Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says

[HVC]

Single generation inbreeding doesn't cause mutant  babies. If it did all our domesticated animals would be drooling three legged monstrosities.

First cousin incest does cause a much higher rate of birth defects and mental and physical retardation. With our domestic animals it results in all the breed specific illnesses found in domestic dogs and it cases massive amounts of still borns and runts.

with domestic animals it's multi-generational inbreeding that causes issues. That issue is exasperated in dogs because of  dog showing where every "pedigree" dog has the same grand parents because grand dad won a blue ribbon.

Inbreeding causes the expression of recessive traits to be expressed at a larger percentage then a non inbreed population (fixing traits in husbandry terms). But it takes generation to be statistically significant.

[Malthus]

 Exacerbated. 

[Viking]

Single generation inbreeding doesn't cause mutant  babies. If it did all our domesticated animals would be drooling three legged monstrosities.

First cousin incest does cause a much higher rate of birth defects and mental and physical retardation. With our domestic animals it results in all the breed specific illnesses found in domestic dogs and it cases massive amounts of still borns and runts.

with domestic animals it's multi-generational inbreeding that causes issues. That issue is exasperated in dogs because of  dog showing where every "pedigree" dog has the same grand parents because grand dad won a blue ribbon.

Inbreeding causes the expression of recessive traits to be expressed at a larger percentage then a non inbreed population (fixing traits in husbandry terms). But it takes generation to be statistically significant.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/04/marriage-first-cousins-birth-defects

[Razgovory]

"Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo."

Of course it is.  A great many social taboos are persevered by law.  Such as the prohibition against murder.

[Martinus]

Yeah, I have always held that position. Outside of the "yuck" factor there are usually two (or three, depending how you parse it) arguments brought against incest, i.e.:

- the eugenics argument ("incest causes inbreeding") - but as others have said, this makes incest criminalisation neither proportionate (as genetic mutations resulting from incest are not that frequent) or non-discriminatory (otherwise we would be sterilising people with inherited genetic defects). Plus that argument really does not work for homosexual incest;

- the child abuse argument ("we can't have parents grooming/fucking children") - but this issue is already dealt with through child abuse laws (plus, again, why ban sibling incest if this is the reason?);

- the co-dependency argument ("relatives can be pressured into sex so such relationships may be very unhealthy") - but again there are already laws dealing with psychological coercion between sexual partners, and besides, it is so vague (there are many other forms of co-dependent/unhealthy relationships yet we do not ban them), it really seems to me like an attempt to rationalise the "yuck" factor.

[Malthus]

In any event, the issues with incest these days are not eugenic concerns. The real issue these days is that close family relationships are ones which presumptively raise concerns about whether consent is valid.

They are not alone in that - there are tons of others, like student-teacher, in some industries worker-boss, lawyer-client, etc.

In each one of these cases of course one can find examples in which consent is demonstrably free, but as a society we have taken the decision to disapprove in various ways (laws, codes of ethics, disciplinary codes) because the risk of abuse in general is too great.

[Martinus]

"Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo."

Of course it is.  A great many social taboos are persevered by law.  Such as the prohibition against murder.

This is putting the matter on its head. In a modern society, there needs to be a rational justification for criminalising something. In more primitive societies, many of the crimes were protected by taboos, but that does not mean law exists to preserve taboos.

[Martinus]

In any event, the issues with incest these days are not eugenic concerns. The real issue these days is that close family relationships are ones which presumptively raise concerns about whether consent is valid.

They are not alone in that - there are tons of others, like student-teacher, in some industries worker-boss, lawyer-client, etc.

In each one of these cases of course one can find examples in which consent is demonstrably free, but as a society we have taken the decision to disapprove in various ways (laws, codes of ethics, disciplinary codes) because the risk of abuse in general is too great.

But this is a bullshit argument for criminalising all incestual relationships a priori. There is no criminal law (I am not talking about internal procedural rules for various organisations and institutions) that says a boss cannot sleep with an employee or an (adult) student with a teacher etc. Sure, the nature of the relationship may be such that it falls within the scope of a criminal prohibition but that needs to be proven on a case by case basis.

Especially, as the recommendation by the Germany ethics board was made specifically in the context of incest between siblings who were not raised together.

[derspiess]

German ethics board 

[Malthus]

In any event, the issues with incest these days are not eugenic concerns. The real issue these days is that close family relationships are ones which presumptively raise concerns about whether consent is valid.

They are not alone in that - there are tons of others, like student-teacher, in some industries worker-boss, lawyer-client, etc.

In each one of these cases of course one can find examples in which consent is demonstrably free, but as a society we have taken the decision to disapprove in various ways (laws, codes of ethics, disciplinary codes) because the risk of abuse in general is too great.

But this is a bullshit argument for criminalising all incestual relationships a priori. There is no criminal law (I am not talking about internal procedural rules for various organisations and institutions) that says a boss cannot sleep with an employee or an (adult) student with a teacher etc. Sure, the nature of the relationship may be such that it falls within the scope of a criminal prohibition but that needs to be proven on a case by case basis.

