Is incest always condemnable?

[Inanna]

Dear friends
I know that most people in all the ages have always found incest very,very condemnable.But is it condemnable even when it is a result of sheer helplessness?For example,I know an incident..a brother & sister lost their parents at an early age.None of the relatives came to help them,none took their responsibility.The brother ,who is a few years older to the sister,had to take care of himself & had all the responsibilities of bringing up his little sister.Both remained in the same house for years,with no one(neighbour or relative) else turning up to stay in the night even.As a result,they became involved with one another in the way which the society does not permit.After completing his education the brother got a good job.After he got financial stability,may be,they felt a bit more secure & the sister gave birth to his brother's child.No marriage ever took place.They are living peacefully now,at least it seems so.Now,do we have any right to condemn this incident?If any of their relatives took care of the brother & sister when they lost both their parents,their relation might not have taken the turn which we call incest.
Nature did perform her role in bringing the brother & sister together which may also happen in some other families also where there are borthers & sisters but can not happen,may be,due to parental supervision.
This incident had a deep impact on my mind & I ask my friends over here to give their opinion on the incident & also to throw some light on the fact if the brother & sister in question are gulity.Did they commit a sin?According to me,sheer helplessness & the sad situation is to be blamed,if anything or anyone is to be blamed at all.Plz discuss with me.
Regards to all.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Well, I think we should start with Is it ever condemnable? and work from there.

[Inanna]

Well Marquis,what a brief but meaningful opinion you have given.Thank you.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Well Marquis,what a small but meaningful opinion you have given.Thank you.
You're welcome, but my question is a serious one. Is there a circumstance in which we should condemn it? I have a hard time coming up with one.

[wooooody64]

I would not condemn a couple in this situation, their circumstances have put them together and it would be understandable that they may have grown to love and trust one another.

As the saying goes, "You can't help who you fall in love with" and as long as they are not hurting anyone else, then what are they guilty of?

However, in saying that, it would be wise for people in this situation, to seek as much information as possible before thinking of having children in a relationship such as this.

I believe that there may be a possiblity of children born from blood relations having defects and/or health issues.

It would be unfair on the child if this were to happen. There is a story here of a German brother/sister who had four children together.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254943,00.html

[DanishDynamite]

Well, I think we should start with Is it ever condemnable? and work from there.
I think the discussion should start even earlier and first make clear who this "we" is and what it means to say that this "we" "condemns" something.

You may feel I'm joking, but I'm not. In ancient Egyptian times, for example, incest was apparently the norm among the pharoah family.

[Katana]

This has the potential to be a very interesting discussion about how something routed in some reason, namely the desire to reduce (or avoid increasing) heritable diseases within the population, became a cultural taboo.

IMHO, of course. ;)

[skeptifem]

well i think its gross, but as long as its not abusive and doesnt hurt anyone else its ok with me.

[Katana]

well i think its gross, but as long as its not abusive and doesnt hurt anyone else its ok with me.


But the question is: WHY is it gross?

What, specifically, makes it gross to you?

Mind you, I share your reaction.

[Jimbo07]

This has the potential to be a very interesting discussion about how something routed in some reason, namely the desire to reduce (or avoid increasing) heritable diseases within the population, became a cultural taboo.

Is this actually true? I've often heard that genetic defects can be found in European royals... :boxedin:

[tkingdoll]

I believe that there may be a possiblity of children born from blood relations having defects and/or health issues.



That is true but similar risks exist for women over 40 - should we outlaw them from having children too?

And the health risks to a child only work as an argument against male/female incest. Quite how it justifies male/male or female/female being illegal is beyond me.

Footnote: I assume female/female incest is illegal, but am not 100% sure. Britain in particular had some differences between the laws for male and female homosexuality, so not sure if those spilled over to incest laws too.

[PhantomWolf]

I think the discussion should start even earlier and first make clear who this "we" is and what it means to say that this "we" "condemns" something.

You may feel I'm joking, but I'm not. In ancient Egyptian times, for example, incest was apparently the norm among the pharoah family.

The romans too, many of the Emperors had their half-sisters or even full blood sisters and wives and concubines. Even in Europe the Nobles lines often intermarried to the point where it occured (though more often it was cousins than siblings)

This has the potential to be a very interesting discussion about how something routed in some reason, namely the desire to reduce (or avoid increasing) heritable diseases within the population, became a cultural taboo.

IMHO, of course. ;)

Of course the statiscial probablity of this occuring is about the same as it happening with women in their late thirties, early fourties having kids, and there yet this isn't seen as being wrong....

[Katana]

The romans too, many of the Emperors had their half-sisters or even full blood sisters and wives and concubines. Even in Europe the Nobles lines often intermarried to the point where it occured (though more often it was cousins than siblings)



Of course the statiscial probablity of this occuring is about the same as it happening with women in their late thirties, early fourties having kids, and there yet this isn't seen as being wrong....


Admittedly, "heritable" is passed from parent to child, so this is not incorrect. However, the diseases passed through sibs mating can be passed to the children's children while the heritable diseases associated with late child-bearing cannot.

[skeptifem]

But the question is: WHY is it gross?

What, specifically, makes it gross to you?

Mind you, I share your reaction.


i have no idea. i am leaning twards there being some biological aspect to it because its so widespread and an advantage for our species. it might be 100% culture. I cant be certain without evidence...

[tkingdoll]

The romans too, many of the Emperors had their half-sisters or even full blood sisters and wives and concubines. Even in Europe the Nobles lines often intermarried to the point where it occured (though more often it was cousins than siblings)



At what point did it become taboo? Anyone know?

[PhantomWolf]

Footnote: I assume female/female incest is illegal, but am not 100% sure. Britain in particular had some differences between the laws for male and female homosexuality, so not sure if those spilled over to incest laws too.

You know I have always advocated that anyone protesting gay rights should also protest incest rights, but gay incest rights... that's a little over the top don't you think. ;)

(and yes that is tongue in cheek :p)

[DanishDynamite]

Interesting article on the subject in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest). Takes at most 5 minutes to read and answers a lot of questions.

[blobru]

I would think as well as genetic soundness interfamilial marriage tends to cement a group; intrafamilial would tend to divide it (family vs family).

Also, it's probably healthiest for kids to have 'safe haven', a home where sibling or parent-child relationships aren't ever to be sexualized.

[Marquis de Carabas]

That is true but similar risks exist for women over 40 - should we outlaw them from having children too?
Another problem with the heritable disease/disorder argument as a moral stand against incest is that damned science. When, in the probably not too distant future, we can jack with genes enough to severely limit if not eliminate such anomalies, where will the objection come from? If we are to take a moral stance against it (and I certainly don't think we should), it will have to be on some basis besides disease, for that is a house built on quicksand.

As for the origins of the revulsion, I think it's probably pretty straightforward. The risk of disease/disorder made the offspring of such unions statistically less fit. Genes which predisposed one to not being sexually aroused by close family would have done quite well.

Now, of course, when the vast majority of sexual acts are not undertaken for reproductive purposes, and with ready availability of reliable birth control, the revulsion is just an anachronism. Certainly, anyone who is repulsed by thoughts of boinking family should refrain from so doing. There is no reason, however, to think any less of those who, for whatever reason, do want some hot bro-on-sis action.

[Piscivore]

Brandine: Now Cletus, why did ya haf to park next to my parents?
Cletus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cletus_Spuckler): Now, Now, Hun, they're my parents too...

Homer: Wait a minute… are you two brother and sister?
Brandine: We's all kindsa thangs.

[Tricky]

I'm also serious when I say I see nothing morally wrong with incest and since the genetics problem can be dealt with these days, have fun. Of course, all cavaets that would apply to non-incestual sex are still in place, such as no sex with children, no rape etc.

Still, I don't think I should have sex with my sister. I don't think anybody should have sex with my sister. I know I sound overprotective, but I really think it's for your own good. Therapy is so expensive these days.

[The Painter]

Did they commit a sin?

Not in my book. No God, no sin. Simple, yes??
They may have committed a crime, I'm not sure. Personally, I don't want to bang my sister, brother , mother or father, but I'm funny like that.

[Amapola]

I read DD's Wiki link and that is interesting.

I can talk about this issue with animals, since I am a livestock breeder. I would not undertake a project of inbreeding animals (personally) unless I were prepared to cull heavily, due to the inevitable genetic problems that crop up initially. That means either castrating or spaying the animals that ended up with genetic problems and selling them as pets, or putting them in the freezer to help out with the food supply.

Of course we don't do this with people. We actually do not even have the perception of a mating that is unsuccessful and therefore not good to repeat, or the idea that a person is somehow not "good enough" for "breeding stock". Those are all ideas that come from breeding animals.

The goals in breeding animals are different, too. Usually you are either trying to breed for a very homogeneous population (sheep that all produce 10 pound fleeces that grade 18 microns, or cows that all produce 12 gallons of milk a day) or a population that has great beauty according to the breed standard of that animal.

There *IS* no goal in breeding humans. Since that is the case, perhaps the issues of genetic problems are irrelevant. The issue of genetic problems then goes to the individual, I suppose. It's tough luck on the person that gets born with hemophilia, though.

[Marquis de Carabas]

There *IS* no goal in breeding humans.
I disagree. I believe the goal of every human bringing an infant into the world is to annoy me with baby pictures. I have a lot of evidence, granted it's mostly anecdotal.

[OXEL]

As was mentioned at Wikipedia, people being raised together tend to have less sexual feelings towards each other. So this taboo is part of our genetical preprogramming and is active during the first decade or so. So the reason why it's gross like Katana asked is the same like why some people fear spiders although they migh know that the actual spider they face is not harmful. ;)
But the cultural side is a part of it too of course.

There is a problem with saying that there should be no children coming out of incestous relationships. Some people have genetic defects, their children have an increased probability of having defects and genetic diseases too. I fully understand the intentions. But if you start creating laws about who is allowed to have children and who is not, you will face severe problems. Where to draw the line? BTW, I suggest looking up Racial Hygiene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_hygiene) and this Euthanasia Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-4_Euthanasia_Program). Sorry, I don't really like to brin up Nazis in a discussion but I think it should be mentioned, that if you decide that people with genetic defects should not get children and if you stay consistent, you will come to such things like "is there life that is worthless" and the kind.


And as the forum expert for sexual abnormallies... :D I shall add for your information, that incest can be a sexual preference too.

[Piscivore]

...or putting them in the freezer to help out with the food supply.

"Soylent Hay is ponies!"





I'm sorry. :(

[Katana]

As was mentioned at Wikipedia, people being raised together tend to have less sexual feelings towards each other. So this taboo is part of our genetical preprogramming and is active during the first decade or so. So the reason why it's gross like Katana asked is the same like why some people fear spiders although they migh know that the actual spider they face is not harmful. ;)

{snip}
.


How did you know I was an arachnophobe, OXEL?

:eek:

Perhaps you should apply for the challenge.

[Amapola]

"Soylent Hay is ponies!"





I'm sorry. :(

:D

Those are the ones that get sold as pets. It's the goats that have to worry......

[OXEL]

How did you know I was an arachnophobe, OXEL?

:eek:

Perhaps you should apply for the challenge.
Well, there had to be a reason for your liking for swords. :D

But being the God Of Hellfire, I shall indeed apply for the challenge somewhere in the future. :)

[noblecaboose]

Here's something I always found interesting: brothers and sisters who were separated at birth, who later meet without knowing they are brother and sister often fall in love or are attracted to each other. (I remember hearing this in my human sexuality class, I don't know where the data comes from, sorry).
Of course, since I have a brother, my feeling about that has always been ew, ew, ew, ew, ew, ew, EW!!! But I could see how that would make sense. People are often attracted to people who look like themselves (again, from the class I took, don't know the source).
Also, and I've experienced this, people you've known since childhood, that you've been raised around, possibly that you attended primary school with, can trigger the incest taboo (that ew, ew ew thing). However, there is no biological reason for this (you aren't going to weaken the gene pool), nor are there any social mores to blame.

Logically, if a pair of siblings have sex, if they aren't having babies (i.e. they are of the same sex or they use birth control), there's no harm done. How can it be morally wrong unless, of course, there is some coercion or abuse involved?

My family is from Mississippi and I've got at least a couple of distant cousins whose father is also their grandfather (ew, ew, ew), and that's definitely wrong. But the example you gave, Inanna, I don't see anything morally wrong except for the lack of community involvement or support system for the siblings. They were both victims of a tragic situation. Hey, incest is a strong enough social taboo that it is the basis for a few Greek tragedies, but as far as being morally wrong, there is no absolute answer.

[Peter S.]

Say Inanna, have you met Iamme? I think you two should get together!

[OXEL]

My family is from Mississippi and I've got at least a couple of distant cousins whose father is also their grandfather (ew, ew, ew), and that's definitely wrong.
So it's ok if siblings do it, but it's wrong if parents do it with their children even if the children are already 18?

[qayak]

I think there is also the point being missed that even if there is a genetic issue with the offspring of incestuous relationships, that isn't incest. Incest is simply having sex with a blood relative (distance varies by area you live in), children are a seperate issue.

In my opinion, no one should tell consenting adults who they can have sex with.

[qayak]

My family is from Mississippi and I've got at least a couple of distant cousins whose father is also their grandfather . . .

