The Instigator
Wocambs
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Kumquatodor
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Consensual incest is permissible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,578 times Debate No: 35771
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

Wocambs

Pro

Consensual incest is illegal in many places. I do not believe this should be the case.

I will be arguing that incestual couples should not be treated differently from other couples, and that punishing incestual couples is morally wrong.

Accept in your first round or proceed immediately to putting forward your arguments; you may decide.
Kumquatodor

Con

What constitutes as incest?

More spicifically does "Kissing Cousins" count?

This question has no definitive answer. It is a conundrum even for today. In many states, 2nd cousins are allowed to marry. In a few, 1st cousins can.

I consider "Kissing Cousins" to be complettely permisable, so I will be focusing on the moralistic ramifications of brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers being in a relationship.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Sister/Brother
If a couple of 8-year-old siblings are in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, I am fine with this. I do question these kids' psychology, but I'm not against their relationship.

When, however, they become pubescent, I have to say that that is the time to stop for several reasons:

1) The attraction factor will increase.
This is not a problem in-and-of-itself. However, this opens the channel for other activities.
2) Siblings likely live in the same house.
a. This will make it easier for one of these kids to find their way into the other's bed.
3) Ramifications of sexual activity
a. This may cause a strain in the family
b. Chance of pregnancy is high. I have heard estimates of "greater than an 85% chance."
c. May cause siblings to be disinffranchised as to how to be in/start a relationship with others due to only being with sibling.
d. Probability teen pregnancy is raised.
e. Chance of deformities in child is raised a lot.
f. Chance of miscariage is rased slightly.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Mother/Son
1) Opens the possibility of pedophilia.
2) May disinfranchise child in the ways of relationships due to only being with parents.
3) May never become independent of the mother.
4) Ramifications of sexual activity
a. This may cause a strain in the family
b. Chance of pregnancy is high. I have heard estimates of "greater than an 85% chance."
c. Probability of pregnancy is raised.
d. Chance of deformities in child is raised a lot.
e. Chance of miscariage is rased slightly.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Father/Daughter
1) Opens the possibility of pedophilia.
2) May disinfranchise child in the ways of relationships due to only being with parents.
3) May never become independent of the father.
4) Ramifications of sexual activity
a. This may cause a strain in the family
b. Chance of pregnancy is high. I have heard estimates of "greater than an 85% chance."
c. Probability of teen pregnancy is raised.
d. Chance of deformities in child is raised a lot.
e. Chance of miscariage is rased slightly.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Mother/Daughter
I brought this up just to cover all bases.
1) Opens the possibility of pedophilia.
2) May disinfranchise child in the ways of relationships due to only being with parents.
3) May never become independent of the mother.
4) Ramifications of sexual activity
a. This may cause a strain in the family
b. May open the possibility of polygamy.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Father/Son
I brought this up just to cover all bases.
1) Opens the possibility of pedophilia.
2) May disinfranchise child in the ways of relationships due to only being with parents.
3) May never become independent of the father.
4) Can spread HIV/AIDS.
5) Ramifications of sexual activity

a. This may cause a strain in the family
b. May open up possibility of polygamy.

___________________________________________________________________________________
These are all important factors that are obstacles to incest's becoming permissable.


I don't really know what more to put. To you.
Debate Round No. 1
Wocambs

Pro

I think most of your criticism of incestual relationships could be applied to any relationship (e.g. pregnancy, polygamy, strain in the family, HIV/AIDS, etc.), and if we assume that sex between adults and children cannot be consensual, then it does not create the possibility of paedophilia.

Am I not uncomfortable with parents having sex with their children? Well, I stand by my statement that they should not be treated any differently, but a parent is in a position of responsibility, and so there should be according implications in line with the great responsibility they have for their teenage child's wellbeing.

On Deformities

Well, first cousins without history of inbreeding are likely to suffer little in terms of deformities.[1] But regardles, I see the situation thusly:

If the child will be seriously deformed, so that it will likely suffer in life, then the pregnancy should be aborted as an act of mercy. If the child will likely be healthy and happy - then nothing is wrong.

I might be being quite brief, but if you want me to expand on any points, we still have plenty of rounds to do so.

