The Instigator
Kappaboss
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
PagosO
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Incest is NOT Wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Kappaboss
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 962 times Debate No: 103350
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Kappaboss

Pro

Edgy opinion coming through! My argument is as follows:

1. Morality, as in what is considered good or bad is based on harm principles.

2. If there is no harm to be found, that means something is not necessarily wrong, and thus there should be no reason to not let someone do it. Although, this doesn't necessarily mean it is right, but then, being straight/gay isn't necessarily "right" either.

3. There is no harm in two (or more, lol) legally consensual persons having a relationship or getting married.

4. Thus, if there is no harm, then it is not immoral or wrong to commit incest, and it isn't okay to stop people from doing something that is harmless.

I will now list probable counterpoints and show why they don't have much ground.

1. Inbreeding & genetic defects.

There are alternatives such as birth control, vasectomies, surrogate pregnancies, abortion and adoption available. That said, this is a discussion about incest, which refers to sexual relationships with family members, NOT having kids. That is a separate issue entirely.

"But they may have a child by accident!"

They can't. If they don't use the previously mentioned alternatives listed to avoid having a child, then they are making a conscious decision to have one and it is no accident.

2. It is psychologically damaging.

If anyone takes this stance they need some statistical evidence of psychological/personality disorders developing where a person being in a consensual incest relationship is the cause. I don't see any evidence of it.

3. More people will commit incest if it is legal.

Ah, the slippery slope fallacy. Homosexual people are still a small minority in populations where it is legal, so that means something being legal doesn't necessarily mean more people will want to do it.

4. More people will groom children as sexual partners if incest is legal.

The slippery slope strikes again. If people are willing to manipulate their children into being sexual partners, then chances are they would have done it anyways because incest being legal DOESN'T make statutory rape legal. People often conflate incest with pedophilia. They are not synonymous, as they can occur independently. If you say that they will be more likely to groom them for when they are of age if it becomes legal, then refer to the paragraph above under point #3.

5. *points out religious text that says it's wrong*

Let's not make this a discussion about religion, please. Pretty please?

6. Possible power dynamics between child and parent could be harmful.

If two legally consenting persons want to have a relationship knowing (or not knowing, doesn't matter) that power dynamics between them could cause issues, that is their decision to make, not yours.

7. Why get with a family member? There are billions of other "fish in the sea."

"Why get with a member of the same sex? There are billions of other 'fish in the sea.'" Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? It's probably because it is.

If I'm wrong I'll happily admit it. Come at me!
PagosO

Con

I accept, and hope this will be a respectful debate.

I disagree with you argument for a few reasons.

1. Your argument rests on the fact that "kids" will not be born, therefore the harm factor is out.
if you think most teenagers or even young adults wanted kids, then you'd be wrong. All it takes is a slip up once, and you have just ruined a child's life.

2. You believe Marriage is completely safe for incest couples.
Making incest Marriage legal will completely change society, in a very very bad way. Teenage pregnancies are already insane, to make incest moral in society is to change everything.

I know your argument relies on the fact that they don't have children, but making Incest marriage legal, and morally acceptable will do absolutely this. If you don't believe this, then go back a few dozen years ago when gay marriage was saw as disgusting and Immoral. Today it is acceptable, same with race.

In short, nature intended for Incest to be completely wrong. This is why birth defects happen, and the child is hurt.
Gay marriage is acceptable because no one is hurt. Not the youth, or adults.
Debate Round No. 1
Kappaboss

Pro

Hi! If you think I'm being disrespectful, tell me, as it isn't my intent. <3

I'm going to number my responses to match your numbers.

1. " Your argument rests on the fact that "kids" will not be born, therefore the harm factor is out."
Actually, I explained that I'm talking about sexual relationships, not breeding, and thus inbreeding and children aren't relevant to the discussion let alone, "out" the harm factor. "All it takes is a slip up." Actually no, I don't see a realm where someone is using all the aforementioned alternatives and accidentally has a child. You haven't explained how it's possible. There are too many safeguards at all stages before and during pregnancy for a "slip up" to happen.

2. Change society with teenage pregnancies? How? This looks like the makings of a slippery slope fallacy. You haven't explained how legalizing incest marriage would actually cause this. No harm proven.