My daughter works with a young woman who's father is also her grandfather. it isn't just Mississippi!

[ponderingturtle]

I would not condemn a couple in this situation, their circumstances have put them together and it would be understandable that they may have grown to love and trust one another.

As the saying goes, "You can't help who you fall in love with" and as long as they are not hurting anyone else, then what are they guilty of?

However, in saying that, it would be wise for people in this situation, to seek as much information as possible before thinking of having children in a relationship such as this.

I believe that there may be a possiblity of children born from blood relations having defects and/or health issues.

It would be unfair on the child if this were to happen. There is a story here of a German brother/sister who had four children together.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254943,00.html


The thing that I find somewhat odd about this is that there are other pairings that are known to be that bad that are not societally shunned for genetic reasons. Such as two people with Achondroplasia the most common form of dwarfism. If both parents contribute their Achondropastic gene then the child with have a lethal condition homozygous achondroplasia.

So why do we make jokes about people hooking up at family reunions and not a little people conventions?

[Esperdome]

"Soylent Hay is ponies!":(

That made my day! (I'm a big Harry Harrison fan)

I find it interesting that children who spend around ten years together have no desire to have sex with each other, and so do many married couples. :D

[noblecaboose]

So it's ok if siblings do it, but it's wrong if parents do it with their children even if the children are already 18?
That's not what I said.
Sorry, I failed to mention that the situation was part of an ongoing abusive situation that started when the daughter was in her early teens. I was using it as an example of coersion and abuse. I thought that was implied. :rolleyes:


Naturally, there are situations where, say, a daughter seduces her father (Lot) that could be conceivably not immoral. Or perhaps she was raised separately and they met under other circumstances (like in the Korean movie Oldboy, oops just spoiled the ending). It's still icky, but nobody's being hurt.

ETA: And what does age have to do with anything? I could go off on how arbitrary the whole "over 18" thing is. The number of guys serving long prison terms for consensual sex with girls who are under 18 is disgusting. I had a friend who went to jail because a girl lied about her age and while he was there, he met another guy who was in because the same girl lied to him too.

[OXEL]

OK. But you should really put that spoiler out there! I saw the movie but it might ruin it for some people!

[Loss Leader]

I remember reading an article a long time ago that explained the taboo against incest from several different perspectives.

The most interesting to me was the psychological. As a child grows, the growing ego needs a safe haven. The child needs a space of solid predictability and unconditional acceptence from which to go out into the world and explore. A teenager may test her sexuality by flirting but then, when the situation becomes to intense, retreat to the home where she is free to regress to more childlike behavior.

Taking this as true, the possibility of incest disrupts the need for a stable, loving home. If sexual demands and pressures occur at home, the ego has no shelter.

Now, some may argue that this is why incest with children should be outlawed but not with consenting adults. I offer two responses: First, if incest between consenting adults is tolerated, it trickles down to how children are treated. Can a father honestly treat his 17 year and 11 month daughter as a child while knowing that in 1 month she is becomes a sexually available adult?

Second, the need to have the home be a safe haven does not magically disappear when a person reaches legal majority. For psychological reasons, having the comfort of home may be important throughout a persons teens and twenties. And what forty year-old hasn't regressed just a little when walking in his parent's door?

[noblecaboose]

OK. But you should really put that spoiler out there! I saw the movie but it might ruin it for some people!

Done, thanks. :)

[ConspiRaider]

The biological "taboo" came first, long before we ever established social taboos against incest.

It's in a member of a species best interest to avoid mating with someone whose DNA is very very similar. After all, it is that DNA that will split (unzip of 23 chromosomes from each) and then rejoin to get the joyous 46 chromosomes again. Incest is a bypass to the error trapping that occurs, whereby upon rejoining, a defective gene is supposed to be eliminated in favor of the good one. Therefore, Nature builds in aversions to mating with, for example, siblings. Incest undercuts Global Rule 1: Survival.

The jokes about the inbreeding and the hillbillies in places such as West Virginia - there's a root issue. It is said in West Virginia, the only women who don't have AIDS are those who can run faster than their brothers.

Pheremones play a role in sexual attraction and aversion. We got 'em. Of course we won't admit that so much because many of us don't even like to admit that we're animals. But - those secondary sex characteristics - especially with scent and pheremones - are hard at work, 24/7.

It's why I am so much against this catalog browsing that women can now do, sperm shopping. That is monstrous, to me. Complete bypass of all the rules of sexual attraction and aversion that Nature has taken hundreds of millions of years to perfect. Our arrogance in the face of Nature. One day - we'll pay big time for that arrogance.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Also, and I've experienced this, people you've known since childhood, that you've been raised around, possibly that you attended primary school with, can trigger the incest taboo (that ew, ew ew thing). However, there is no biological reason for this (you aren't going to weaken the gene pool), nor are there any social mores to blame.
Ah, but there is a biological reason. It's just a little bit subtle. If we accept that natural selection is going to weed out sexual desires for kin, the question must be posed How are we to know who is kin? Mostly, particularly in pre-state societies, anybody you saw all the time in early childhood was a fairly close relative. Natural selection would probably hop on that connection as the simplest way to identify kin. Of course, it leads to false positives, just as brothers and sisters separated at birth and reunited lead to false negatives.

[OXEL]

One day - we'll pay big time for that arrogance.
In what way?

[ConspiRaider]

In what way?
Geez Oxel, where do you want to start, on us paying for our arrogance in the face of Nature?

Did you know that women are now told to not eat bigger fish during pregnancy, because of the danger of passing on methylmercury to the baby in development? Did you know that certain Inuit women were instructed to NOT breastfeed their babies because their breast milk was toxic? Did you know that human male sperm count has been dropping? Did you know there has been a dramatic increase in autism?

You know about human-caused global warming? All of the "wonderful" things we are doing to hasten its progression? Did you know that when we pave everything - streets, parking lots, malls and so forth in our cities - that it causes waste and harmful bacteria to be washed down to the beaches, causing them to be closed as environmental hazards? Doheny Beach - mentioned so happily in surf songs by the Beach Boys - is closed many days of the year because of high bacterial counts in the surf.

Do you know about the destruction of wetlands - that which Nature designed as huge natural filters and "brakes" to devastating events such as hurricanes? Did you know we're killing coral (that's an animal, not rock) because of excess carbonic acid in ocean water? Did you know that we just "succeeded" in extincting the baiji - a freshwater dolphin in the Yangtze River in China - and that the baiji had been on the planet for 20 million years?

I'd call this arrogance in the face of Nature. What would you call it?

[OXEL]

Geez Oxel, where do you want to start, on us paying for our arrogance in the face of Nature?

Did you know that women are now told to not eat bigger fish during pregnancy, because of the danger of passing on methylmercury to the baby in development? Did you know that certain Inuit women were instructed to NOT breastfeed their babies because their breast milk was toxic? Did you know that human male sperm count has been dropping? Did you know there has been a dramatic increase in autism?

You know about human-caused global warming? All of the "wonderful" things we are doing to hasten its progression? Did you know that when we pave everything - streets, parking lots, malls and so forth in our cities - that it causes waste and harmful bacteria to be washed down to the beaches, causing them to be closed as environmental hazards? Doheny Beach - mentioned so happily in surf songs by the Beach Boys - is closed many days of the year because of high bacterial counts in the surf.

Do you know about the destruction of wetlands - that which Nature designed as huge natural filters and "brakes" to devastating events such as hurricanes? Did you know we're killing coral (that's an animal, not rock) because of excess carbonic acid in ocean water? Did you know that we just "succeeded" in extincting the baiji - a freshwater dolphin in the Yangtze River in China - and that the baiji had been on the planet for 20 million years?

I'd call this arrogance in the face of Nature. What would you call it?
Irresponsible.

But you were talking about women doing "sperm shopping" which led you to your statement about our arrogance. I think that women doing this are a tiny minority and will remain in the future. I don't think that's a big problem and I don't see a connection with incest. The problems stated above are not really caused by sexual hedonism.

(Edit: I consider your questions to be rhetoric of sorts, but to do you right: I did knew a few of the things you stated above. But I think that's not the right thread to go deeper into such issues. ;) And if we were to discuss them seriously, I would ask you for some sources. And I would like to remind you that there are people that seriously reject the idea of global warming being caused by humans. ;) )

[ConspiRaider]

Irresponsible.

But you were talking about women doing "sperm shopping" which led you to your statement about our arrogance. I think that women doing this are a tiny minority and will remain in the future. I don't think that's a big problem and I don't see a connection with incest. The problems stated above are not really caused by sexual hedonism.

(Edit: I consider your questions to be rhetoric of sorts, but to do you right: I did knew a few of the things you stated above. But I think that's not the right thread to go deeper into such issues. ;) And if we were to discuss them seriously, I would ask you for some sources. And I would like to remind you that there are people that seriously reject the idea of global warming being caused by humans. ;) )
I do not provide sources, and won't, Oxel. You may do your own research howsoever you wish. Science is a decades-old enthusiasm of mine, stretching back to high school, college and so forth. Can't source that. Oh all right, here's a source, I'm looking at it on my bookshelf: On The Origin Of Species, by Charles Darwin. That's a 460-pager.

The very few who reject anthropogenic global warming - check their check stubs. You may find the check originating from certain 10-billion-dollar-a-quarter-in-profit oil companies. Don't even get me started on the hoodwinking about AGW that is financed by ExxonMobil.

Sperm shopping and incest. Yep. Absolutely a connection. Because it is possible that a woman - unknowingly - can be impregnated by her half-brother. Example:

CBS's 60 Minutes had a brief overview on this, but of course all it takes is a little noodling on your own, and the answers reveal themselves. Investigation found that women kept picking this one guy in the sperm catalog. Because of his height, eye color, hair color, weight and education. Like a pizza, they ordered that guy to be one half of their baby. Well, he's fathered over 150 babies. No one knows the exact number. All of those babies are now half-brothers and half-sisters to the child that the sperm shopper bore.

We know how things go. We know how, for example in this country, the media loves to pound in the insane idea that males aren't really all that necessary in the bringing up of baby anymore. Sitcoms do it. TV dramas do it. Talk shows. Celebrities, such as Jodie Foster, promote it by sperm shopping - and deliberately cutting out any direct male influence in a child's upbringing. What I'm saying is that it is becoming socially acceptable that if a woman wants to have a child but does not want to deal with the "messiness" of a relationship with the man - it's cool. Who needs the guy? Just take his sperm.

That is arrogance. That is us humans - once again - skimming technological know-how and then charging ahead with it. I just read something interesting several weeks ago dealing with the issue of women reaching puberty at earlier and earlier ages. A study of this phenomenon seems to indicate that one of the causes is LACK OF A MAN IN THE HOUSEHOLD. That a father's presence, via hormonal or pheremonal releases - acts as a brake upon a girl's accelerated development towards puberty. We already know that pheremonal communication is a reality. Just ask two women who become roommates. After a time, they'll adjust their menstrual cycles so that they occur at about the same time. How do they do that? They don't discuss and decide upon it. Some other form of communication is at work.

Newton's Third Law of Motion, again, is apropos, in the shortcutting of Nature and skimming of technology that we humans are doing, have been doing. We'll pay for that. We already are.

[supercorgi]

Now, of course, when the vast majority of sexual acts are not undertaken for reproductive purposes, and with ready availability of reliable birth control, the revulsion is just an anachronism. Certainly, anyone who is repulsed by thoughts of boinking family should refrain from so doing. There is no reason, however, to think any less of those who, for whatever reason, do want some hot bro-on-sis action.

Edited to remove comment better suited for members-only section.

As scary as it is, I've got to agree with the Marquis.The incest taboo, although it exists in many cultures, is very much societal. As some ponted out, Egyptian royalty often married their sisters. Apart from that, I have to admit that my first cousin is hot, hot, hot. :D

[supercorgi]

I just read something interesting several weeks ago dealing with the issue of women reaching puberty at earlier and earlier ages. A study of this phenomenon seems to indicate that one of the causes is LACK OF A MAN IN THE HOUSEHOLD. That a father's presence, via hormonal or pheremonal releases - acts as a brake upon a girl's accelerated development towards puberty.

Please supply a cite for that. It's fascinating if it's true. To the best of my knowledge, puberty in girls was appearing earlier and earlier due to an improved diet. Diet impacts the body to an amazing extent -- Japanese girls are needing bigger and bigger clothing and shoe sizes due to growth with a protein rich diet.

[OXEL]

I do not provide sources, and won't, Oxel. You may do your own research howsoever you wish. Science is a decades-old enthusiasm of mine, stretching back to high school, college and so forth. Can't source that. Oh all right, here's a source, I'm looking at it on my bookshelf: On The Origin Of Species, by Charles Darwin. That's a 460-pager.
You don't have to provide sources. But of course, backing up your claims makes you more convincing. And even from some kind of economic point of view it makes sense, because it's more effective to share sources than for all people search for themselves. ;)

The very few who reject anthropogenic global warming - check their check stubs. You may find the check originating from certain 10-billion-dollar-a-quarter-in-profit oil companies. Don't even get me started on the hoodwinking about AGW that is financed by ExxonMobil.
You have a point here. But saying that all sane people that do reject this idea are being paid by those companies would be a rediculous conspiracy theory. Most of them are "normal" poeple like you and me and were simply more impressed by the arguments given by the companies.

