There are rape convictions.

There are other types of evidence other than just witness testimony. And witness testimonies are examined to find flaws.

It's often difficult, but there is a point to these laws.

I think the example you give is only one particular kind of sexual crime and not necessarily the most serious.

Of course when talting about a couple brother-sister. My point about drugs addicts is pretty good, you should see some kids when they born how much physical problems they have.

Sex between two adults can result with a baby no matter what is their connections. I am not open about it, I am not saying that it is ok but I believe that we can't do much more than a 8 years old girl who fall pregnant, a 68 years old mother who fall pregnant, a trisomy woman who fall pregnant, etc.

I am sure many incestuous couples are responsable about it and are doing what it seems right to avoid it and some aren't. Like what we see in the whole population, some are repsonsable, some aren't.

But who are we to tell them that they can't have kids and what will be the method to be sure that doesn't happen?

Nil, just asking in case I have misunderstood, are you saying society has no right not to tell a brother and sister or even father and daughter to have kids?

I think you mean the opposite of this?

sorry long and confusing day - but my question still stands

In line with this you would forbid people with genetic disorder to have children as well, wouldn't you?

If it concerns two people with the same genetic disorder (something like Huntington's) I'd say having kids is not a smart decision.

What would you say if you were the unborn child, facing great risk of a debilitating painful genetic disorder ? Conceive me or not ?

The logical consequence of what you are proposing is the termination of foetuses who are likely to suffer pain after birth. I don't think many would find that acceptable.

No, I said pre-conception. A what-if scenario.

"pain after birth", maybe some temporary problems, all such is not really bad, and is NOT "debilitating". The problem with incest is that the resulting degeneration problems are well known. But, and this is the idea behind the abolishing of that law, there are enough laws and regulation to make marriages between close relatives practically impossible, while at the other hand nobody in reality can stop relatives having sex with each other.
-
What you however hint at is to adopt the, in the words of late Jörg Haider, "quite decent health policy" of the NSDAP in Germany, which would be, quite literally, an act of "overkilling"

I really....really....really hope the most of you are joking when you're saying that you are PRO of removing the incest law...please leave it there, it will give a clear signal to the sickos! What's next, fathers could be able to marry their daughters? God this makes me sick!

It's the way the human race is headed though don't you think? When I first watched the movie "Gattaca" (science fiction flick with a two tiered human society, the perfect build and imperfects) I thought it was way off in the future. Now, I'm not so sure. We humans are really trying to tweak nature to represent our interpretation of perfection. I don't know if that's our true rôle in natural evolution or whether we've just taken it upon ourselves to take over the management of the planet and all the species that have the (mis) fortune of sharing it with us.

And the question is, which set of parents wouldn't want a perfect baby with all the bits in the right places? Nature isn't kind to mis-formed or disabled animals, it's only humans that accommodate physically and mentally disable people based on emotional and heartfelt caring because we feel that we all have the same right to a life of fulfillment and purpose. That's probably blown this debate out of context of this thread.....

__________________
Crash your karma into little bits of happiness

Have you actually read through the posts on this thread? If so, you haven't really grasped the debate at all. You're either unable to state your point of view in an eloquent way, which is OK if you're just shooting a quick reply, but why the ridiculous exaggeration with the marital sentence? That's not up for discussion. Bring your arguments, but at least bring some facts to the table or your slant on the debate, we've moved on from caveman antics.

what he said. It seems you've read nothing.

But it seem like many of the recent posters have totally missed the point, and many of the pro-anti-incest-law posters seem to be missing the point on purpose. There is no genetic argument here because:

1. Two people with genetic disorders can legally have children even where the chances of a child being born with the same genetic disorder are 100%. Those with dwarfism/achondroplasia marry and have children the same disorder. Ban them? Fine, but if we're doing that, we're making restrictions on illogical forum posters too.

2. Contraception can reliably prevent offspring.

3. Those born with severe genetic disorders are unlikely to further reproduce.

Registered to say that Gastro guy has got it right. No one is being forced to indulge in monkey business. Live and let live.

Out of curiosity did any of you find your cousin sisters attractive? I sure did when I was a teenager. Them being fit did not make matters easy.

It's pronounced economisto. e.c.o.n.o.m.i.s.t.o


Welcome to the forum btw.

If close relatives should be allowed to have sex and children then shouldn't the marriage question come up? Would that be taboo but everything else just fine?

Thanks. You got it right too.

Common sense is required instead of knee jerk sentimental clap trap that is being spewed from some who are up in arms.

This is insane. Whoever is trying to remove this Law must be a F-eking Psycho.

Its like legalizing rape in a way for f-eck sake!. Absolute Madness!