A spokesman for the upper house said - quite rightly and justly in my opinion - that the often-cited eugenic reason for a law against incest is not something that a civilized society can use as a basis for a law. After all no one seriously considers punishing the drinking of alcohol during pregnancy, or sex between partners who both have a history of genetic defects in their respective family backgrounds. The abuse argument also doesn't carry us very far, since sexual abuse, coercion and rape are already illegal.
Yes, this is exactly right.
Are there any rational moral reasons for upholding this law against what some consider the last sexual taboo?
No.
CallumW…
I don't really see how a relationship or sex between relatives could be morally wrong if both consent and are uncoerced, however the incidence of genetic disease in inbred families when parents are only cousins is much higher than those with access to a more diverse gene pool, and if siblings were to produce offspring the risk would be greater again. This doesn't really seem fair on the children of such a union. But then to legally ban people from having children in circumstances when the risk of genetic disease is particularly high seems to be a gross infringement of their human rights.
Rtambree…
Sexual acts and procreation are two different things.
Right again!
Still, people tried the “deformed babies” argument, so this comment was made by MMAtheist…
Since the concern about birth defects is predictably the big issue here, I'll repeat my question to everyone: should we also start regulating against older women giving birth to children?
"The British Down's Syndrome Association has posted a chart showing the risk of producing a baby with the syndrome at various maternal ages. From age 20 to age 31, the risk doubles. From 31 to 35, it doubles again. From 35 to 38, it doubles again. From 38 to 41, it more than doubles again."
What about smoking and drinking when you're pregnant? Is that illegal in your country? Shouldn't it be if your #1 concern is birth defects?
Jice…
"Because it makes me feel iky," seems to be the only deffence I see, which flat out is on the same page as religious thinking that your view is supperior to that of thoes providing the consent.
Sex /= offspring. We aren't the catholic church here, we allow contriception.
To set a precident that it's ok to legislate against couples who might have children with birth defects is wrong in any free country. Who makes the decision? If I had a certain gene that would give my baby a 20% chance to be born with Crie-de-chat should I be legislated against, reguardless of who my partner is? Because of a slim chance that if I even have a child (gay) that it has a slim chance to not be perfectly healthy?
And what about gay incest? Any arguments about genetics fly out the window in that case and now all you're doing is legislating against brothers/sisters who like to have a close relationship that includes sexual activity.
And I don't really think age plays much of a factor either. If they are 12, it's just the same curiosity we all grew up with which could amount to a few encounters, and if they are 16, then they are adult enough to make up thier own minds and shouldn't have to be worried about going to jail because they enjoy themselves. Anything younger and they probably haven't even hit puberty and it's completely innocent. And if there is an age gap, say 12 and 18, then it's already illegal through other laws.
The only potential I can see for this law is to double charge sex offenders, of the variety in which paretns molest thier childern. Yes, it's incest, but it's also pedophelia which unless Swiss are all ok with that, is probably still illegal, and still carries the same penalties.
Double dipping laws like this don't help prevent crime, or help the victims of thoes crimes. They just make criminals out of otherwise innocent people whos only crime was to not hurt anyone while doing what they like.
Very well said.
Debonnesnouvelles…
In the rare case where an adult decides that he/she wants to have a relationship with another consenting grown up relative, would the law in this case not infringe on their rights not to be discriminated against?
The law already is in place to punish abusers. Should it punish people who are in a rare position of quite genuinely wanting to love someone they are not supposed to love?
Absolutely not.
Debonnesnouvelles looks at Saletan’s argument…
How would "confusing the relationships" provide a rational basis for laws against incest in view of a constitution? Is confusing relationships a crime?
Foundationist follows up…
I can well imagine a scenario where an incestuous relationship might be perfectly healthy, normal and indeed even psychologically beneficial for the couple. So could countless authors and dramatists through the ages who liked to toy with that taboo.
Yes. Just take a look here (NSFW text).
Punishing incest as a criminal offence in itself seems to be based on numerous preconceived notions and prejudices, especially when the law is unspecified enough to even apply to, say, a lesbian affair between adult half-sisters with a small age gap.
The comments I read did not contain any solid reason to deny the right of consenting adults to love, sex, and marriage simply because they are close relatives. There were many comments from allies.
Recent news article of interest here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110120100942.htm
Intrafamilial Medically Assisted Reproduction
ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2011) — The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) has published on January 20, 2011 a position paper related to intrafamilial medically assisted reproduction (IMAR). [...]
The ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law acknowledges the benefits that IMAR may bring to those choosing this approach and concludes that certain forms of IMAR are morally acceptable under certain conditions. [...] any individual should have the principle of choice with whom to reproduce. It is understandable that couples wish to preserve some sort of genetic identity with the child, and hence may wish to choose a donor in the family. [...] In some countries IMAR is illegal and the relevant laws against incest and consanguinity apply to protect the offspring from genetic risks and to avoid possible social disruptions and conflicts. [...] if sister-to-sister oocyte donation is accepted so should brother-to-brother sperm donation. [...]