Especially, as the recommendation by the Germany ethics board was made specifically in the context of incest between siblings who were not raised together.

Bosses sleeping with employees is a matter for disciplinary procedures within a company, and students sleeping with (adult) students a matter of disciplinary proceedings within the school or university; similarly, a lawyer sleeping with clients is a matter for the relevant law society's code of ethics.

The problem with incest, of course, is that there is no such administrative body or code of ethics that would be applicable. Only the criminal law.

Certainly, there will be cases in which it will be clear that there is no actual improper influence. There is in all those other cases, as well. The reason for the prohibition (agree with it or not) is that the risk of abuse in the ordinary case is so great as to outweigh the injustice done in those admittedly rather rare cases in which siblings raised apart wish to have sex with each other. 

In short, the case for reversing the current onus (the relatonship is presumptively prohibited) is weak because the exceptions are unusual and the risk of harm in the usual case is great.

[Martinus]

Bosses sleeping with employees is a matter for disciplinary procedures within a company

Not if the boss owns the company.

[Martinus]

In any event, the issues with incest these days are not eugenic concerns. The real issue these days is that close family relationships are ones which presumptively raise concerns about whether consent is valid.

They are not alone in that - there are tons of others, like student-teacher, in some industries worker-boss, lawyer-client, etc.

In each one of these cases of course one can find examples in which consent is demonstrably free, but as a society we have taken the decision to disapprove in various ways (laws, codes of ethics, disciplinary codes) because the risk of abuse in general is too great.

But this is a bullshit argument for criminalising all incestual relationships a priori. There is no criminal law (I am not talking about internal procedural rules for various organisations and institutions) that says a boss cannot sleep with an employee or an (adult) student with a teacher etc. Sure, the nature of the relationship may be such that it falls within the scope of a criminal prohibition but that needs to be proven on a case by case basis.

Especially, as the recommendation by the Germany ethics board was made specifically in the context of incest between siblings who were not raised together.

Bosses sleeping with employees is a matter for disciplinary procedures within a company, and students sleeping with (adult) students a matter of disciplinary proceedings within the school or university; similarly, a lawyer sleeping with clients is a matter for the relevant law society's code of ethics.

The problem with incest, of course, is that there is no such administrative body or code of ethics that would be applicable. Only the criminal law.

Certainly, there will be cases in which it will be clear that there is no actual improper influence. There is in all those other cases, as well. The reason for the prohibition (agree with it or not) is that the risk of abuse in the ordinary case is so great as to outweigh the injustice done in those admittedly rather rare cases in which siblings raised apart wish to have sex with each other. 

In short, the case for reversing the current onus (the relatonship is presumptively prohibited) is weak because the exceptions are unusual and the risk of harm in the usual case is great.

Let's just agree to disagree. I don't think your assessment is a correct one (do you have any psychological studies to support that or is this just your hunch?), and I find it reprehensible to criminally penalise consenting adults having sex because of a chance there might be something improper about their relationship's power balance. This is really no different from the justification used in the past (and still sometimes quoted) for banning gay sex because gay couples are inherently unhappy and similar bullshit.

[Malthus]

Bosses sleeping with employees is a matter for disciplinary procedures within a company

Not if the boss owns the company.

[Berkut]

It's all bullshit, standard statism that assumes that there are people out there who, by the nature of the act (rather than the nature of who they are), lack the capability to make their own choices and hence the state must make those choices for them. And even that is largely bullshit, since it is really cover for people to simply legislate the private lives of other people and give themselves a fig leaf for doing so. This basically amounts to "incest is so gross that someone MUST be being coerced!".

The argument that incest is such a terrible thing that it must be banned for everyone, even when it is clear that the people involved are adults perfectly capable of making their own choices, is no different than arguing that sodomy should be illegal or interracial relationships, or any other societal defined "naughty/taboo" relationship where there is NOT a clearly defined breakdown of the relevant parties such that you can actually state that one party does in fact lack the ability to consent (such as pedophilia, for example).

If two adults want to have sex, and both adults are clearly capable of making that choice, then there is no defensible argument for the state involving itself in their decision.

[Martinus]

It's all bullshit, standard statism that assumes that there are people out there who, by the nature of the act (rather than the nature of who they are), lack the capability to make their own choices and hence the state must make those choices for them. And even that is largely bullshit, since it is really cover for people to simply legislate the private lives of other people and give themselves a fig leaf for doing so. This basically amounts to "incest is so gross that someone MUST be being coerced!".

The argument that incest is such a terrible thing that it must be banned for everyone, even when it is clear that the people involved are adults perfectly capable of making their own choices, is no different than arguing that sodomy should be illegal or interracial relationships, or any other societal defined "naughty/taboo" relationship where there is NOT a clearly defined breakdown of the relevant parties such that you can actually state that one party does in fact lack the ability to consent (such as pedophilia, for example).

If two adults want to have sex, and both adults are clearly capable of making that choice, then there is no defensible argument for the state involving itself in their decision.