlone and Gringo. Likely a lot more mature than 90% of all the threads probably discussing this case.

Just for your interest, and to make you feel a little queesy, it should be noted that there are several coutries were consensual incest amongst adults is legal. Or more properly, it is not illegal. Not too sure of the list, but think that France and Brazil are both such countries.

You'll always see in these cases that the sibblings, or usually half-sibblings, have NEVER grown up together. The theory, as someone alluded to above, is that all children who grow up around each other (even if not actually related) in a houshold, are imprinted with each others images and are disgusted by the thought of sexual relations with them (i.e. Freud was mostly wrong about this). However, if they do not grow up together, for whatever reason, the imprinting doesn't happen and they are actually MORE likely to be sexually attracted to each other than to a stranger if meeting later. Birds of a feather and all that. Most people, including me, think that the actual knowledge that they are sibblings or half-sibblings should be enough to kill that flame, but I have also not been in that situation. So it's difficult to judge.

In this particular case I think they have already suffered enough in life, and if they really want to stay together the state should back off. 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.

Lastly. Just to give everyone pause for thought. It is belived that around 10% of people are mistaken about the true answer to the question "whose your Daddy?" The mother has had an affair/daliance and commited paternity fraud in 10% of all births. So there are a lot of people walking around unkowingly clueless as to who their true biological father is. Together with the added modern practice of sperm donorship, where women choose amongst a miniscule pool of men to father their children, you can easily guess were this leads to. There are likely millions of people around the world unknowingly breaking the law every day by fucking someone who is actually their half-sibbling. All the while completely oblivious.

[Bad Hussar]

(04-15-2012 05:22 AM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  

In Holland we just started talking about forced anti conception for people who are not able to nurse children like mentally retarded people or heavy drug addicts. Its still a taboo talking about it but there are lots of good arguments for doing this. A new law proposal is in the making.
- About 50 to 80 children die due to direct results of physical abuse, most of them don't live to be 4 years old. (that's a lot for a small country)
- children of (teenage) drug users are already addicted to drugs when born and face a live of health misery

I'm for this and would even dare to say that i'm for forced sterilization for heavy drug abusers, people with down syndrome, heavilly retarded people and people convicted of multiple rapes, murder or child abuse.

It's always interesting to look at what the Dutch are doing about any particular social problem you're interested in. Everyone thinks they're a butch of "liberal" hippies because of their position on soft drugs and prostitution, but a lot of their stances are actually quite conservative.

How would "forced contraception" actually work in practice? The woman is held down while a nurse injects Deepa Provera every year? Actually, the existance of long lasting and idiot proof birth control methods like Deepa Provera greatly enhanses the ability of the state to limit "unwanted" births. To be honest in most cases coersion wouldn't even be neccesarry. Just a system of incentives.

[Timoteo]

Yes Bad Hussar, it proves that family is more than shared DNA. When siblings are raised apart, they aren't socialized as normal siblings would be. They don't recognize that person as family, but simply as they would see any member of the opposite sex and can easily develop sexual or romantic feelings.

[kosko]

Nature always wins. These 2 fools will eventually kill off their genetic code. Inbreeding never works well and always leads to genetic destruction. They can do whatever they please but don't expect the state to pick up the tab on their eventual heavily disabled children. Actions like this are selfish their kids will suffer and be in pain simply because this man is capable of getting a boner of his sister. Fuck sakes.

Inbreeding creates deformities and psychological problems too. This is why people think Royal family's are so nutty many inbreed and still do to this day. Since Kate and Prince Phillip are cousins I don't think they can have children the traditional way. Supposedly Kate was impregnated via IntoVino which is bizzare to think that a 33 year old made isn't capable of blasting her sugar walls with nut.

[Bad Hussar]

(04-15-2012 11:23 AM)kosko Wrote:  

Nature always wins. These 2 fools will eventually kill off their genetic code. Inbreeding never works well and always leads to genetic destruction. They can do whatever they please but don't expect the state to pick up the tab on their eventual heavily disabled children. Actions like this are selfish their kids will suffer and be in pain simply because this man is capable of getting a boner of his sister. Fuck sakes.

Inbreeding creates deformities and psychological problems too. This is why people think Royal family's are so nutty many inbreed and still do to this day. Since Kate and Prince Phillip are cousins I don't think they can have children the traditional way. Supposedly Kate was impregnated via IntoVino which is bizzare to think that a 33 year old made isn't capable of blasting her sugar walls with nut.