Sperm shopping and incest. Yep. Absolutely a connection. Because it is possible that a woman - unknowingly - can be impregnated by her half-brother. Example:

CBS's 60 Minutes had a brief overview on this, but of course all it takes is a little noodling on your own, and the answers reveal themselves. Investigation found that women kept picking this one guy in the sperm catalog. Because of his height, eye color, hair color, weight and education. Like a pizza, they ordered that guy to be one half of their baby. Well, he's fathered over 150 babies. No one knows the exact number. All of those babies are now half-brothers and half-sisters to the child that the sperm shopper bore.
This is correct. I wasn't thinking about that, my bad.

We know how things go. We know how, for example in this country, the media loves to pound in the insane idea that males aren't really all that necessary in the bringing up of baby anymore. Sitcoms do it. TV dramas do it. Talk shows. Celebrities, such as Jodie Foster, promote it by sperm shopping - and deliberately cutting out any direct male influence in a child's upbringing. What I'm saying is that it is becoming socially acceptable that if a woman wants to have a child but does not want to deal with the "messiness" of a relationship with the man - it's cool. Who needs the guy? Just take his sperm.
Well, we live in different countries and moreover, I don't watch TV. However, I don't see any sort of media campaign like that over here. Sure, such behaviour is more common nowadays. But nevertheless it's still a minority that does this.

Besides, on the long run, maybe men are even going to be more important than women. You can clone a woman and a man out of a man very easily. But not the other way.

That is arrogance. That is us humans - once again - skimming technological know-how and then charging ahead with it. I just read something interesting several weeks ago dealing with the issue of women reaching puberty at earlier and earlier ages. A study of this phenomenon seems to indicate that one of the causes is LACK OF A MAN IN THE HOUSEHOLD. That a father's presence, via hormonal or pheremonal releases - acts as a brake upon a girl's accelerated development towards puberty. We already know that pheremonal communication is a reality. Just ask two women who become roommates. After a time, they'll adjust their menstrual cycles so that they occur at about the same time. How do they do that? They don't discuss and decide upon it. Some other form of communication is at work.

Newton's Third Law of Motion, again, is apropos, in the shortcutting of Nature and skimming of technology that we humans are doing, have been doing. We'll pay for that. We already are.
I don't regard women reaching puberty at earlier ages than before to be a problem. It's good to watch out for problems, but you shouldn't overreact.

Another problem with your argumentation is that you accuse technology in a general way. But technology itself is never bad nor good. It's just a possibility. It's always up to people and how they use it. It may even rescue us because using it together the right way, we might correct the climate changes and the like. And consider this, technology is a foundation of our society nowadays. I am sure you know as well that a severe drawback would cause our society to collapse bringing millions of deaths and unimaginable agony. A very powerfull EMP at one of the more crowded continents would completely suffice.

[Amapola]

Please supply a cite for that. It's fascinating if it's true. To the best of my knowledge, puberty in girls was appearing earlier and earlier due to an improved diet. Diet impacts the body to an amazing extent -- Japanese girls are needing bigger and bigger clothing and shoe sizes due to growth with a protein rich diet.

That's interesting. In sheep and goats, weight has at least some impact on when the doe or ewe is likely to conceive for the first time. If they are on a poor diet and scrawny they are unlikely to conceive at 6 or 7 months of age; but if fed a good diet and if they are a nice, healthy strapping weight (per breed) you have a very high success rate of conception at 6 to 7 months.

[OXEL]

Please supply a cite for that. It's fascinating if it's true. To the best of my knowledge, puberty in girls was appearing earlier and earlier due to an improved diet. Diet impacts the body to an amazing extent -- Japanese girls are needing bigger and bigger clothing and shoe sizes due to growth with a protein rich diet.
That's the way I know it too.

[ConspiRaider]

Please supply a cite for that. It's fascinating if it's true. To the best of my knowledge, puberty in girls was appearing earlier and earlier due to an improved diet. Diet impacts the body to an amazing extent -- Japanese girls are needing bigger and bigger clothing and shoe sizes due to growth with a protein rich diet.
Took awhile, I read so much, sift, sift, (sip cognac), sift, (drink cognac), sift, sift, (quaff cognac), sift, sift (inhale cognac)...

Absent fathers may be another cause. American researchers have found that biological fathers send out chemical signals that inhibit their daughters' sexual maturity. Girls whose fathers had left home started their periods earlier.

This is still, of course, undergoing different angles of investigation and things are not completely locked down. But clearly something is going on.

Here's the full article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=473584&in_page_id=1879

[ConspiRaider]

Another problem with your argumentation is that you accuse technology in a general way. But technology itself is never bad nor good. It's just a possibility. It's always up to people and how they use it. It may even rescue us because using it together the right way, we might correct the climate changes and the like. And consider this, technology is a foundation of our society nowadays. I am sure you know as well that a severe drawback would cause our society to collapse bringing millions of deaths and unimaginable agony. A very powerfull EMP at one of the more crowded continents would completely suffice.
Hi Oxel -

Technology as used by a particular animal - us - is always at the very least a double-edged sword. Yes it can be great - yes it can be horrific. 'twas technology that brought us antibiotics. 'twas technology that brought us the atomic bomb. Extremes, but you also get everything in between.

We come up with this great thing called refrigeration. Wow! Keep things cold, inhibit bacteriological growth, increase food supply and so forth. Oh no! The freon gas used in the refrigeration gas does what? Rises through the troposphere, into the stratosphere? And what? Destroys ozone? You mean that stuff that helps block excess UV radiation from the Sun?

We come up with antibiotics. But Nature is counterpunching, by producing bacteria resistant to antibiotics.

We figure out how to produce heat to turn steam turbines to produce electricity so that millions can live all over the United States. Oh no. It's coal. When we mine it, methane gas escapes into the atmosphere. Oh no no. When we burn it, mercury that was bound in the coal is now released into the atmosphere. It rains down into the oceans. It becomes methylmercury, and marches right back up the food chain to us. Oh no no no. Soot from burning coal in North America (which provides 50% of our electricity) is deposited on the North polar ice cap. Increasing its absorption of sunlight (instead of reflection) and speeding the melting of the polar ice cap.

I hope you've seen the 1956 film, Forbidden Planet. It was the ultimate lesson in the arrogance of an intelligent species - and how that arrogance can so completely backfire. There's always something that can get you. Such as the "Monsters from the Id".

[Big Les]

Conspiraider, I'm not sure how familiar you are with UK papers, but the Daily Mail is prized solely for its absorbency. They routinely report stories with minimal or even zero factual content. One step up from National Enquirer.

If you want to present a credible cite you'll need to track back to whichever US institution they're referring to (Amory is mentioned later but the father/pheremone thing isn't clear).

[blobru]

I remember reading an article a long time ago that explained the taboo against incest from several different perspectives.

The most interesting to me was the psychological. As a child grows, the growing ego needs a safe haven. The child needs a space of solid predictability and unconditional acceptence from which to go out into the world and explore. A teenager may test her sexuality by flirting but then, when the situation becomes to intense, retreat to the home where she is free to regress to more childlike behavior.

Taking this as true, the possibility of incest disrupts the need for a stable, loving home. If sexual demands and pressures occur at home, the ego has no shelter.

Now, some may argue that this is why incest with children should be outlawed but not with consenting adults. I offer two responses: First, if incest between consenting adults is tolerated, it trickles down to how children are treated. Can a father honestly treat his 17 year and 11 month daughter as a child while knowing that in 1 month she is becomes a sexually available adult?

Second, the need to have the home be a safe haven does not magically disappear when a person reaches legal majority. For psychological reasons, having the comfort of home may be important throughout a persons teens and twenties. And what forty year-old hasn't regressed just a little when walking in his parent's door?


An excellent summary of the case for 'safe haven', LL, thanks. To me at least, that's the most persuasive argument in favor of the incest taboo, more so even than the risk of genetic deficiency. And together with the other point I posted earlier, the argument from evolutionary group fitness (interbreeding promotes social cohesion), I think give a rational basis to opposing incest, some explanation why it strikes us as 'icky'.

To Inanna's original question, however: in spite of having good reasons to oppose incest, they are not moral absolutes. The case she describes is obviously special -- sort of a nightmarish 'blue lagoon' scenario -- and the kids in isolation could hardly be expected to have acted differently. So, besides not believing in sin anyway, Inanna, I don't think your friends / acquaintances 'sinned' or have anything to feel guilty about. :)

[The Atheist]

Apart from that, I have to admit that my first cousin is hot, hot, hot. :D

Move to NZ, that's perfectly legit here.

[Big Les]

Here too. However, my cousins are unbefugly.

[Tailgater]

The thing that I find somewhat odd about this is that there are other pairings that are known to be that bad that are not societally shunned for genetic reasons. Such as two people with Achondroplasia the most common form of dwarfism. If both parents contribute their Achondropastic gene then the child with have a lethal condition homozygous achondroplasia.

So why do we make jokes about people hooking up at family reunions and not a little people conventions?

Look up dwarf jokes and I'm sure you will find plenty.

[Tailgater]

Is this actually true? I've often heard that genetic defects can be found in European royals... :boxedin:

Yes. I took a religious history class in college and touched on this subject a little. Royal families would inbreed for power reasons (It was 20 years ago, so sorry if that's not correct). If you follow the artist portraits of the kings and queens of the times when long lines of families inbred, they start looking like the banjo player from Deliverance.

[ponderingturtle]

I remember reading an article a long time ago that explained the taboo against incest from several different perspectives.

The most interesting to me was the psychological. As a child grows, the growing ego needs a safe haven. The child needs a space of solid predictability and unconditional acceptence from which to go out into the world and explore. A teenager may test her sexuality by flirting but then, when the situation becomes to intense, retreat to the home where she is free to regress to more childlike behavior.

Taking this as true, the possibility of incest disrupts the need for a stable, loving home. If sexual demands and pressures occur at home, the ego has no shelter.

Now, some may argue that this is why incest with children should be outlawed but not with consenting adults. I offer two responses: First, if incest between consenting adults is tolerated, it trickles down to how children are treated. Can a father honestly treat his 17 year and 11 month daughter as a child while knowing that in 1 month she is becomes a sexually available adult?

That happens all the time now with adoptive/step parents. So how common are relationships that are legal because of no blood relation then?

Second, the need to have the home be a safe haven does not magically disappear when a person reaches legal majority. For psychological reasons, having the comfort of home may be important throughout a persons teens and twenties. And what forty year-old hasn't regressed just a little when walking in his parent's door?

These are reasons why it is likely to be an un healthy relationship, but a great many unhealthy relationships are not criminal.

[ponderingturtle]

Look up dwarf jokes and I'm sure you will find plenty.

But none on the practice of going to little peoples conventions to find mates.

[pgwenthold]

Yes. I took a religious history class in college and touched on this subject a little. Royal families would inbreed for power reasons (It was 20 years ago, so sorry if that's not correct). If you follow the artist portraits of the kings and queens of the times when long lines of families inbred, they start looking like the banjo player from Deliverance.


"My father used to say that not playing to win is like sleeping with your sister. Sure she's a great piece of tail, with a blouse full of goodies, but... it's just illegal. Then you get into that whole inbred thing. Kids with no teeth who do nothing but play the banjo... eat apple sauce through a straw... pork farm animals."

Topper Harley, Hot Shots

[sackett]

The situation described in the OP sounds unusual, but not implausible; some families are like that, and the neighbors were probably well-advised to stay out of it.

Were these siblings acting in perfect innocence? Hard to say; I suspect not, but: I knew an incestuous family in my village who, apparently, thought little of the rightness or wrongness of their acts. Two brothers, a divorced father, and a sister. Bang! Bang! Bang! every night. I'm afaid that, being only a youngster myself, I took it in stride and assumed that such goings-on were commonplace and even "normal."

Seems I wasn't entirely wrong about that. Seeing as we're citing long-ago studies, I remember something I saw referenced in my late father-in-law's textbook, Man's Place in Nature. (Out of print, but try your college/university library; search under Charles F. Hockett; lots of good reading there; the man couldn't write a dull sentence.) Back in the 1950s, some U.S. investigators searched for incestuous couples living as man and wife -- and easily came up with hundreds. They even found a sibling couple, with children, who were themselves the offspring of a brother-sister union!

The yuk! factor goes up, for me at least, when we uncover something like that. But there are, or appear to be, traditionally incestuous families for whom the taboos simply don't exist. You can google up incest forums that reveal this, if you discount the amount of apparent lying that goes on.

[Amapola]

Inanna, I was just curious, so I hope you don't mind me asking a question or two. If this brother/sister received no support from anyone, how did they get food? Pay taxes/mortgage on the house, and pay the utilities? How did the brother manage to stay in school? (You state he got a job so I assume he had at least somewhat of an education - could read, maybe.) You said that they were very young when they lost their parents so I wondered.

It sounds like a fascinating story. Having struggled with these same things in my life I am naturally curious about how others dealt with it.

[skeptifem]

I think there is also the point being missed that even if there is a genetic issue with the offspring of incestuous relationships, that isn't incest. Incest is simply having sex with a blood relative (distance varies by area you live in), children are a seperate issue.



its just sort of hard for me to think of those kids as a seperate issue because they are products of incest. it seems directly related to how moral it is.