Doctors should not accept a minor relative as a gamete donor or a surrogate. [...] "The Task Force considers consanguineous IMAR between up to third degree relatives as acceptable in principle, subject to additional counseling and risk-reduction [...] genetic counseling is appropriate to assess the increased risk of conceiving a child affected by a serious recessive disease." [...] it may be morally justified to offer such genetic testing as a condition for access to assisted reproduction.
The group concludes that in some situations IMAR is morally acceptable as long as counseling of recipients and collaborators is applied in order to reduce potential psychosocial and medical risks. First-degree intergenerational IMAR needs special scrutiny, also in view of the increased risk of undermining autonomous choice. First- and second degree consanguineous IMAR is at odds with the spirit of anti-consanguinity and anti-incest legislation in most countries and should not be offered. The group encourages more research into the psychosocial implications of IMAR to contribute to adequate and moral guidance.
Background
Depending on the degree of familial closeness, there can be different types of IMAR.
The relationship between donor and acceptor can be either
(1) first degree such as between siblings or parents and children,
(2) second degree such as for example between uncle and niece and
(3) third degree such as between cousins.
The collaboration between the different parties (those providing donor gametes, a surrogate uterus or both, and the acceptor) can be in the same generation (such as for example sisters) or between generations (for example mother and daughter). IMAR can involve different scenarios such as sperm, egg or embryo donation by a family member and/or surrogacy which can be full surrogacy (surrogate provides the eggs) or partial surrogacy (surrogate carries the IVF embryo). In practice, a common form of IMAR is sister-to-sister oocyte donation. Most cases of IMAR are non-consanguineous. Consanguinity, which is defined as reproduction using gametes (eggs and sperm) from individuals that are closely related genetically, may lead to an increased genetic risk for the future child. The magnitude of this risk depends on the degree of consanguinity. In any general population the risk of having a child with a handicap or a major disease is 3%. In third degree consanguinity, the risk is estimated to be around 5-6%. If the applicant and the intended collaborator carry the same disease, there is a 25% risk of conceiving a child affected with that particular condition.
And another relevant article:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/business/29gene.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Firm Brings Gene Tests to Masses
By ANDREW POLLACK
Published: January 28, 2010
[...] The company, Counsyl, is selling a test that it says can tell couples whether they are at risk of having children with a range of inherited diseases, including cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, spinal muscular atrophy, sickle cell disease and Pompe disease (the one afflicting the children in the movie).
Once informed, Counsyl says, couples can take steps like using in vitro fertilization with genetic testing of the embryos, to avoid bearing children who would have the diseases, many of which are incurable and fatal in childhood.
Some genetic testing of prospective parents is done now, but only for a few diseases like cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs, and only for certain ethnic groups. Each test can cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
Counsyl’s test, which analyzes DNA from saliva samples, costs $349 for an individual or $698 for a couple. Similar tests from others are on the way, experts say. The trend shows that new technology could make possible widespread screening for the risk of passing on rare diseases, something that was simply not practical before. [...] the company, which has been operating quietly for a few months, has already administered thousands of the tests. The test is already offered by more than 100 fertility clinics around the country, and Counsyl says some insurers are paying for it. [...] “One of our goals is to make this like the home pregnancy test,” said Ramji Srinivasan, 28, the chief executive of Counsyl. [...]
I just posted two relevant news articles & both comments were deleted. The second demonstrates that new technology is available to test ANY couple for possible genetic problems AS A COUPLE - the stronger this technology, the more power consanguineous couples have to prove in advance that they can reproduce together safely. The first shows that European medical authorities are currently endorsing 3rd degree consanguinity (cousin couples), and more cautious with 2nd degree and 1st degree consanguinity (should not be offered if illegal in the country involved) - article includes their analysis of genetic risk statistics.
ReplyDeleteLinks:
1) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110120100942.htm
Intrafamilial Medically Assisted Reproduction
ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2011) — The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) has published on January 20, 2011 a position paper related to intrafamilial medically assisted reproduction (IMAR).
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/business/29gene.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Firm Brings Gene Tests to Masses
By ANDREW POLLACK
Published: January 28, 2010
[...] Counsyl’s test, which analyzes DNA from saliva samples, costs $349 for an individual or $698 for a couple. Similar tests from others are on the way, experts say. The trend shows that new technology could make possible widespread screening for the risk of passing on rare diseases, something that was simply not practical before. [...] “One of our goals is to make this like the home pregnancy test,” said Ramji Srinivasan, 28, the chief executive of Counsyl. [...]
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYour comments were not deleted. I apologize, but they were set aside as "spam" and I had to manually approve them.
Thank you for your contributions.
They showed up for a few moments and then disappeared, so I thought they were deleted.
ReplyDeleteThank YOU for your work on this important civil liberties issue! :-)