I don't see that this particular couple want to have children. Like I said the "disgust" people feel has nothing to do with whether they are to have children or not. People would still feel the same and demand "justice" even if one or both of them were biologically unable to have children. It's a simmilar sort of psychology that would fuel Witch trials, exorcisms, inquisitions and so on. You may as well imagine the publics "sins" being "cast onto" a goat and then driven off a cliff.

You could probably do with developing a bit of compassion and trying understand a bit of the dynamic behind why they are attracted to one another before judging them.

What are you reffering to with Kate and Prince Philip? If you have proof that they have hooked up you're in line for a $million+ payday with the British tabloids. I'm guessing you either mean Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip or Prince William and his wife Katherine, whatever her title is. I think Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are second cousins, or more remote, which really isn't that closely related at all. You'll probably hear reports in the next couple of months that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are 5th cousins or something. Apparently noone in the world is more distantly related than 50th cousin. Most are much much closer. With Royal families it's just easier to tell because they keep such detailed records.

It is difficult to tell who, in the Royal family, you are reffering to who was conceived by the "IntoVino" method (One night we really got into the Vino and a bit reckless Johnny. You were the result.). I'm not aware of public information on any specific member being conceived by in vitro fertilisation. I doubt it was even around when Queen Elizabeth was having her children.

[kosko]

I was referring to William and Kate the two whom just recently married. It was a random headline I came across and I found it funny because these are two young-ish adults. Kate is not a graying woman with decaying ovaries but then yes they are related I do not know how close their blood runs but this is common for Royal families tho.

Back to the German couple yes I don't agree with it but I can't knock anybodys freedom to do whatever they want. My stance on all stuff is that people can do whatever the F they please as long as it does not negatively effect others... OR... They seek to make their actions legitimate by via The State. With Gays for instance people can fuck whomever they please but personally I don't view it valid to persue the same protections from The State that a Female and Man would get via marriage. Apples and Oranges.

The German authorities should chill out as they are flushing resources pursuing the case. If Children to come into the picture these two should understand the risks and take on 100% of the costs to raise them. A woman whom knowingly drinks while pregnant knows the risks she is gambling with. If one chooses to be that selfish when dealing with the selfless act of birthing and rasing children then they should not get subsidies or the right to do so.

[gringochileno]

(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.

[Timoteo]

(04-15-2012 05:59 PM)kosko Wrote:  

I was referring to William and Kate the two whom just recently married. It was a random headline I came across and I found it funny because these are two young-ish adults. Kate is not a graying woman with decaying ovaries but then yes they are related I do not know how close their blood runs but this is common for Royal families tho.

Back to the German couple yes I don't agree with it but I can't knock anybodys freedom to do whatever they want. My stance on all stuff is that people can do whatever the F they please as long as it does not negatively effect others... OR... They seek to make their actions legitimate by via The State. With Gays for instance people can fuck whomever they please but personally I don't view it valid to persue the same protections from The State that a Female and Man would get via marriage. Apples and Oranges.

The German authorities should chill out as they are flushing resources pursuing the case. If Children to come into the picture these two should understand the risks and take on 100% of the costs to raise them. A woman whom knowingly drinks while pregnant knows the risks she is gambling with. If one chooses to be that selfish when dealing with the selfless act of birthing and rasing children then they should not get subsidies or the right to do so.

The couple already has 4 children, and 2 of them have "disabilities." The issue here is that they won't be able to take care of them forever. Then what happens to these two disabled adults? The article doesn't go into details as to the extent of the disability, but special-needs kids become special-needs adults. I know women that have special-needs kids (banged 3 of them) of varying degrees. I'm talking one has an autistic kid, another has a Down's kid (high functioning), a couple of others have kids with severe disabilities. They aren't wheelchair-bound, but both don't speak, and have to spend time in special facilities. One is 19, and still wears diapers and is very poorly coordinated. For some of them, if their parent/parents weren't here to care for them, I don't know if there's another family member that could take custody of them. That means the state would have to step in.

[Bad Hussar]

I didn't realise that this couple has kids. I thought it was about another German couple someone mentioned to me, who apparently don't have kids. Are there two of these cases running right now? If they are having kids left and right (four you say) while knowing that some already have major problems they are very irresponsible. They should be dealt with by the law for just being irresponsible. I'm guessing there are no laws in Germany that would allow the state to stop couples from having children where it is inadvisable. So the only way they can get to them is to use the incest law. The case is starting to make more sense.