Does anyone think its selfish to have children despite knowing that they will most likely have some sort of genetic problem? im sort of torn on that issue. I guess how likely and what disorder is what makes me frown or not frown upon it. im open to hearing opinions on this for sure.

[skeptifem]

The biological "taboo" came first, long before we ever established social taboos against incest.

is there evidence of this? I mean of this being completely biological.

It's in a member of a species best interest to avoid mating with someone whose DNA is very very similar.

yeah its an advantage, i just am not completely sure its discouraged by genes or not.

I remember seeing a study that said that the source of the incest taboo was seeing your mother care for someone else, regardless of how related you actually were. I will have to go look for it.

like most things, there is probably a combination of nature and nurture.




It's why I am so much against this catalog browsing that women can now do, sperm shopping. That is monstrous, to me. Complete bypass of all the rules of sexual attraction and aversion that Nature has taken hundreds of millions of years to perfect. Our arrogance in the face of Nature. One day - we'll pay big time for that arrogance.

what? are you serious? if a woman wants to have a kid and doesnt want to have a man help her raise it... what do you think she should do? go cruising for a one night stand? poke holes in condoms? its a lot more honest to just shop for what you want.

and btw are you mad at men for donating their sperm?

[ponderingturtle]

its just sort of hard for me to think of those kids as a seperate issue because they are products of incest. it seems directly related to how moral it is.

Does anyone think its selfish to have children despite knowing that they will most likely have some sort of genetic problem? im sort of torn on that issue. I guess how likely and what disorder is what makes me frown or not frown upon it. im open to hearing opinions on this for sure.


Most likely? They are more likely to have such issues, but the odds are likely well below 50%.

[skeptifem]

Most likely? They are more likely to have such issues, but the odds are likely well below 50%.


i brought it up as a general question. not specific to incest, but just in general. its something i think is worth exploring.

[Amapola]

its just sort of hard for me to think of those kids as a seperate issue because they are products of incest. it seems directly related to how moral it is.

Does anyone think its selfish to have children despite knowing that they will most likely have some sort of genetic problem? im sort of torn on that issue. I guess how likely and what disorder is what makes me frown or not frown upon it. im open to hearing opinions on this for sure.

This is strictly my own opinion...... I find it selfish. I'm even pretty careful about doing this with animals, where it would be perfectly acceptable to "discard" the bad results, and since I value people more than animals, well, I just wouldn't do it.

In my opinion, there are a lot of kids out there with no home, and it would be better to give one of those kids a home than to have a child with a potential genetic disorder that could give the child a life of misery.

I know full well that to some people their own genetics are "sacred", almost, and they think an adopted child just isn't good enough. It happened in my family, to my cousin and her husband...... and after years and years and thousands of dollars this couple spent with no child resulting, they FINALLY adopted. They now have a gorgeous and wonderful child, and I'm very happy they finally gave up. The reason they had so much trouble was genetic, and having a natural child would potentially have passed this trait on. How they could live through their own misery over being childless and not see that passing it on to someone else was a bad idea, is beyond me. I'm really glad they changed their minds. I wish I could say it was care and concern about passing on this trait to a child, but I believe they were only thinking about getting a child any way they could.

[ponderingturtle]

i brought it up as a general question. not specific to incest, but just in general. its something i think is worth exploring.

It is certainly something for those in higher risk groups for birth defects should consider. And there are many of those that are as bad as incestuous relationships that are not taboo as well.

[skeptifem]

It is certainly something for those in higher risk groups for birth defects should consider. And there are many of those that are as bad as incestuous relationships that are not taboo as well.


yeah well... hm now that i think about it the whole thing is for sure going to move into the direction of how much risk is acceptable anyway. i personally do not know much about how often inbreeding in humans damages offspring.

[Inanna]

So,none of you are condemning incest or you are ?But I want to know your opinion about the couple I mentioned.Do you have any sympathy for the brother & sister couple I mentioned?(They don't care for our sympathy though)but I still want to know your opinion.

[ConspiRaider]

Conspiraider, I'm not sure how familiar you are with UK papers, but the Daily Mail is prized solely for its absorbency. They routinely report stories with minimal or even zero factual content. One step up from National Enquirer.

If you want to present a credible cite you'll need to track back to whichever US institution they're referring to (Amory is mentioned later but the father/pheremone thing isn't clear).
Okay, here's another source (have you heard of the BBC?)



There is some evidence to suggest that puberty arrives earlier in girls who live with a stepfather.
It is postulated that this might be due exposure to the stepfather's chemical scents, or pheromones, which are likely to have a more profound effect than those associated with a birth parent.



And here is the full article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4688450.stm

Kindly recognize my underlying point, Big Les, would you please? Which is essentially, that when we humans decide to shortcut or temporarily bypass the careful set of balances that Nature has devised over hundreds of millions of years - we should never be surprised at the counterpunches and consequences. What we should do is take a helluva lot more caution. Because poysonally, I don't want to unknowingly marry my half-sister. And if I ever do have a daughter, I don't want guys in their 20s hitting on her when she is 10.

[Professor Yaffle]

its just sort of hard for me to think of those kids as a seperate issue because they are products of incest. it seems directly related to how moral it is.

Does anyone think its selfish to have children despite knowing that they will most likely have some sort of genetic problem? im sort of torn on that issue. I guess how likely and what disorder is what makes me frown or not frown upon it. im open to hearing opinions on this for sure.

Its a difficult question, but one which is primarily for the potential parents to resolve, I think. For example, in my family there is a very strong genetic predisposition to allergies and intolerences and to depression - both unipolar and bipolar. Both of my kids have milk intolerence. I hope they never experience depression, but, while I have thought about it, I never really let it impact on my decision to have kids. I suppose there is a bit of selfishness in my decision, but isn't there in everyone's decision to have children?

[Professor Yaffle]

They might end up "local", like this couple...

http://www.lunacynet.com/league/char_tubbs.html

[Darth Rotor]

So,none of you are condemning incest or you are ?But I want to know your opinion about the couple I mentioned.Do you have any sympathy for the brother & sister couple I mentioned?(They don't care for our sympathy though)but I still want to know your opinion.
Wiki's take on Genesis, 19.
In Gen. 19:30-38, Lot's daughters incorrectly believed they were the only females to have survived the devastation. They assumed it was their responsibility to bear children and enable the continuation of the human race. On two subsequent nights, according to the plan of the older daughter, they got their father drunk enough to have sexual intercourse with them, drunk enough that he is described as being unaware of what was happening. By him each became pregnant. The first son was named Moab (Hebrew, lit., "from the father" [meh-Av]). He was the patriarch of the nation known as Moab. The second son was named Ammon or Ben-Ammi (Hebrew, lit., "from our nation"). He became the patriarch of the nation of Ammon.
Looks like it's a bit of an old school habit in some circumstances.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Lot_and_his_Daughters.jpg/400px-Lot_and_his_Daughters.jpg

IIRC, the Catholic Church, some centuries ago, made cosanguinity within the fourth degree against doctrine. I think that means that you have to go out to third cousins to be safe, or maybe fourth cousins.

Since these people aren't looking for sympathy, what's the point of your post? Are you interested in the laws? I think they vary by state. Here in Texas, the law is as follows:

§ 6.201. CONSANGUINITY. A marriage is void if one party to the marriage is related to the other as:
(1) an ancestor or descendant, by blood or adoption;
(2) a brother or sister, of the whole or half blood or by adoption;
(3) a parent's brother or sister, of the whole or half blood or by adoption; or
(4) a son or daughter of a brother or sister, of the whole or half blood or by adoption.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, § 1, eff. April 17, 1997.
If you want to marry your cousin, you can, but not your stepsister. The adoption thing is interesting, but I think it's to keep the custom consistent.

Who you have sex with is another matter. Adult incest seems to be illegal in most places. Why? Custom would be my guess.

DR

[skeptifem]

I suppose there is a bit of selfishness in my decision, but isn't there in everyone's decision to have children?


that is a very good point...

[skeptifem]

So,none of you are condemning incest or you are ?But I want to know your opinion about the couple I mentioned.Do you have any sympathy for the brother & sister couple I mentioned?(They don't care for our sympathy though)but I still want to know your opinion.


I dont really know. As for them having sex... who cares? It doesnt bother me as long as it wasnt abusive (doesnt sound like it was). the kid and pregnancy is what im trying to work out morally... sooo i dont know about that part at this point.

[ConspiRaider]

what? are you serious? if a woman wants to have a kid and doesnt want to have a man help her raise it... what do you think she should do? go cruising for a one night stand? poke holes in condoms? its a lot more honest to just shop for what you want.

and btw are you mad at men for donating their sperm?
Are YOU serious?

If a woman wants to have a kid and consciously doesn't want to have a man help her raise it: She needs to get over the entire idea, immediately if not sooner. That mindset makes her unfit as a mother.

Pure selfishness and arrogance - that's what it is. A woman deliberately deciding that a child will NEVER know its birth father. I'd like to be there listening to her try to explain to the kid, especially if he's a boy, why she has no use for men and thought so little of them that they rate no more than a shopping item in a catalog to her. Monstrous. Not human. That is a monstrous attitude, and nothing less. And what else is monstrous? Men jacking off into a jar, getting cash, and that constitutes their association with fatherhood. Absolutely positively monstrous. Yet modern society allows both woman and man to behave in this manner.

As I indicate, in this "You Can Have It All" consumer-driven world we've devised, everything is for sale. "But it's the woman's right to have a kiddie however she wants it!!!" That is what has been marketed to you. What has NOT been marketed to you is the rights of the kiddie. The deliberate elimination of a father in the upbringing of the child. We know that elimination of the father, or the mother, or both, occurs through varied happenstance. War, divorce, abandonment, kidnapping and so forth. But this is different. This is a conscious, thought-out decision to create a child and then deny that child the aspect of "father" as we know it, in the traditional social definition. As we evolved, biologically and socially, to define the parameters of fatherhood.

Because a good father is every bit as critical and important and vital as a good mother in the upbringing of a child. Whether that child is a girl or boy. Your attitude, however, reflects the success by which marketing has been able to minimize a man right down to a 15-second squirt.

And as I mention, it weakens the gene pool. With this new reality, you could end up marrying your half-brother and I could end up marrying my half-sister and we wouldn't even know it. Nature designed a whole set of parameters to try and prevent that from happening. And we shortcut all of those results, honed over hundreds of millions of years, by getting an egg, getting some sperm, mixing 'em in a Petri dish and then implanting it in the woman's womb. Gosh, I'm so proud of us. Aren't we smart? Geez we're just so tremendously clever and smart. Screw Nature. We can do what we want.

[Langis]

I'm torn on the subject. A piece of me ties a certain "eww" factor to it. And it is something I'd never engage in myself.

But... if two related people (siblings, cousins, whatever) engage in a romantic relationship and it makes them happy, I don't think anybody has the right to judge.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm torn on the subject. A piece of me ties a certain "eww" factor to it. And it is something I'd never engage in myself.

But... if two related people (siblings, cousins, whatever) engage in a romantic relationship and it makes them happy, I don't think anybody has the right to judge.

This does sound like something that many people say about homosexuality.

[ponderingturtle]

Are YOU serious?

If a woman wants to have a kid and consciously doesn't want to have a man help her raise it: She needs to get over the entire idea, immediately if not sooner. That mindset makes her unfit as a mother.

Pure selfishness and arrogance - that's what it is. A woman deliberately deciding that a child will NEVER know its birth father. I'd like to be there listening to her try to explain to the kid, especially if he's a boy, why she has no use for men and thought so little of them that they rate no more than a shopping item in a catalog to her. Monstrous. Not human. That is a monstrous attitude, and nothing less. And what else is monstrous? Men jacking off into a jar, getting cash, and that constitutes their association with fatherhood. Absolutely positively monstrous. Yet modern society allows both woman and man to behave in this manner.

As I indicate, in this "You Can Have It All" consumer-driven world we've devised, everything is for sale. "But it's the woman's right to have a kiddie however she wants it!!!" That is what has been marketed to you. What has NOT been marketed to you is the rights of the kiddie. The deliberate elimination of a father in the upbringing of the child. We know that elimination of the father, or the mother, or both, occurs through varied happenstance. War, divorce, abandonment, kidnapping and so forth. But this is different. This is a conscious, thought-out decision to create a child and then deny that child the aspect of "father" as we know it, in the traditional social definition. As we evolved, biologically and socially, to define the parameters of fatherhood.

Because a good father is every bit as critical and important and vital as a good mother in the upbringing of a child. Whether that child is a girl or boy. Your attitude, however, reflects the success by which marketing has been able to minimize a man right down to a 15-second squirt.

And as I mention, it weakens the gene pool. With this new reality, you could end up marrying your half-brother and I could end up marrying my half-sister and we wouldn't even know it. Nature designed a whole set of parameters to try and prevent that from happening. And we shortcut all of those results, honed over hundreds of millions of years, by getting an egg, getting some sperm, mixing 'em in a Petri dish and then implanting it in the woman's womb. Gosh, I'm so proud of us. Aren't we smart? Geez we're just so tremendously clever and smart. Screw Nature. We can do what we want.