Regarding your last two paragraphs: If your only arguments are regarding children, inbreeding, again, is a separate issue, and as it stands, you fail to demonstrate any harm outside of that. Surrogate pregnancy is safe and listed in my alternative list along with abortion (or plan B if you're not up for that).

Nature has no say in what is okay and what isn't. Nature would have people get smallpox and die from the common could or other sicknesses. Humanity with our unnatural solutions in vaccines and medicine show that something being natural or unnatural isn't an indicator of whether it is benevolent or malevolent.
PagosO

Con

You're not being disrespectful. I just like to say it at the start of debates I do, so it doesn't sound mean or anything. :)
.
Actually, kids are relevant to this discussion, because you have said "There is no harm in two (or more, lol) legally consensual persons having a relationship or getting married." If it is legalized, then just as gay marriage was, it will eventually be fully accepted. Do you see gay children getting into relationships? yes, so naturally the same would go for incest. Since it would be considered moral, and legal what would stop them? it isn't uncommon these days for teenagers to get pregnant, and it's been proven that this is a current problem.

So my argument is, teens these days in normal relationships are having children they do not want while they're under 18.
Why would incest relationships not have this same issue?

You get what I mean, BY making incest marriage legal, it will be socially acceptable for this. As I said, let's look at gay marriage. It was highly condemned, and then guess what? Laws started to protect them, marriage became legal, and teens started dating. There is nothing wrong with this, as straight and gay couples cannot produce inbred children, and while obviously teen pregnancy is bad, there is no harm to the child, at least.

I just don't see why you think if it was legalized, and socially accepted to date family members (who consented) that children would not catch on to this. And abortion is not always a option for families, some have religious beliefs, some can't afford it, and abortion always leaves scars. In the end, it will be a train wreck.
Debate Round No. 2
Kappaboss

Pro

Regarding teen pregnancies,

Yes, I understand that teen pregnancies are a problem today, but incest being legal won't mean there will be more teen pregnancies or incestuous teen pregnancies. Here's why:

A) You mentioned gay children being in relationships. This is just a slippery slope fallacy, except we know that this slippery slope doesn't go where you say it will. In my opening statement, I explained that the gay community is still a small minority in the population despite homosexuality being legal now. Meaning, it being legal doesn't mean more people will want to do it.

In short, what you're talking about is not a concern because it won't happen. And in the odd scenario where a brother gets his sister pregnant and has a kid, it's still a choice (due to safeguards for before and during pregnancy that I've listed in my opening statement).

Abortion,

You're talking about limitations to abortion, but I don't know why. I recognized that not everyone will want to do an abortion, which is why I listed many more alternatives. But your reasons for why someone can't do an abortion aren't good enough to rule out abortion as an option.

A) Some have religions beliefs - Yes, and it is everyone's right to practice whatever religion they want. Still, it's a choice. If someone chooses to practice religion and accidentally gets someone pregnant, then I'd congratulate them on the fact that they can choose to have their religion AND their baby.

B) Some can't afford it - Health insurance... Move to Canada. Haha, but seriously, there are other less costly methods of birth control (condoms, birth control pills, plan B pill) and they are available to everyone who can't afford an abortion.

C) Abortion leaves scars - So does having an empty wallet and losing the opportunity to find a good career.

And so, my point stands that there are no accidents, as you have failed to explain how someone who has a kid, didn't choose to not use the aforementioned alternatives from my opening statement. In case you mention extreme cases, those extreme cases don't justify treating the normal situations as extreme cases.

To conclude, my statement that incest is not wrong is a moral statement. A statement that is based on harm principles, the very same principles that legalized homosexuality. The act doesn't necessarily have to be moral, but if it isn't immoral, then there is no reason for it to be illegal. Incest is one of those things. There is no reason for it to be illegal Why? Because, there is no reasonable harm as a consequence of legalizing incest.

The proposed negative consequences of incest were its impact on teen pregnancies, and that children would be born (especially as a result of teen pregnancies) because "All it takes is a slip up."

The problem with this proposition is that my opponent could not get around the fact that there are just too many safeguards that prevent child birth before and during pregnancies. Meaning, if someone has a kid, it was no accident. It was on purpose. My opponent was unable to demonstrate reasonable harm as a result of incest because (s)he failed to demonstrate how birth control pills (and patches), condoms, the morning after pill, and abortion aren't accessible and viable options to stop someone from having a child by accident. Thus, there was no harm demonstrated as a result of incest, and my point still stands. Incest, the act of having sex with a family member, is NOT wrong, because in truth, it is harmless.

