*slightly freaked*

Lets explore the genetic angle. Assume for the sake of argument that you are a judge at the ECHR and a brother and sister brought a case saying it was unfair to ban them from having kids when people who were an equal genetic (or other) risk of causing disabilities/illnesses were allowed.

If i were making the case id say something along the lines of, theres a real chance of HIV+ parents passing on the virus to their children. The law doesn’t ban them from having kids and nor are they forced to seek medical help, but there is medical assistance to reduce the chance of harming the baby. So m’lord it is deeply unfair to prevent this couple from persuing the same path. We do not prevent procreation even if there is a non-trivial risk of foetus infection, why should we prevent procreation if there is a non-trivial risk of genetic disability?

Interesting stuff this. I apologise for being so slow to respond. You set me thinking.

I don’t think brother and sisters should screw each other, but, to be frank, there is not a great arguement if you take the child out of the equation. As you did. If you put the child back into the equation, then, no, it is wrong. As the child will be, or the childs, child will be a genetic disaster.

European Royal Families come to mind.

What I have been thinking about is the whole question of given beliefs. Y’know, ideas that certain things are given to us in childhood, and that these are immutable. Which, hopefully, is what you are arguing against, ’cause otherwise you are too far to the libertarian wing for me to understand.

I accept, indeed welcome, a Libertanian viewpoint, and I’d support a sceptical view of fashions in morals. But the difference, I think, between us is that I do not view life as a game to be played, at least in the terms you set out.

Can I expand on that viewpoint? It is fair enough to suggest that anything is allowed. The US, the Taliban both argue that. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think it is so.

I think that there are good genetic reasons for separation, and I think the law should follow the science. So, unwise and disallowable…

… I’m not in favour of meaningless taboos.

As i said in #155 there is no emphasis on a relationship to produce children, is the genetic rationale dominant to you? ie if they agreed not to have children or were sterlised, would it be ok?

Would you allow them to have babies via IVF and all the foetuses were screened for disability (not all their children are disabled)?

I realise im asking questions here, but im trying to work out how you’ve mapped this in your mind. From my pov its obviously all ok – id prefer them to use IVF and screen foetuses, but i wouldn’t object if they didn’t.

You’ve said you’re not in favour of meaningless taboos which is a massive step in dealing with prejudice (kudos) but what im interested in is how does that carry forward to how you view other similar problems.

Off for the evening.

regards

CH

I was enjoying our discussion, but you lost me with post 162. Please clarify. Assuming it was meant for me.

I couldn’t see anything in your post that explicitly stated that you wanted to prevent or allow the couple from living as they wish. I’m unsure whether you were saying you thought it unwise but allowable.

I actually think it is quite fashionable, much like Che Guevara T-Shirts were to another generation. The more people like you make a song and dance about it, the more likely it is to become prevalent, and enduring. Personally, I find extreme facial piercing an adornment too far, but so what?

Kulvinder,

I was enjoying our discussion, but you lost me with post 162. Please clarify. Assuming it was meant for me.

I think people should be given the facts about the likelyhood of their genetic defects being passed on from one generation to the next. In other words, they should make a decision made on the best information available. Which assumes a couple of things, that they are capable of action based on what they are told. And that they are able to look beyond their own gratification and understand consequences. Moral agents, if you will.

Which is unlikely to be the case if they are the not able to understand the issues, what with being the only Armenian speaking, base sixteen adding, uneducated cannibals in the community. If they were then I could see the villagers marching with their pitchforks and tallow torches in the dead of night….

It is when you conflate these liberties that we end up with a society, another taboo word for you, I know, that would be unrecognisable, and not in a good way.

And, btw, selective breeding and inbreeding are not the same thing. Presuppose a billionaire and cloning becoming a reality. Would it be OK for the world to be engulfed with his spawn? No, it would not.

There are huge challenges that genetic science is throwing up already to social structures, and I personally think we’ve coped pretty well with them. If it were to be scientifically proven that the risk of inherited disorders was significantly reduced by stopping first cousins marrying, would you see that as a ridiculously overbearing state, or sensible concern for future generations?

To answer your last sentence of 159. As a general rule, it is probably a good strategy to not marry into your own family. I knew a couple who had the same surname before they got married and they had to prove quite a lot of separation before they were allowed to get hitched. IIRC it went back to grandparents.

As I understand it, attempts have been made to breed for intelligence. It doesn’t work. How many children of famous folk remain anything much more than B-List celebrities?

It might amuse you to contemplate the feted George Bernard Shaw, who many viewed as a genius. At a social do, he was approached by the most beautiful woman, who said:

“We should marry, our children would be a combination of beauty and brains!”

to which Shaw replied,

“But what madam, if they had my looks and your brains?”

Ho hum.

Really, do you have any morals at all?

I’m a moral skeptic. I pretty much set out the questions at the end of my post because i knew this would come up. To give you an idea of why ‘morality’ is nothing but a personal construct; do you think that those who are carriers of defective genes should be prevented from having children?

Inbreeding is however, scientifically, a very bad idea

I’m not convinced of a purely genetic link between intelligence and heredity, but for the sake of argument if it was shown to exist, inbreeding would be a very good idea. Encouraging traits that you want by selective breeding has after all been long used in the livestock.

You didn’t answer my questions btw, if inbreeding is a bad idea, how would you define it? (taking incest and inbreeding to have the same difference in this context). Are half-brother/sister relationships ok with you? What if its first cousins? What if the first cousins had parents who were twins (in which case its effectively a half-sibling relationship)?

You are some confused dude.

Really, do you have any morals at all? Chairwoman got it right when she said ‘do what you wilt shall be the whole of the law’. She was quoting a Satanist called Alesteir Crowley. He made much the same case that you do, him from a belief in his entitlement to be a complete utter arsehole.

You do not like the comment ‘think of the kids’, upthread, ’cause it limits your ability to argue a ludicrous case. As I said before, one mans freedom is anothers subjugation. The point about laws is trying to balance that out. And it is often a generational thing.

Whilst they was no attempt in this scenario to have kids the principle of not allowing incest is pretty well established. Whilst it was just a taboo, perhaps based on a deeper understanding, it would be OK to argue against it. Inbreeding is however, scientifically, a very bad idea. did you see the banjo player in ‘Deliverance’? Exogamy Rules!

‘hahaha Kulvinder have sex with your family’

‘you’re joking/silly/stupid/not serious’

‘would you think the same if a grandfather wanted to have sex with his son and grandson?…now what if we change the son to a daughter’ etc

will seriously go down in my estimation. Yes its an uncomfortable discussion, yes its awkward, but try not to be types who giggle in the corner because they can’t deal with their emotions.