Wow, anyone wonder what he would think about single people adopting?

[Tailgater]

Pure selfishness and arrogance - that's what it is. A woman deliberately deciding that a child will NEVER know its birth father. I'd like to be there listening to her try to explain to the kid, especially if he's a boy, why she has no use for men and thought so little of them that they rate no more than a shopping item in a catalog to her. Monstrous. Not human. That is a monstrous attitude, and nothing less. And what else is monstrous? Men jacking off into a jar, getting cash, and that constitutes their association with fatherhood. Absolutely positively monstrous. Yet modern society allows both woman and man to behave in this manner.


Yup. It's getting sad. I'm waiting to see the womb in bag. Just jerk off in this bag, add the vito-mix twice a day, keep it on the heat pad (provided at no extra charge), and in nine months you can be a daddy without having to deal with a woman who wants visitation or child support. Then mothers will cry, "a MAN can't do that, how can a child be raised with no mother?!", and they would be right too.

[Tailgater]

Wow, anyone wonder what he would think about single people adopting?

Completely different animal.

[ponderingturtle]

Completely different animal.

Why?

[Invidious]

Wow, anyone wonder what he would think about single people adopting?
Or perhaps a lesbian/gay couple adopting? Or a lesbian couple using donated sperm to have children?

[Tailgater]

Why?

IMO, children that need to be adopted, have NO parents, so ANY loving parent who will focus on the child is better than foster care. Making babies from a sperm bank is not only more for "self" interests, it is counterproductive to the entire adoption system. Why adopt when you can make one in a lab.

[ponderingturtle]

IMO, children that need to be adopted, have NO parents, so ANY loving parent who will focus on the child is better than foster care. Making babies from a sperm bank is not only more for "self" interests, it is counterproductive to the entire adoption system. Why adopt when you can make one in a lab.

But why let single parrents adopt and not proper heterosexual marriages only?

[Invidious]

But why let single parrents adopt and not proper heterosexual marriages only?

...

[Tailgater]

But why let single parrents adopt and not proper heterosexual marriages only?

That gets right to it. There are more kids than people who want to adopt. Once a baby becomes a toddler, the chances of a child being adopted start dropping off. More and more people are looking right past adoption and looking what science can do for them. They want a baby that is theirs, no matter if the other parent is unknown or they have an unknown egg and sperm implanted, just so they can give birth. Science is getting so advanced, there are less people overall who will be adopting and only the people genuinely concerned with giving a child a better life will be the ones adopting. Self concern vs. child concern. I personally don't care what the people are as long as they are good parents. IMO, One good parent>Orphanage. Conspi might have a different view, as I don't want my answer to be considered his answer, but this is how I feel about it. I've been having the marital discussion of getting fixed recently:eek: , and my wife has agreed with me, that if we should change our minds later, we will adopt.

[ponderingturtle]

That gets right to it. There are more kids than people who want to adopt. Once a baby becomes a toddler, the chances of a child being adopted start dropping off. More and more people are looking right past adoption and looking what science can do for them. They want a baby that is theirs, no matter if the other parent is unknown or they have an unknown egg and sperm implanted, just so they can give birth. Science is getting so advanced, there are less people overall who will be adopting and only the people genuinely concerned with giving a child a better life will be the ones adopting. Self concern vs. child concern. I personally don't care what the people are as long as they are good parents. IMO, One good parent>Orphanage. Conspi might have a different view, as I don't want my answer to be considered his answer, this is how I feel about it. I've been having the marital discussion of getting fixed recently:eek: , and my wife has agreed with me, that if we should change our minds later, we will adopt.

You decry so many things, then what about those giving the children up for adoption then? Are not they horrible people for prevetning them from knowing their biological parents?

[Piscivore]

Screw Nature. We can do what we want.

An overwhelming preponderancy of our technological knowledge has been applied to circumventing Natural Selection; why should this one area concern you overmuch?

[Professor Yaffle]

What's the situation in other countries regarding donor anonymity? In the UK the law has recently been changed so that the child will be able to trace their biological father.

[ConspiRaider]

Wow, anyone wonder what he would think about single people adopting?
Different ballgame. Entirely. Adopting hasn't a thing to do with a woman having a child from a complete stranger man's sperm that he jacked into a jar for fifty bucks. Totally different scenario, is adopting. Nothing to do with this.

[ConspiRaider]

Or perhaps a lesbian/gay couple adopting? Or a lesbian couple using donated sperm to have children?
Lesbian couple using donated sperm to have children? No. Again - that is a conscious decision to eliminate the father from the upbringing of the child. WITHOUT the child's consent. It is simply thrust upon that girl/boy. "You get no father, kid. Too bad. I decided for you. I don't like men, so you won't be getting influenced by them. Deal with it.".

Adopting? Completely different scenario, I am tremendously open to adoption options. Including lesbian/gay. But in my view - a lesbian couple adopting must be - educated? Strongly encouraged? - I don't know exactly how that would be done, but must be made very very aware as to just how important positive male influences upon that child are to his or her socialization. Exactly the same for a gay male couple adopting. Must be made very aware of just how important positive female influences are for the development of the child.

[Tailgater]

You decry so many things, then what about those giving the children up for adoption then? Are not they horrible people for prevetning them from knowing their biological parents?

I never said anyone was horrible, only what the order of best cases for the child is. Having a child that has to be put up for adoption is usually an unfortunate accident (usually). Many adoptions give the child the option of knowing the mother when they reach a certain age. My friend in college was was given the option to receive a letter written to him by his mother when he turned 18. They occasionally wrote back and forth after that, but he still considered his adoptive parents his "real parents". Unless you are saying they can know their true parents from birth? I think that would be a bad recipe. Keeping the childs mind focused on education and the lessons of the caregivers is better than being preoccupied on who the bio parents are and why they gave them up.

[Inanna]

Langis,may I ask you,will not you be shocked if a father & daughter engage in a romantic physical relationship??But sometimes men do fall in love with women who are of the same age as their daughters,or even younger.We simply don't care & they also don't care.

[The Atheist]

Are YOU serious?


Gosh, I'm so proud of us. Aren't we smart? Geez we're just so tremendously clever and smart. Screw Nature. We can do what we want.

That's an excellent post, nominated.

[ConspiRaider]

An overwhelming preponderancy of our technological knowledge has been applied to circumventing Natural Selection; why should this one area concern you overmuch?
Actually I'm concerned in a lot of areas as to the impact of our utilization of technology. Across the board. What we've done is establish this mindset that if we can think of it from a technological point of view, then we should do it. We tend to not see, or minimize, or ignore, the deeper ramifications. We forget that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. We didn't think we could affect this planet's weather by large-scale human activity. We can. We didn't think we could marry our half-brother or half-sister and not even know it. We can. We didn't think we could release a poisonous metal into the atmosphere, and then accumulate that same metal to dangerous levels in our bodies. We are doing that now.

All of it affects our survival in the long term. That's why I'm concerned. Our shortsightedness - despite how clever we think we are, how something may appear to have no deleterious effects - can do us in. I don't want there to come a day in the future when Shakespeare's works have absolutely no meaning - because there are no longer any surviving humans around to appreciate his genius. So, I'm doing this all for Bill. :)

[ponderingturtle]

An overwhelming preponderancy of our technological knowledge has been applied to circumventing Natural Selection; why should this one area concern you overmuch?

We need to be more natural. First we need to get the maternal death rate back where nature intended, then we follow with the infant mortality rate, and we will be doing great to be natural again.

What can go wrong!

[Invidious]

Aren't we also confounding Nature when we plant acres and acres of only one sort of crop? In fact, the whole idea of crops is against Nature! You should have to go snuffle for roots in the damn forest like Nature intended.

[Inanna]

Dear Amapola
This brother & sister lost their parents at an early age,just before their puberty.The boy received some official support from the authorities as regards receiving money as pension.Some of their relatives arrived once in 6 months or a year to help them with the management of finances.In our country,people(neighbours) are too curious but helpful too although this help could irritate the boy & the girl at times.Their parents had money.The brother received a Master degree.Yes,he got a pretty good job.This is not a story which I made.They became close to one another in a house where they were of only help to one another ,may be first mentally,then physically.But I don't know whether they were completely innocent or not while being physically intimate.I presume nobody can know that.

[ponderingturtle]

Dear Amapola
This brother & sister lost their parents at an early age,just before their puberty.The boy received some official support from the authorities as regards receiving money as pension.Some of their relatives arrived once in 6 months or a year to help them with the management of finances.In our country,people(neighbours) are too curious but helpful too although this help could irritate the boy & the girl at times.Their parents had money.The brother received a Master degree.Yes,he got a pretty good job.This is not a story which I made.They became close to one another in a house where they were of only help to one another ,may be first mentally,then physically.But I don't know whether they were completely innocent or not while being physically intimate.I presume nobody can know that.

So which country is it that lets prepubescent children live on their own?

[Darth Rotor]

Langis,may I ask you,will not you be shocked if a father & daughter engage in a romantic physical relationship??But sometimes men do fall in love with women who are of the same age as their daughters,or even younger.We simply don't care & they also don't care.
Back under the bridge. I think I see what is going on here.

DR

[Tailgater]

Conspi,

I started thinking about the probabilities of scientifically created inbreeding. I'm wondering what those probablities are vs natural inbreeding. People tend to breed within religions, races, proximity, etc. At least up until the last half century, anything outside any of those were taboo and in some places, still are. There had to be a certain percentage of inbreeding within so many generations. The population was smaller, communities were smaller, people didn't mix outside what was similar to themselves. Could there be that much of a difference in percentage of inbreeding genes by generation distance or probability of close generation inbreeding by not knowing more than immediate family in the past and that of your example?

[PrincessIneffabelle]

I just love it when people rave about the superiority of Nature and the evilness of Technology ... whilst using the internet. If Nature is the desired state, you should probably be getting back to it. On foot and clothed only in "natural" materials.

[Inanna]

So which country is it that lets prepubescent children live on their own?

Hi pt
This incident happened & has been perturbing me,that is the fact.The name of the country is not important over here.I need not make up such a story.Life created this incident.
This incident has deeply disturbed me & it will always disturb me.This incident does not match with my ideas of intimacy between two adults.Still I don't think they committed a sin.They were the victims of the circumstances.I am even more disturbed by the cruelty of those relatives(?)who left this children to care for their own.I never said their parents were poor.Some relatives did turn up to give advice as regards money management & then left.Nature played her role in the absence of parental/elderly supervision.
I apologise if this thread has disturbed anyone.Plz See,emotional & physical support ,romance,the urge to procreate etc have different meanings in different situations.This couple's situation was uncommon,totally strange to most of us.Who knows what we would have done if we were left in such a cruel situation?I mean,we should think of the circumstances before condemning anyone for anything.
My sincere apology to all brothers & sisters,but I just could not stop myself from creating this thread as this incident has been disturbing me,rather, haunting me for long.

[Tailgater]

I just love it when people rave about the superiority of Nature and the evilness of Technology ... whilst using the internet. If Nature is the desired state, you should probably be getting back to it. On foot and clothed only in "natural" materials.

Yes, good thing no one here said that.

[ponderingturtle]

Hi pt
This incident happened & has been perturbing me,that is the fact.The name of the country is not important over here.I need not make up such a story.Life created this incident.

Nope, I don't believe you. This story is not credible, not with prepubescent kids living on their own getting government assistance.

[Tailgater]

Hi pt
This incident happened & has been perturbing me,that is the fact.The name of the country is not important over here.I need not make up such a story.Life created this incident.
This incident has deeply disturbed me & it will always disturb me.This incident does not match with my ideas of intimacy between two adults.Still I don't think they committed a sin.They were the victims of the circumstances.I am even more disturbed by the cruelty of those relatives(?)who left this children to care for their own.I never said their parents were poor.Some relatives did turn up to give advice as regards money management & then left.Nature played her role in the absence of parental/elderly supervision.
I apologise if this thread has disturbed anyone.Plz See,emotional & physical support ,romance,the urge to procreate etc has different meanings in different situations.This couple's situation was uncommon,totally strange to most of us.Who knows what we would have done if we were left in such a cruel situation?I mean,we should think of the circumstances before condemning anyone for anything.
My sincere apology to all brothers & sisters,but I just could not stop myself from creating this thread as this incident has been disturbing me,rather, haunting me for long.

I don't know, it kind of has that, "If you were trapped on a deserted island with your brothers' hot wife long enough, when would it be acceptable to sleep with her" feel to it. It shouldn't be acceptable as a norm, but freakier things have happened in this world.:boggled:

[Tailgater]

Nope, I don't believe you. This story is not credible, not with prepubescent kids living on their own getting government assistance.

Cmon, it totally could have happened in neverneverland. They lived on their own, and you know Peter Pan was tapping Wendy.

[Inanna]

If someone does not believe me,he or she is entitled to her opinion.I respect that person as much as those who believe me. I wish all the best to all of you.

[skeptifem]

Are YOU serious?

yes, yes i am.

If a woman wants to have a kid and consciously doesn't want to have a man help her raise it: She needs to get over the entire idea, immediately if not sooner. That mindset makes her unfit as a mother.