Thank you for taking the time to debate with me, I had fun!
PagosO

Con

But there is reasonable cause.

You stated that "Meaning, it being legal doesn't mean more people will want to do it." which is true, but it goes both ways. If pot was legal, more people without a doubt would do it more.

Also, the safeguard you have assumes that Abortion is legal in said country, It's not a easy choice to decide if you want to abort your own child. for teenagers, it's not a "drop in and done" situation. It's a extremely hard choice And teens do use these "safeguards" before sexual intercourse, but it is never a 100% guarantee.

Also, there is a significant difference between the gay population, and incest. For instance, If you look all around the world, straight people are almost always the majority in every nation.

You said "Some can't afford it - Health insurance... Move to Canada. Haha, but seriously, there are other less costly methods of birth control (condoms, birth control pills, plan B pill) and they are available to everyone who can't afford an abortion." However, condoms, birth control, pills...ect do not guarantee you will not get pregnant, so I ask the question what happens to a pregnant girl who is 16 and in School living in a poor family and cannot afford a abortion has a child?
Do you arrest the mother? the father? outlaw incest children from becoming born? because of some punishment isn't done, then people will have incest children.

In simple, Incest is morally/scientifically wrong because it will encourage sexual activity with family members. Because, why stop at brother and sister? I mean, fathers and mothers can consent to and as long as there is no children born, it's Ok, right....? While there may be "some" who won't have children, don't you think that some will just not care? There are families in America who get torn apart because they have had incest children. I think it takes a strong leap to believe everyone who gets in these relationships "Don't want children"

Also why stop at incest? Beastiality could be moral to, for specific animals. The argument against this would be that animals can't "consent" but dogs can choose to penetrate women, and there is no harm to either participants.
Morality can be subjective, and based on harm, but it doesn't mean everything that is not harmful is morally Ok.

I will end with answering you biggest arguments.

1."There are just too many safeguards that prevent child birth before and during pregnancies."
As I said, this is not true. You said that if you can't afford abortion use condoms, pills...ect but this does not guarantee you will not get pregnant 100% nor does it take into fact in america, you're more likely to have kids if you're in poverty, and 45 million or 14.5 percent of Americans are currently in poverty http://www.huffingtonpost.com... So, if a brother gets his sister pregnant more then likely this will be from a poor family who cannot afford abortion. This evidence is more then enough to rule out abortion entirely, since the majority of children born will be to poor families.

2. "You mentioned gay children being in relationships. This is just a slippery slope fallacy, except we know that this slippery slope doesn't go where you say it will. In my opening statement, I explained that the gay community is still a small minority in the population despite homosexuality being legal now. Meaning, it being legal doesn't mean more people will want to do it." But this goes both ways, and is nil. If weed were legal more people would do pot. If murder were legal more people would do it.

3. "Incest is moral, because no harm comes from it."
This is definitely not true. You could say digging up graves, and robbing them is moral because no harm comes from it since they're dead, right? having sex with dogs that consent by choosing to penetrate women is moral because they choose to do that. Right? Just because there is no harm, does not mean it is good or "moral"

The main reason as to why incest is wrong, is because of what it does to the kids. You can say "use condoms, pills..ect" but the majority of kids being born are from poor families/poor. They usually are uneducated on such matters and do it. One of the main reasons of teen pregnancy is Poverty, and Education. So the majority of kids born will be from poor families who cannot afford abortion. There are some morals we should keep with us, and that is Incest is completely wrong. You should not date your father, you brother, your mother, or your sister. These are people you grow up close with and are supposed to protect. Not have a sexual relationship with.

Had fun also, thank you for the interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by AveryGaleson 11 months ago
AveryGaleson
I think this just gave me stage 4 brain cancer.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by QueenDaisy 11 months ago
QueenDaisy
KappabossPagosOTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither had any conduct violations or enough grammar issues that they deserved to be penalised. Neither provided sources. Arguments decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lNJXvUk_JscPyXIOMfQByirrA7TvvMypEzfrEb3Tkr8/edit?usp=sharing