Kumquatodor

Con

sex between adults and children cannot be consensual, then it does not create the possibility of paedophilia.
My point was, if it becomes commonplace for adult children and their parents to be together, then pedophilia would not be thought of as that bad a crime. It may also increase the chance of pedophilia.
Well, first cousins without history of inbreeding are likely to suffer little in terms of deformities.
First cousins, as far as I know, have a 2% higher chance of deformities in children. This isn't really that bad.

However, parent/child/brother/sister relationships have a much higher chance of deformity in children.

If the child will be seriously deformed, so that it will likely suffer in life, then the pregnancy should be aborted as an act of mercy.
While I agree that this is the responsible choice, this would be very traumatic on the mother, and the abortion may be murder. You cannot ask someone to kill their own child. If they see it as murder, then you cannot ask them to commit that murder.
Debate Round No. 2
Wocambs

Pro

I think there is definitely a fundamental difference between thinking that all adults should be allowed to be together and thinking that adults should be allowed to have sex with children.

You raise a very complex issue. The idea of 'forced abortions' does seem to be cruel, even if it is intended only to reduce suffering. So, I point to the fact that currently, people are allowed to give birth to severely deformed babies. In fact, it is entirely possible to conceive of a very unfortunate couple who are not incestual but have an incredibly high chance of conceiving a child who will suffer greatly.[1]

It is after all possible that by examining the genetics and family history of the couple that it will be determined that their child is at high risk of developing schizophrenia,[2] polycystic kidney disease,[3] Huntingdon's disease,[4] cystic fibrosis, [5] and so on, until it seems that in all likelihood the child will live a short and sickly life, as there are a great amount of genetic disease that are, to my knowledge, not exclusive of each other and it is fully possible that they can be present in a couple.[6][7]

I am merely trying to make the point that it is possible that there could be a couple who are so unlucky in their genetics that they are at similar risk to incestual couples of having children who are likely to have a very low quality of life, particularly considering that the couple may be poor and unable to cope with the needs or expenses of the child. Regardless, we do not prohibit these people from becoming married or having children, and so we should not do the same with incestual couples, although clearly it should be made very clear to them that reproduction may be a bad idea.

I apologise for the 'wikipedia spam', it is a very convenient resource.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_disease
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://www.genome.gov...
Kumquatodor

Con

Kumquatodor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Wocambs

Pro

Consensual incestual relationships (CIRs) are thought by just about everyone to be 'disgusting'; however, personal disgust alone is not a reason to punish someone. I might think that drinking your own urine is disgusting, but this is no reason to prohibit it.

CIRs are also not an endorsement of paedophilia; there is a clear difference between sex with someone who can be reasonably expected to consent and someone who cannot. Sex between a mother and a son may resemble paedophilia, but 'resemblance of paedophilia' could be seen in sex between a forty year old and a young-looking eighteen year old.

The idea that CIRs may cause discord in the family is correct, but this too can be thought of any relationship, such as the relationship between a Jew whose family is strictly orthodox and an Arab whose family follows a strict interpretation of the Qur'an.

I believe the possibility of deformed children is the key concern; however, it is not a valid one. 'Normal' couples are fully entitled to give birth to deformed children, and a non-incestual couple who possess an incredibly unlucky combination of genes would also theoretically be allowed to have children, in the effort of maintaining coherency, incestual couples should also be allowed to have children, even if it should be discouraged. Furthermore, all this has nothing to do with the permissibility of a relationship between two brothers, or even a sterile couple, or even a couple who have no intention of having children and use contraception to that effect.

I realise this is a difficult issue, but I implore you to see reason and goodness.
Kumquatodor

Con

Incredibly sorry for the forfeit.
______________________________
I do not claim incest to be an endorsement of paedophililia, but it would set president for much older parents to be in a CIR with their much younger children. Some people may not see the line.
_______________________________
In the family strain: it is likely that a father wouldn't take kindly to his child being in a CIR with his child.
_______________________________
Normal' couples are fully entitled to give birth to deformed children, and a non-incestual couple who possess an incredibly unlucky combination of genes would also theoretically be allowed to have children, in the effort of maintaining coherency, incestual couples should also be allowed to have children, even if it should be discouraged.
Indeed those in both CIRs and non-CIRs are entitled to give birth, but this does not mean that this is permissable.
Furthermore, all this has nothing to do with the permissibility of a relationship between two brothers, or even a sterile couple, or even a couple who have no intention of having children and use contraception to that effect.
Is it permissable to substantially increase the chances of a deformed baby to be born just because you selfishly acted on your desire for pleasure? Keep in mind that this baby may or may not face a life of incredible hardship or death.
This is certainly not permissable.