Of course all this begs the question. When the science of genetics is so advanced that specialists can look at the genetic code of any two people contemplating having children, and give them a full rundown of the exact genetic risks that their possible children might face, would any couple actually want the info? TMI in my opinion. Also, there are numerous racial/ethnic groups in various parts of the world who have a higher than average chance of passing on a genetic disease to their children than the remainder of the population. In North America the ones usualy quoted are Jews with Tay-Sachs and African-Americans with Sickle Cell Aneamia. The problem with allowing the state to step in in extreme cases like incest, is that they are seldom happy only regulating the fringes. Their ambit will likely constantly be expanding and before you know it you have a near fascist situation with the state telling the majority of people who can, and can't, procreate.

[Bad Hussar]

(04-15-2012 05:59 PM)kosko Wrote:  

I was referring to William and Kate the two whom just recently married. It was a random headline I came across and I found it funny because these are two young-ish adults. Kate is not a graying woman with decaying ovaries but then yes they are related I do not know how close their blood runs but this is common for Royal families tho.

William and Kate cousins? How close? 3rd or 4th at best probably. Well, like I said we are ALL cousins. No two people in the world are more distantly related than 50th cousin. Most living within particular regions are significantly closer than that. The only reason this is coming out is because they are famous and the British Royal family have been keeping very acurate records of their genealogy for so long. Any two random people getting hitched are likley just as close as william and Kate are, but do not realise it. I wasn't joking about expecting media reports that Obama and Romney are xth cousins soon. The press does that every year to make it look like the political elite are some sort of royalty. But they intentionally fail to mention that the average American is not much more distantly related to another random American than xth cousin anyway.

You are right that royal families were heavily into cousin marriages, and this has likley done them some harm since they did it over repeated generations. But that was in past. It'll be pretty unlikley that a modern Western royal will marry their first cousin today.

[Timoteo]

(04-16-2012 10:25 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

I didn't realise that this couple has kids. I thought it was about another German couple someone mentioned to me, who apparently don't have kids. Are there two of these cases running right now? If they are having kids left and right (four you say) while knowing that some already have major problems they are very irresponsible. They should be dealt with by the law for just being irresponsible. I'm guessing there are no laws in Germany that would allow the state to stop couples from having children where it is inadvisable. So the only way they can get to them is to use the incest law. The case is starting to make more sense.

Of course all this begs the question. When the science of genetics is so advanced that specialists can look at the genetic code of any two people contemplating having children, and give them a full rundown of the exact genetic risks that their possible children might face, would any couple actually want the info? TMI in my opinion. Also, there are numerous racial/ethnic groups in various parts of the world who have a higher than average chance of passing on a genetic disease to their children than the remainder of the population. In North America the ones usualy quoted are Jews with Tay-Sachs and African-Americans with Sickle Cell Aneamia. The problem with allowing the state to step in in extreme cases like incest, is that they are seldom happy only regulating the fringes. Their ambit will likely constantly be expanding and before you know it you have a near fascist situation with the state telling the majority of people who can, and can't, procreate.

The woman I know with the kid with Down's (she's 21 now) knew before she was born, probably from the amniocentisis. They decided to proceed with the pregnancy. She was their first-born, and she was only around 24 when she had her. She had two healthy sons after that. Another college friend had fraternal twins, a boy and a girl, and the boy simply wasn't progressing as quickly as the girl was - he didn't cry, didn't walk, was still in diapers well beyond when he should have been, etc. so they took him in for tests. I don't know if they can diagnose autism in the womb, but there are some diabilities that will either be confirmed visually, and other they can analyze fluids from the womb. However, during the in-vitro process, they can pick and choose the healthiest eggs and sperm to almost insure a healthy child, though there are always factors during development that we can't predict or understand what triggers them or why they happen. For example, with all the advancements in medicine in general, and genetics/human development, we don't know what causes the egg to split creating identical twins. We know they tend to run in families, but we don't know why or what triggers it to happen.

I had other friends that married when both were in their mid-30s (he was 34, she was 35), and I believe they went through genetic counseling. They had to have kids immediately, and they had a healthy boy and girl within three years.