HOW does it make her unfit?

anyway, its going to be tough for you to break that to all the lesbian parents out there.


Pure selfishness and arrogance - that's what it is. A woman deliberately deciding that a child will NEVER know its birth father. I'd like to be there listening to her try to explain to the kid, especially if he's a boy, why she has no use for men and thought so little of them that they rate no more than a shopping item in a catalog to her. Monstrous. Not human.

wow thats a whole bunch of assumptions that you will never be able to prove.

the fact that you think that about women who choose to be single parents says a lot more about you than it does them. its impossible for you to know how those women see men or their motovations for living their lives the way that they do. why attack a position that no one has even mentioned except for you?

That is a monstrous attitude, and nothing less. And what else is monstrous? Men jacking off into a jar, getting cash, and that constitutes their association with fatherhood. Absolutely positively monstrous. Yet modern society allows both woman and man to behave in this manner.

oh dear god! two people entering an agreement and getting exactly what they wanted??? teh horror!!1

As I indicate, in this "You Can Have It All" consumer-driven world we've devised, everything is for sale. "But it's the woman's right to have a
kiddie whenever she wants!" Thats whats been marketed to you.

hm the message I got from society in general was that women who have children outside of marriage are immoral.

What has NOT been marketed to you is the rights of the kiddie.

they market plenty of that. like how people say letting gay people get married or adopt will hurt children, or how the right to life people love to call abortion murdering babies or children. they get a lot more exposure than feminists do, thats for sure.

The deliberate elimination of a father in the upbringing of the child. We know that elimination of the father, or the mother, or both, occurs through varied happenstance. War, divorce, abandonment, kidnapping and so forth. But this is different. This is a conscious, thought-out decision to create a child and then deny that child the aspect of "father" as we know it, in the traditional social definition. As we evolved, biologically and socially, to define the parameters of fatherhood.

provide proof of your claim of this being a biological issue.


Because a good father is every bit as critical and important and vital as a good mother in the upbringing of a child. Whether that child is a girl or boy. Your attitude, however, reflects the success by which marketing has been able to minimize a man right down to a 15-second squirt.

oh yes, the main stream american culture sure loves to empower women! :rolleyes: please.

ANYWAY, I really really fail to see how having a baby from a sperm donor 'reduces' a man to anything less than a man. It simply doesnt. and a lot of your rants boil down to nothing but strawmen- thinking you know how women think of sperm donors and attacking that position, its especially silly when no one has even implied anything of this sort except for you.



And as I mention, it weakens the gene pool. With this new reality, you could end up marrying your half-brother and I could end up marrying my half-sister and we wouldn't even know it.

i suppose you are against adoption of children for the same reason?


Nature designed a whole set of parameters to try and prevent that from happening. And we shortcut all of those results, honed over hundreds of millions of years, by getting an egg, getting some sperm, mixing 'em in a Petri dish and then implanting it in the woman's womb. Gosh, I'm so proud of us. Aren't we smart? Geez we're just so tremendously clever and smart. Screw Nature. We can do what we want.

this is an argument from tradition. its a logical fallacy.


in closing, theres almost nothing in your post that did not contain some sort of fallacy.

[skeptifem]

Yup. It's getting sad. I'm waiting to see the womb in bag. Just jerk off in this bag, add the vito-mix twice a day, keep it on the heat pad (provided at no extra charge), and in nine months you can be a daddy without having to deal with a woman who wants visitation or child support. Then mothers will cry, "a MAN can't do that, how can a child be raised with no mother?!", and they would be right too.

:rolleyes:

that is all.

[skeptifem]

I just love it when people rave about the superiority of Nature and the evilness of Technology ... whilst using the internet. If Nature is the desired state, you should probably be getting back to it. On foot and clothed only in "natural" materials.


haahahaha! :roll: yeah i think the same thing when i see this sort of stuff.

[skeptifem]

Actually I'm concerned in a lot of areas as to the impact of our utilization of technology. Across the board. What we've done is establish this mindset that if we can think of it from a technological point of view, then we should do it. We tend to not see, or minimize, or ignore, the deeper ramifications. We forget that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. We didn't think we could affect this planet's weather by large-scale human activity. We can. We didn't think we could marry our half-brother or half-sister and not even know it. We can. We didn't think we could release a poisonous metal into the atmosphere, and then accumulate that same metal to dangerous levels in our bodies. We are doing that now.

please, inform me what horrible ramifications occured after of the invention of modern anesthesia. I am just dying to hear this one.

this sounds an awful lot like woo to me. "because some advances in technology have resulted in problems=ALL advances in technology result in problems" is not very sound logic.

[Z]

Screw nature. Either we'll become scientifically advanced enough to do what we please no matter what, or we'll become extinct. Luckily, all that's part of nature, too.

Nature makes bacteria; we make antibacterial products. So nature makes stronger bacteria. Well, that puts the ball in our court - let's make stronger antibacterial products. Or, better still, let's genetically engineer ourself to be immune to all bacteria.

We put mercury in our water and our air and our soil? Fine. Let's come up with ways to make ourselves immune to mercury.

That's the power of science - to overcome and defeat Nature at every turn. And if Nature proves stronger, then so be it. No race lasts forever - why should we be different?

[Piscivore]

And as I mention, it weakens the gene pool. With this new reality, you could end up marrying your half-brother and I could end up marrying my half-sister and we wouldn't even know it.

Now wait a minute- the way I figure it half-sibs won't have any more chance of having genes from the same parent than first cousins, and while some societies call that taboo it is certainly not universal. I do not know that it is even common. And even if ever single child in the next generation were to be born thusly the odds would be very small one would draw a half-sib.

And arguing that there are few sperm donors would be just as well solved by increasing the donor pool than by eliminating this procedure altogether, becuase there is a chance of breeding with a half-sib even the "natural" way.

No, I don't buy this impending genetic apocalypse you are selling. I'm going to keep working on the doomsday virus, thanks.

[skeptifem]

Now wait a minute- the way I figure it half-sibs won't have any more chance of having genes from the same parent than first cousins, and while some societies call that taboo it is certainly not universal. I do not know that it is even common. And even if ever single child in the next generation were to be born thusly the odds would be very small one would draw a half-sib.



on this page he says adoption is ok though? thats what i dont get.

[Paulhoff]

Some people are fixated on the fallacy that cousin couples pose an intolerable risk to their offspring. However it is likely that we are all descendants of cousin marriages. Before civil laws banning cousin marriages, it was preferable to marry a cousin in some communities as it is to this day in many countries. The notion “why marry a stranger" is just as prevalent in many countries as the cousin marriage taboo in America today.

http://www.cousincouples.com/info/facts.shtml

Paul

:) :) :)

[Tailgater]

please, inform me what horrible ramifications occured after of the invention of modern anesthesia. I am just dying to hear this one.


Steve Martin in "Little shop of horrors" getting stoned performing denistry was the only thing that came to mind.:)

[Piscivore]

http://www.cousincouples.com/info/facts.shtml

Paul

:) :) :)

I cannot see that page, my work computer blocks sites hosted in Shelbyville.

[Mobyseven]

please, inform me what horrible ramifications occured after of the invention of modern anesthesia. I am just dying to hear this one.

You mean medical anaestesia which is one of the leading causes of surgical complications?

Certainly the positive benefit outweighs the negatives in this case, but to think that there are no horrible ramifications is just naive.

[Piscivore]

Dear Amapola
This brother & sister lost their parents at an early age,just before their puberty.The boy received some official support from the authorities as regards receiving money as pension.Some of their relatives arrived once in 6 months or a year to help them with the management of finances.In our country,people(neighbours) are too curious but helpful too although this help could irritate the boy & the girl at times.Their parents had money.The brother received a Master degree.Yes,he got a pretty good job.This is not a story which I made.They became close to one another in a house where they were of only help to one another ,may be first mentally,then physically.But I don't know whether they were completely innocent or not while being physically intimate.I presume nobody can know that.

Dude, "Flowers in the Attic" was not a documentary.

[Elind]

Incest is not only between siblings. It is also between parent and child.

I would say that the latter has a greater social stigma as it inevitably involves a person of authority over a subordinate, most often an immature one when we hear of it.

However, it has hardly always been condemned. As has been mentioned royalty has often practiced it, at least at the first cousin level due to the desire to keep the blood pure and because of political necessities.

Inherited disorders are a risk, but I recall reading a study on a European royal family ( I forget which one) that actually showed no adverse effects and they tended to live long relatively health lives. It appears that IF there is a certain inheritable defect passed on in certain ways, then there is a stronger risk, of incestuous offspring inheriting it. We know that of course, (hemophilia in European royalty) but the point is that there are not that many such diseases (defects around) and the chances of not getting one are greater than getting one, if the original "stock" was disease free. To some extent one reduces the risk of bringing in bad stuff from outside the bloodline. It seem it is not true that one inevitably has a downward spiral in intelligence and so on. Two intelligent siblings are likely to breed intelligent children, as any animal breeder knows in other ways, as long as one keeps out the riffraff genes to begin with.

In the US the Mormons have had rampant incestuous marriages in their polygamy groups, but I don't know if they've ever let anyone study them, since under US laws a great many "prophets" ( they have them aplenty) would then be liable for prosecution.

Evolution as a whole relies on isolated groups to kick start significant change in a species, since that way existing characteristics are reinforced, whereas if there is interbreeding with other group, then the net result is an average of all and little change is seen.

So, I think the taboos we, as humans, have against incest are not entirely universal on the one hand but probably based on social pressures more than any understanding of genetics, that our ancestors did not have. Of course simple familiarity might have something to do with dulling sexual attraction between siblings, but on the whole I suspect the pressures to find mates outside the immediate family was and is largely driven by economics and politics. Family isn't as likely to attack you, and it's a good way to get a piece of what they have.

[Hokulele]

Dude, "Flowers in the Attic" was not a documentary.


Nor was "The Blue Lagoon".

[ConspiRaider]

I just love it when people rave about the superiority of Nature and the evilness of Technology ... whilst using the internet. If Nature is the desired state, you should probably be getting back to it. On foot and clothed only in "natural" materials.
You want to watch that broad-brushing, Krispin. That is if you ever hope to be taken seriously.

What you fail to realize, with your sweeping generalizations, is that I NEVER SAID Technology should be abandoned and that we should all go back to swinging from trees and scratching for fleas. You inferred that. Erroneously.

If Technology allows us to get an egg from a human female and allow fertilization from a male ostrich - should we take that and put it in her womb and see what happens? Hey - it's TECHNOLOGY! That means we should just plow right ahead and do it. We beat Nature again! We invented a life form that never would have happened! Yay! We're smarter than Nature! We're SUPERIOR to Nature!

Nature is like Ken Kesey's "Combine" of which he used as an allegory in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. The combine they use on farms. It's out there. It's coming. It's going to take it's good old time. But it is unstoppable. And inescapable. And yes - since Nature encapsulates everything that occurs, it is superior. We are a rather minor aspect in the skein of diversity that is Nature. And I don't mean just biology or the Earth or even the Solar System. It's everything else out there as well.

Let's just do a complete scenario-reversal that caused the flare-up in the first place, betwixt ponderingturtle and myself. That if a woman decides she wants to raise a baby without a man - she should be able to.

Let's assume I want to do this (and I don't - this is for the purpose of illustration of a point). Ready? I want to raise a newborn all by myself. Don't want the messiness of a relationship with a woman. Don't like women, want to do this thing myself. Just me and my baby, my little kiddie, who I am going to raise perfectly without anyone else getting in my way. I get a catalog. Nice one, color pictures, slick, well-designed. And I go shopping for a fetus carrier. I'm a Uterus Shopper. My sperm. Her egg. I don't want to know her, don't want to meet her, just give me her vitals. Height, weight, age, eye color, hair color, race, education. Ah! Here's one. Seems ideal. How much? Oh, five grand and she'll carry the fetus to term. Got that. Here's the cash. (9 months later) Hello? Yes? You got my baby? Terrific! Ahhh! Childrearing bliss! No pesky woman to screw up the perfect kiddie. I'll just get this infant formula, feed the kid the bottle, change it, coo and goo-goo with it, burp it, sing to it, read it stories... Your mommy? Who? Other kids have mommies and you want to know where yours is? Sorry, kiddie, you apple of my eye, you. I decided you didn't need a mommy for your upbringing. Dad knows best, right? And it's legal and I got just what I wanted - you - and we didn't have to involve anything like a mommy in raising you. Isn't it wonderful? Isn't technology great? You can do the same thing, kiddie!

Tell me, Krispin, with a straight face that the above scenario ISN'T monstrous. And if it's monstrous - then so is the notion of a woman's deliberate decision to raise a newborn without a man - without the father around ever.

[Piscivore]

Your mommy? Who? Other kids have mommies and you want to know where yours is? Sorry, kiddie, you apple of my eye, you. I decided you didn't need a mommy for your upbringing.

But if Mommy died when the kid was an infant, or ran out, or daddy adopted the kid that's not "monstrous" because it is "natural"?

Tell me, Krispin, with a straight face that the above scenario ISN'T monstrous.

I will. It is not monstrous. It might not be usual, it may never be common, it might be something that squicks you personally, but it is no more horrific than any other parenting model that deviates from the heterogeneous two-parent model.

