Incest with contraception should be allowed, as long as you abort if pregnant.
Debate Rounds (5)
I accept! Dude think of it like this, you're bangin your sister........ awkward!
Now state of California says your 3rd cousin is fine and Alabama says 2nd... or somethin like that. But siblings aunts uncles and first cousins... it'd be weird dude! Wierd!
Yes but if we banned weirdos, people like einstein would never succeed. Weirdness is not sufficient grounds to render something illegal.
Okay I agree weirdness isn't ground for illegality but...
Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.
It is illegal to wear a fake mustache that causes laughter in church.
Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.
It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.
Women may not drive in a house coat.
It is illegal for a liquor store to sell cold soft drinks.
Liquor stores may not sell milk.
And New York
It is against the law to throw a ball at someone's head for fun.
A license must be purchased before hanging clothes on a clothesline.
The penalty for jumping off a building is death.
So we can't make it illegal because it's wierd but we can make normal things wierdly illegal?
And honestly the whole reason it's illegal is co there won't be inbred families, not all contraception is 100% effective. Exceptions:Not having sex, removal of testicles, Destruction of overies, and female aging.
The fact that 'normal' things have been made illegal is totally and utterly irrelevant to this debate. You have not explained why they are valid laws, if anything I could say the ridiculousness of them explains exactly why stupid laws and illogical laws should not be made, although I see the logic behind the New York ball throwing one, especially if the ball is a relatively hard material.
As for your last paragraph, Inbred families are indeed an issue when we realise variation is essential to evolution. this is why I stated, in the resolution itself, that it should be allowed as long as you abort if pregnant. Abort meaning the act of abortion, in case you understood some other meaning in context.
Thanks for not taking a religious standpoint though, that is indeed most irritating in policy/philosophy debates where God is not actually a necessary part of it. I do appreciate that.
Aethist so don't worry about the God stuff.
The whole reason incest is illegal is that it's a social taboo. It's been stigmatized for centuries, since the fall of the Roman empire. What you're refering would require the entire world to except it as a casual thing. It'd be like trying to convet the US to metric.
You essentially have two contentions (I am writing them in a format that allows me to attack them because your format is very vague, this isn't to offend you):
I shall attack both at once in a very simple manner.
The resolution was not about whether or not Incest should be attempted to be made legal, nor whether it would. It was about whether or not it should be allowed, we are purely discussing incest's ethics, not discussing the feasibility of convincing people of it, ignorance is always there. Homosexuality was once seen as a mental illness, yes it was literally regarded as severe as schizophrenia and sociopathy. If you were caught you were sent to an asylum where they would give you 'medication (it turned out to just be sleeping pills) that would allow you to rest and 'mull over' the true nature of your heterosexuality. This was meant to 'cure' you of what was actually SCIENTIFICALLY seen as an illness at the time. This is to show you how stigma and social convention is a ridiculous manner in which to analyse the ethics or correctness of allowing something.
You failed to counter my contention that allowing people to have sex, if we abort in case of impregnation, is very okay as this doesn't have the issue of their DNA being too alike to create sufficient variation in species. I think that if you truly love your cousin or even sibling, or even mother (as long as you and the other are of age... Although I don't even mind teens having sex but my free attitude is separate from this debate) you should e allowed to.
This is why I hate religion, why I hate bullying the weird and why I myself will raise my future children to be as original as they wish (within sensible reason, based on logic, not stigma). I want to truly understand why, in the future if I am sexually attracted to my daughter, and she to me and if my wife and I have a huge fallout and if my daughter and I wish to have sex we shouldn't do so (presuming both of us are single consenting adults and I merely would be appeasing her raging hormones, and she my raging... never mind...) but seriously I'm saying it like this to let you see it how I see it... why not? I would NEVER molest my daughter as a girl paedophilia is very wrong indeed. However the adult brain is different, I wouldn't be taking advantage of an innocent child I'd be enjoying the body of another adult and she the body of mine... There is a huge difference between molesting and consensual sex just to make it clear.
You are one talented noobsniper indeed.
I accepted this knowing very well both sides would say eh why the hell not before the end, but now I see your challenage was to get one hell of a win. I applaud you god sir, I do.
I have absolutely no comeback my whole plan was a casual arguement. And as that's gone out the window...........................
How 'bout dem bears??
Not sure if I want to hunt you down and murder you or hunt you down and offer my firstborn kitten to be the Feline Guardian to the King of Snipe
Haha I so should have seen this coming....................................
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I can't really say any of the arguments were convincing, but for whatever reason con simply did not put a serious case up from the very beggining. Pro took advantage of the vagueness and forced a concession of the debate. Really though, in spite of the three points for pro simply due to the concession, I think all of humanity loses here.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.