About contraception: why not just hire/buy 57 prostitutes?

Take your bets on the chances one will have a child.

CIRs are thought by just about everyone to be 'disgusting'; however, personal disgust alone is not a reason to punish someone.
I find rape disgusting. I find murder disgusting. Incest is nowhere near as bad as the things I just mentioned.

Make no mistake; I do not find CIRs disgusting. But I do not condone these incestuals' (I hope that doesn't sound offensive) actions. When these actions are taken, others must be taken. Not by law, mind you. But you and I would have a moral responsibility to heavily discourage these happenings and to show the immorality of their actions.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wocambs 1 year ago
Wocambs
I guess the jury is still out...
Posted by Kumquatodor 1 year ago
Kumquatodor
Hey!

I want to have a winner to this debate!

I want unbiased votes!

Please! I don't care who wins, I just want a winner!
Posted by Wocambs 1 year ago
Wocambs
Yes, you agreed with a criticism I made, so I suppose it wasn't a criticism. Somewhat bemused by that fact I suggested that you should start campaigning for the illegalisation of genetically unfortunate couples.

I hope your comment is a joke. The inductive reasoning you employed there is fantastically fallacious, I might as well claim that because the only man from Yorkshire I have met has one leg, that all men from Yorkshire have one leg. I never at all suggested that I particularly desired for you to change your vote, I merely expressed my disagreement - I am not a child, unlike yourself, who responded to being proven wrong by attempting to punish me. Please, do continue to misrepresent me ad nauseam in the hope of tarring my image in the eyes of any potential voters. Messages with extra debate arguments? I responded to your criticism, I didn't respond to my actual opponent's arguments, so clearly I had no intention of altering the conclusion of the debate. I merely wanted to expose weakness in your ridiculous arguments.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
I can conclusively prove that my claim is not a lie, as Wocombs did ask me to go on some kind of political campaign. I agreed with a point he made via PM, and he sent me this "I'd like to see you campaigning for this change to the law then..." -Wocambs.

Since to the limit of my knowledge, every voter on this debate that did not vote enough in pro's favor was messaged with extra debate arguments, it is a safe assertion that he had a problem with the vote only being 3 points in his favor instead of more.
Posted by Wocambs 1 year ago
Wocambs
Ragnar is a pathetic little liar. I asked him to elucidate his criticism of my argument, which lead to him affirming that it was right for couples to be broken up by law enforcement officials if it was discovered that their children were very likely to be deformed.

" Vote for pro was objectionable to pro for not being enough in his favor" - Actually, it was objectionable to me because I found your criticism to be incorrect. In my opinion it should read: 'UPDATE: Pro successfully rebutted by criticism, and in doing so injured my pride. In response I have altered my vote and attempted to dissuade other voters'.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
Just so you all know, if you vote on this pro will ask you to go campaign to have the law changed...
Posted by Wocambs 1 year ago
Wocambs
Oops, first citation is

[1] http://www.perthnow.com.au...
Posted by Wocambs 1 year ago
Wocambs
Well, stop teasing me and post your argument. Hah.
Posted by Kumquatodor 1 year ago
Kumquatodor
It is the same way vice versa.

It are these types of debates that I enjoy; these almost seem like conversations as opposed to debates.
Posted by Wocambs 1 year ago
Wocambs
Well, I suppose your lack of strong conviction will reduce the likelihood of me being forced to bang my head against the wall in frustration. I obviously possess the view above, but I have not fleshed out an exact argument for it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
WocambsKumquatodorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: UPDATE: Vote for pro was objectionable to pro for not being enough in his favor, thus removed. ORIGINAL: Had to overcome my own bias to vote this way... CONDUCT: Forfeited round. ARGUMENT: Con's list of problems in different setups was so well done they took the lead for awhile, however they lost it with the missed round. Pro's arguments were decent, yet I could not see past the glaring weakness exemplified by "I am merely trying to make the point that it is possible that there could be a couple who are so unlucky in their genetics that they are at similar risk to incestual couples of having children" a very rare problem, vs a very common one; just doesn't compare for me. Leaving this set as tied. SOURCES: Another bias of mine, I dislike Wikipedia as a source. Yet the basic information pointed to was valid, numerous, unchallenged...