[Hawk one]

Pure selfishness and arrogance - that's what it is. A woman deliberately deciding that a child will NEVER know its birth father. I'd like to be there listening to her try to explain to the kid, especially if he's a boy, why she has no use for men and thought so little of them that they rate no more than a shopping item in a catalog to her. Monstrous. Not human.

The only monstrous thing I can see here is that someone will make such a pathetic strawman. The only selfish thing I can see here is someone having made up his mind and not bothering to check the facts about his prejudices.

Or do you have any evidence whatsoever that this is something that actually happens?

[Big Les]

Okay, here's another source (have you heard of the BBC?)

Yes, thanks. No need for the condescending tone.


And here is the full article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4688450.stm

Kindly recognize my underlying point, Big Les, would you please? Which is essentially, that when we humans decide to shortcut or temporarily bypass the careful set of balances that Nature has devised over hundreds of millions of years - we should never be surprised at the counterpunches and consequences. What we should do is take a helluva lot more caution. Because poysonally, I don't want to unknowingly marry my half-sister. And if I ever do have a daughter, I don't want guys in their 20s hitting on her when she is 10.

Fine. I don't give much of a monkey's toss either way on this issue (though emotionally speaking, I have always agreed with your argument), just wanted to point out that you were using a notoriously unreliable source.

[skeptifem]

You want to watch that broad-brushing, Krispin. That is if you ever hope to be taken seriously.

bwaaahahahaa! pot, kettle, etc.

What you fail to realize, with your sweeping generalizations, is that I NEVER SAID Technology should be abandoned and that we should all go back to swinging from trees and scratching for fleas. You inferred that. Erroneously.

... but in then in the section quoted below you do nothing to argue specifics of an issue. the majority of your arguments sound like "____ is bad and terrible, its against nature and uses technology to something unnatural and thats bad'. How do you expect anyone to draw a different conclusion when you use 'nature good/technology bad' as your only supporting point behind so many of your assertions?

If Technology allows us to get an egg from a human female and allow fertilization from a male ostrich - should we take that and put it in her womb and see what happens? Hey - it's TECHNOLOGY! That means we should just plow right ahead and do it. We beat Nature again! We invented a life form that never would have happened! Yay! We're smarter than Nature! We're SUPERIOR to Nature!


this sounds an awful lot like 'if you let gays marry, people will be marrying animals soon'. slippery slope fallacy.


Nature is like Ken Kesey's "Combine" of which he used as an allegory in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. The combine they use on farms. It's out there. It's coming. It's going to take it's good old time. But it is unstoppable. And inescapable. And yes - since Nature encapsulates everything that occurs, it is superior. We are a rather minor aspect in the skein of diversity that is Nature. And I don't mean just biology or the Earth or even the Solar System. It's everything else out there as well.

*yawn* this sounds a lot like woo, again.

my opinion on nature: our ability to do these things is natural. its an advantage that humans have over other species.


Let's just do a complete scenario-reversal that caused the flare-up in the first place, betwixt ponderingturtle and myself. That if a woman decides she wants to raise a baby without a man - she should be able to.

Let's assume I want to do this (and I don't - this is for the purpose of illustration of a point). Ready? I want to raise a newborn all by myself. Don't want the messiness of a relationship with a woman. Don't like women, want to do this thing myself. Just me and my baby, my little kiddie, who I am going to raise perfectly without anyone else getting in my way. I get a catalog. Nice one, color pictures, slick, well-designed. And I go shopping for a fetus carrier. I'm a Uterus Shopper. My sperm. Her egg. I don't want to know her, don't want to meet her, just give me her vitals. Height, weight, age, eye color, hair color, race, education. Ah! Here's one. Seems ideal. How much? Oh, five grand and she'll carry the fetus to term. Got that. Here's the cash. (9 months later) Hello? Yes? You got my baby? Terrific! Ahhh! Childrearing bliss! No pesky woman to screw up the perfect kiddie. I'll just get this infant formula, feed the kid the bottle, change it, coo and goo-goo with it, burp it, sing to it, read it stories... Your mommy? Who? Other kids have mommies and you want to know where yours is? Sorry, kiddie, you apple of my eye, you. I decided you didn't need a mommy for your upbringing. Dad knows best, right? And it's legal and I got just what I wanted - you - and we didn't have to involve anything like a mommy in raising you. Isn't it wonderful? Isn't technology great? You can do the same thing, kiddie!


Tell me, Krispin, with a straight face that the above scenario ISN'T monstrous. And if it's monstrous - then so is the notion of a woman's deliberate decision to raise a newborn without a man - without the father around ever.

I am not krispin, but no, its not monsterous. youre just again assuming you know what women think- and you dont. I do not glorify motherhood- having a loving responsible person around is more important than having one guy and one woman, or at least one woman, or whatever others consider ideal. and its completely unfair for you to speak for children of those women who chose single parenthood- what the hell makes you think that you have the right to say what they feel about how they were raised? its just another tired old strawman.

[skeptifem]

You mean medical anaestesia which is one of the leading causes of surgical complications?

i tried to find evidence of that on my own and came up short. it seems as though the leading cause of surgical complications is very dependant on the type of surgury being performed.

Certainly the positive benefit outweighs the negatives in this case, but to think that there are no horrible ramifications is just naive.

the underlined part was what i was getting at. that technology doesnt neccesarily lead to some sort of sci fi doomsday situation, and that some technologies provide solutions where even the complications are much more favorable than the original problem. :) i look forward to the future because of how technology changes the world.

[Hokulele]

I am not krispin, but no, its not monsterous. youre just again assuming you know what women think- and you dont. I do not glorify motherhood- having a loving responsible person around is more important than having one guy and one woman, or at least one woman, or whatever others consider ideal. and its completely unfair for you to speak for children of those women who chose single parenthood- what the hell makes you think that you have the right to say what they feel about how they were raised? its just another tired old strawman.


I think that the main issue ConspiRaider is trying to raise is not so much the single-parenthood aspect (adoption, orphanage, etc), but the implied misogyny/misandry of choosing not to involve a person of the opposite sex. The fact that this was not possible until technology made certain types of fertility feasible is what dragged the whole "tech = bad" theme into the conversation.

I don't think this is monstrous, or that much of a problem, but CR may have had personal experiences that inform his opinion*. If I had encountered people who believed and behaved this way, I might feel differently.


* He lives in So Cal, and I have met people from there who behave even more strangely.

[skeptifem]

I think that the main issue ConspiRaider is trying to raise is not so much the single-parenthood aspect (adoption, orphanage, etc), but the implied misogyny/misandry of choosing not to involve a person of the opposite sex. The fact that this was not possible until technology made certain types of fertility feasible is what dragged the whole "tech = bad" theme into the conversation.

I don't think this is monstrous, or that much of a problem, but CR may have had personal experiences that inform his opinion*. If I had encountered people who believed and behaved this way, I might feel differently.


* He lives in So Cal, and I have met people from there who behave even more strangely.

for me meeting unconventional families made me think it was more acceptable. the only thing i can come up with is an irrational fear of becoming obsolete, but of course thats only speculation.

[Mobyseven]

i tried to find evidence of that on my own and came up short. it seems as though the leading cause of surgical complications is very dependant on the type of surgury being performed.

True. I don't have the stats on hand myself, but a great deal of complications can arise from anaesthesia, even when the doctor has not been negligent. In the wrong hands (which is really the issue for any technology) it can be deadly or worse. Had to write a case note last semester on a case where an epidural had left a man a quadraplegic - a quick legal search found FAR too many medical negligence cases related to anaesthesia...

the underlined part was what i was getting at. that technology doesnt neccesarily lead to some sort of sci fi doomsday situation, and that some technologies provide solutions where even the complications are much more favorable than the original problem. :) i look forward to the future because of how technology changes the world.

True, I don't think anyone is really doubting that - in a way I agree with CR, though for different reasons than I think he puts forward. He puts forward a moral argument, while I take issue more with the idea that we have technology now that is specifically aimed at increasing the population, and that is allowing couples who were biologically unable to reproduce the chance to introduce a baby into the world who may well share the problem its parents had and who is 'taking the place' of a possible adoption. For me, the biggest issue is that we are allowing unconstrained population growth in a world that cannot handle it - certainly I don't wish to limit or fine people who fall pregnant 'the natural way', but when there are children in need already, living on a world where there is limited space and resources, to me it is irresponsible bringing a child who could not have naturally been conceived into the world instead of caring for one who may not have a future without adoption.

It's all about managing the world and the people in it - you have to build the house before you can start to renovate.

[skeptifem]

True. I don't have the stats on hand myself, but a great deal of complications can arise from anaesthesia, even when the doctor has not been negligent. In the wrong hands (which is really the issue for any technology) it can be deadly or worse. Had to write a case note last semester on a case where an epidural had left a man a quadraplegic - a quick legal search found FAR too many medical negligence cases related to anaesthesia...

yup agreed.



True, I don't think anyone is really doubting that - in a way I agree with CR, though for different reasons than I think he puts forward. He puts forward a moral argument, while I take issue more with the idea that we have technology now that is specifically aimed at increasing the population, and that is allowing couples who were biologically unable to reproduce the chance to introduce a baby into the world who may well share the problem its parents had and who is 'taking the place' of a possible adoption. For me, the biggest issue is that we are allowing unconstrained population growth in a world that cannot handle it - certainly I don't wish to limit or fine people who fall pregnant 'the natural way', but when there are children in need already, living on a world where there is limited space and resources, to me it is irresponsible bringing a child who could not have naturally been conceived into the world instead of caring for one who may not have a future without adoption.

It's all about managing the world and the people in it - you have to build the house before you can start to renovate.

this doesnt make sense to me. if the issue is unadopted children why do heterosexual couples get a pass from you?

[Mobyseven]

this doesnt make sense to me. if the issue is unadopted children why do heterosexual couples get a pass from you?

They don't, if they are unable to conceive naturally. For me the issue is not that children require a mother and a father - though I would put forward that having a positive male and female role model is a must, even if they are not the parents but rather friends or a friend of the parents - but that if one cannot naturally conceive then if one wants a child, one should adopt. Heterosexual couples that can conceive get a pass because I'm not big on regulating people's sexual habits, and preventing or controlling pregnancies in the heterosexual population at large would be a nigh insurmountable task.

For me it boils down to this: If you cannot naturally conceive, be it because your sexual preference has left both you and your partner wombless, because of a medical condition, or for whatever reason in-between, then you should adopt if you want a child. We have reached a point now in cultural development where we should be able to overcome the programming of our genes, bite the bullet and accept that if we cannot conceive our own child then perhaps we should care for someone else's.

[UserGoogol]

If Technology allows us to get an egg from a human female and allow fertilization from a male ostrich - should we take that and put it in her womb and see what happens? Hey - it's TECHNOLOGY! That means we should just plow right ahead and do it. We beat Nature again! We invented a life form that never would have happened! Yay! We're smarter than Nature! We're SUPERIOR to Nature!

I see absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever, provided that we were somewhat sure that carrying an ostrichoid wouldn't kill the mother. Actually, it sounds pretty ****** cool. I mean honestly, what's wrong with it?

I think that, as a general thing, doing crazy nonsense for the sake of SCIENCE is a good idea. Worst case scenario, you create a half-ostrich half-man freak of nature and its life is utter misery. Well, that's a bummer, but we LEARNED something. The pain of a freakish manbeast only lasts a short while, but knowledge can benefit us indefinitely. In the long run, experimentation always wins as long as it doesn't destroy the world (thus making the knowledge's benefit be cut off short), and as long as the experiment wasn't clearly a dumb idea in the first place, (thus making the knowledge gain be so small that even multiplied by "indefinite" it still isn't much).

Granted, there are many areas where "thumbing the eye of God" is clearly a dumb idea. But excessive conservatism seems far worse than excessive experimentation, for the reasons I just said.

[Paulhoff]

If you look at the one story about Adam and Eve, isn't Adam really having sex with his daughter.

Paul

:) :) :)

[skeptifem]

They don't, if they are unable to conceive naturally.

no but i meant the hetero couples that CAN concieve naturally. in your mind its ok for them to not adopt, but everyone else should. i dont understand why.


For me the issue is not that children require a mother and a father - though I would put forward that having a positive male and female role model is a must, even if they are not the parents but rather friends or a friend of the parents - but that if one cannot naturally conceive then if one wants a child, one should adopt. Heterosexual couples that can conceive get a pass because I'm not big on regulating people's sexual habits, and preventing or controlling pregnancies in the heterosexual population at large would be a nigh insurmountable task.

but if you could, you would make them adopt?

For me it boils down to this: If you cannot naturally conceive, be it because your sexual preference has left both you and your partner wombless, because of a medical condition, or for whatever reason in-between, then you should adopt if you want a child. We have reached a point now in cultural development where we should be able to overcome the programming of our genes, bite the bullet and accept that if we cannot conceive our own child then perhaps we should care for someone else's.

Its sweet to consider unadopted children, but I still dont quite agree with you. it still boils down to the same problem- telling other people how they should structure their families. I dont think its anyone elses business. I dont think anyone should adopt unless their heart is in it 100% anyway. people who cant naturally concieve go through a ton of hard work to get pregnant and have children and naturally fertile hetero couples dont. I dont see a reason to make it harder on people who are going to have one hell of a time having children either way, and its not like everyone gets approved to be an adoptive parent.

[Darth Rotor]

[COLOR=black]If you look at the one story about Adam and Eve, isn't Adam really having sex with his daughter
No, looked at it that way, he's having sex with his rib. That's a weird version of jerkin' the gherkin, I'd say.

DR

[Dorian Gray]

The question is: why do Bible-thumpers believe it? Considering the beginning of the Bible, which starts with Adam having sex with his clone and expands from there, then later has the same thing with Noah and his family, why do the Xians condemn it?

[Darth Rotor]

The question is: why do Bible-thumpers believe it? Considering the beginning of the Bible, which starts with Adam having sex with his clone and expands from there, then later has the same thing with Noah and his family, why do the Xians condemn it?
What is your phobia regarding Christians? Have you sought help for it?

DR

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Tell me, Krispin, with a straight face that the above scenario ISN'T monstrous. And if it's monstrous - then so is the notion of a woman's deliberate decision to raise a newborn without a man - without the father around ever.
That scenario is in no way monstrous. Nature™ is not some magical all-knowing automatically-good-for-you present-everywhere able-to-do-anything panacea. It's a pretty good system, but it has a major flaw - nature doesn't privilege humans. With any luck, technology made by humans does.

And yes, some children might have an issue to deal with that others won't. That doesn't mean interracial marriage or having only one child or failing-to-kill-your-infant-after-his-mother-dies-in-a-tragic-livestock-accident is monstrous.

[Big Les]

What is your phobia regarding Christians? Have you sought help for it?

DR

I would read that as a criticism of biblical literalists (hence "bible-thumpers") rather than Christians per se.

[Z]

You want to watch that broad-brushing, Krispin. That is if you ever hope to be taken seriously.

What you fail to realize, with your sweeping generalizations, is that I NEVER SAID Technology should be abandoned and that we should all go back to swinging from trees and scratching for fleas. You inferred that. Erroneously.

If Technology allows us to get an egg from a human female and allow fertilization from a male ostrich - should we take that and put it in her womb and see what happens? Hey - it's TECHNOLOGY! That means we should just plow right ahead and do it. We beat Nature again! We invented a life form that never would have happened! Yay! We're smarter than Nature! We're SUPERIOR to Nature!

Nature is like Ken Kesey's "Combine" of which he used as an allegory in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. The combine they use on farms. It's out there. It's coming. It's going to take it's good old time. But it is unstoppable. And inescapable. And yes - since Nature encapsulates everything that occurs, it is superior. We are a rather minor aspect in the skein of diversity that is Nature. And I don't mean just biology or the Earth or even the Solar System. It's everything else out there as well.

Let's just do a complete scenario-reversal that caused the flare-up in the first place, betwixt ponderingturtle and myself. That if a woman decides she wants to raise a baby without a man - she should be able to.

Let's assume I want to do this (and I don't - this is for the purpose of illustration of a point). Ready? I want to raise a newborn all by myself. Don't want the messiness of a relationship with a woman. Don't like women, want to do this thing myself. Just me and my baby, my little kiddie, who I am going to raise perfectly without anyone else getting in my way. I get a catalog. Nice one, color pictures, slick, well-designed. And I go shopping for a fetus carrier. I'm a Uterus Shopper. My sperm. Her egg. I don't want to know her, don't want to meet her, just give me her vitals. Height, weight, age, eye color, hair color, race, education. Ah! Here's one. Seems ideal. How much? Oh, five grand and she'll carry the fetus to term. Got that. Here's the cash. (9 months later) Hello? Yes? You got my baby? Terrific! Ahhh! Childrearing bliss! No pesky woman to screw up the perfect kiddie. I'll just get this infant formula, feed the kid the bottle, change it, coo and goo-goo with it, burp it, sing to it, read it stories... Your mommy? Who? Other kids have mommies and you want to know where yours is? Sorry, kiddie, you apple of my eye, you. I decided you didn't need a mommy for your upbringing. Dad knows best, right? And it's legal and I got just what I wanted - you - and we didn't have to involve anything like a mommy in raising you. Isn't it wonderful? Isn't technology great? You can do the same thing, kiddie!

Tell me, Krispin, with a straight face that the above scenario ISN'T monstrous. And if it's monstrous - then so is the notion of a woman's deliberate decision to raise a newborn without a man - without the father around ever.

Not monstrous at all. In fact, sounds like quite a good family model.

One of my best friends has raised her son without a father from day one, because his father was an absolute beast of a man. Abusive, lecherous, hateful, and with many of your same opinions. And she raised her son to adulthood without EVER letting him know about his father. Further, she realized after his birth that she was happier without men whatsoever, so other than myself and a handful of gay friends, her only companions, lovers, etc. were other women. And I only see them about once every four to six years.

And her son has grown to be a fine young man, headed to college, well-rounded, well-read, atheletic, handsome, intelligent, sensible, and level-headed.

In fact, most of the jerks and idiots I've ever met have come from two-parent heterosexual homes.

So, no, it's not monstrous, it's quite nice.

[Mobyseven]

no but i meant the hetero couples that CAN concieve naturally. in your mind its ok for them to not adopt, but everyone else should. i dont understand why.

but if you could, you would make them adopt?

No. Those couples are the only ones that can conceive, and therefore we should not prevent them from doing so. If we prevent them from conceiving, then the population not only doesn't grow, it stagnates and falls.

Let me put it another way - if we reach a point of development where adoption has become a non-issue (there are very few unadopted children, perhaps in a future where adoption is an automatic process - those who require adoption have a very short waiting time), and the population is under control, then I would not have a problem with a limited number of artificial conceptions - limited in the sense that it will not cause excessive population growth, which would lead to a whole other bunch of issues.

Its sweet to consider unadopted children, but I still dont quite agree with you. it still boils down to the same problem- telling other people how they should structure their families. I dont think its anyone elses business. I dont think anyone should adopt unless their heart is in it 100% anyway. people who cant naturally concieve go through a ton of hard work to get pregnant and have children and naturally fertile hetero couples dont. I dont see a reason to make it harder on people who are going to have one hell of a time having children either way, and its not like everyone gets approved to be an adoptive parent.

The bolded part - why is it that some people are not approved to be an adoptive parent? I don't know how the system works, but for me if someone has not been approved to adopt, that raises red flags in allowing them to artificially conceive as well.

However, someone with a better knowledge of the system may be able to set me straight on that one.

[Amapola]

I don't know how it is now...... but it used to be that blonde haired, blue-eyed parents could not adopt a baby with black skin and hair. (This was in UT, if that makes a difference - other states may have differnt rules.) It was felt the child needed someone who resembled them somewhat physically, in order to relate to them. I had many friends who adopted and who could not always get the kids they wanted due to physical appearance, which would certainly not make them unfit parents.

I suppose if you fill out the application and say that you have an unstable relationship, fight frequently and plan to use the kid as a bargaining chip in a game between you and your spouse that you would be turned down...... but I can't imagine anyone actually saying stuff like that on the application. All the people that I knew (not many compared to the nationwide adoption rate) only got turned down for silly things like hair color.

[Mobyseven]

Thanks for the info, Amapola. I would have thought that more people got turned down for reasons other than hair colour though - you may not say that you're in an unstable relationship, but certainly the adoption agency would visit your home to inspect where the child is going to live? Wouldn't such inspections be the probable cause of most rejections?

[Z]

Sadly, no. Most rejections happen long before the home visit. Many are based on income, family structure, appearance, suiteability of the applicants' employment (for example, very few truckers or bartenders get to adopt), education level, etc.

Home inspections are often waived or only happen on paper (the workers being VERY overworked and VASTLY underpaid), unless an incident has forced the agency to become more involved. Those that do happen are usually staged with plenty of prewarning (and very few people are unable to prep a house for a Soc. Serv. inspection given a day or two's warning), and only reflect on how well the family can get a house ready if they think they're being watched - not on how well the family ordinarily keeps things.

Personal interviews are treated with such skepticism these days, precisely because in the past, neighbors and friends have attempted to sabotage prospective parents, so even reports of poor behavior are often ignored until it's too late.

The adoption and foster care situation in the U.S. is absolutely appalling.

Recently in Ohio there was a child taken from his mother, who Social Services claimed was unfit to care for him, and given to a couple who ended up locking him in a hot closet while they went away for a trip. When they returned home to find him dead, they instead hid his body, and claimed he ran away or got lost. It took a couple of days for the truth to come out.

Sadly, those sorts of things happen far too often. As far as S.S. was concerned, they were better parents than the woman they took the child from; but due to these parents, the kid is dead.

Meanwhile, anecdotal evidence only, I've known plenty of well-to-do, stable, healthy families turned down for a number of rather irrelevant reasons. Agencies vary, of course, but just as an example, in North Carolina, religion plays a significant factor in adoption: non-Christians applying to adopt are almost entirely rejected (usually on other grounds). Race MUST match, UNLESS the prospective parent is very wealthy. And wealth matters more than anything, to most of these agencies: a family with a six digit income who wouldn't be suitable to raise a stink are given children long before a family with a five-digit income that have a perfectly stable, healthy, and happy home suitable for children are.

It's an ugly, ugly fact of life in the U.S.

Now, I agree that more people should try to adopt, but everyone should be aware that there's a lot of problems with the adoption processes.

[Mobyseven]

Thanks for the info. Sounds like the adoption processes in the US need to shape up significantly.

[arthwollipot]

Tell us something we didn't know.

[skeptifem]

hm i never heard the skin color thing. ive heard of/knew a few families who were white and adopted a ton of the unadoptabed older kids locally(disabled, ethnic, etc). they always get like 8 or 9 and usually have their own children as well.

[Z]

Depends on the area, and yea, a lot of areas are like that - for whites. A black family in the same area would be strongly unlikely to be able to adopt a ton of any except black babies.

[Mobyseven]

Tell us something we didn't know.

One sleazy night in 2002, Alex Lloyd picked up eight college aged girls in one night.

[arthwollipot]

One sleazy night in 2002, Alex Lloyd picked up eight college aged girls in one night.
:eye-poppi
:D















Who's Alex Lloyd?

[Mobyseven]

Who's Alex Lloyd?

Australian musician, has won a number of awards but has sort of faded from the scene in recent times. Had a few big hits for a while there though.

[JJR]

Not in my book. No God, no sin. Simple, yes??
They may have committed a crime, I'm not sure. Personally, I don't want to bang my sister, brother , mother or father, but I'm funny like that.

It's probably a crime. Scientists say that having a baby with your cousin is all right, though.

[Paulhoff]

It's probably a crime. Scientists say that having a baby with your cousin is all right, though.
In most of the world, and in many states it is all right.

Paul

:) :) :)

http://www.cousincouples.com/info/facts.shtml

[billydkid]

It really all depends on how ugly your sister is.

[plumjam]

i'd make a full response to this one, but Mommy's calling me upstairs :D

[baron]

Scientists say that having a baby with your cousin is all right, though.

Easy for them to say, they've not seen my cousin.

[nightwind]

Well, I guess it was originally condemable because they thought that it had implications in genetics, etc

However, recent studies have shown that is not really the case.

So I guess it really does not matter now, if you get right down to it. Probably still laws against it in some parts of the world, so just keep it quiet.

No big deal.

[Cain]

OK, what if your sister is also your mother and your lover. The two of you have a daughter. Is she also your sister, and what if the two of you have a child? Is that your mom's grandchild, or her great-grandchild?

[Professor Yaffle]

I was going to get my mom and my sister to post here and back me up...

.

.

.

.

.

.

... but she was busy...

[Inanna]

Cain's question has confused me so much that I really see the world upside down now.

[arthwollipot]

OK, what if your sister is also your mother and your lover. The two of you have a daughter. Is she also your sister, and what if the two of you have a child? Is that your mom's grandchild, or her great-grandchild?

Yes.

[Ove]

There was this guy who met a charming and attractive elderly woman , fell for her and married her. Unfortunately for him his father met the elderly womans daughter and married her. The result?: The young man is now his own grandpa..... :)

[Inanna]

Very funny.

[Hawk one]

Ove: Actually, he didn't become his own grandfather until his father and the young chick had a baby. It's details like this that makes it imortant...

And in any case, that's nothing. I heard about this guy who travelled back in time and killed his own grandpa, and then he figured that it couldn't have been his grandpa (because the kid wasn't erased from time), so he slept with the girl that the guy he thought was his grandpa was dating, and it turned out that thus, he literally became his own grandfather.

No wait, I'm confusing real life with Futurama again, ain't I?

[Ryokan]

Incest: Fun for the whole family.

[Beerina]

I heard about this guy who travelled back in time and killed his own grandpa, and then he figured that it couldn't have been his grandpa (because the kid wasn't erased from time), so he slept with the girl that the guy he thought was his grandpa was dating, and it turned out that thus, he literally became his own grandfather.

Oh come on! A guy invents a time machine and goes back in time and kills his own grandfather, then has sex with his grandmother, to produce himself as a child? Plausible except for one fact: the likelihood he'd father a someone genetically identical to his own father is extremely remote.

[KingMerv00]

No wait, I'm confusing real life with Futurama again, ain't I?

Choke on that causality!!!