Once, just once, let's have a rational discussion about incest.

  • Welcome to Skyrim Forums! Register now to participate using the 'Sign Up' button on the right. You may now register with your Facebook or Steam account!

FullmetalHeart20

Well-Known Member
We are going in circles, but it is because you are steering us that way to avoid the inevitable end point of the discourse, which is that by engaging in this behavior one is knowingly placing their offspring at risk, just like smoking or drinking while pregnant. The behavior is harmful to the offspring, and this much is proven.
What offspring? You keep avoiding the point that anyone can adopt or go to a sperm bank for kids, and that even if condoms and the pill fail in a few thousand pregnancies there is no guarantee that it would conceive. You keep treating pregnancy between siblings like it's inevitable is the strongest point you have. If it's avoidable (which it is) what do you have to work with?
 

Two Bears

Active Member
What offspring? You keep avoiding the point that anyone can adopt or go to a sperm bank for kids, because treating pregnancy between siblings like it's inevitable is the strongest point you have. If it's avoidable (which it is) what do you have to work with?

Short of vasectomy and hysterectomy, what means of contraception are 100% effective? And if you are going to surgical route, how are you going to ensure that incestuous couples are complying? Sounds a bit too Orwellian for my taste.

As for the rest, I feel that you are being very selective in your reasoning. You can't argue with science.
 

FullmetalHeart20

Well-Known Member
Short of vasectomy and hysterectomy, what means of contraception are 100% effective? And if you are going to surgical route, how are you going to ensure that incestuous couples are complying? Sounds a bit too Orwellian for my taste.

As for the rest, I feel that you are being very selective in your reasoning. You can't argue with science.
You can't argue with odds. A condom alone is 98% effective. That's a 2% chance of the condom failing, never mind the odds of it taking. So what's usually a strong protective measure for young adults and teens is suddenly irrelevant in an argument about birth control?
 

Two Bears

Active Member
You can't argue with odds. A condom alone is 98% effective. That's a 2% chance of the condom failing, never mind the odds of it taking. So what's usually a strong protective measure for young adults and teens is suddenly irrelevant in an argument about birth control?

See the seat belt analogy for your answer.
 

FullmetalHeart20

Well-Known Member
See the seat belt analogy for your answer.
Are you just going to keep saying how dangerous such a low risk is? That was just a condom. How about we add a birth control pill, the odds of it conceiving after that, and a morning after pill as well? Is that safe enough? If a child is still conceived after that, there's still a chance of it being healthy. While we're at it, the woman can sell all her eggs. That'd get her a few grand and remove the risk.
You can be honest and say you're just disgusted at the thought of relatives being in love, if that's the case. Better that than using extremely low risks as an argument.
 

Doctor Langstrom

I want to be FEARED!
tumblr_mlrjieQics1sns1jto1_500.jpg
 

The Phoenician

Shiney, let's be bad guys.
And what a lovely troll thread this is.
 

Dagmar

Defender of the Bunnies of Skyrim
FullmetalHeart20 your premise is based on the belief that incestuous couples largely won't choose to procreate when reality simply doesn't bear that out. How do you think all the data points are gathered for studies on the propogation of congenital disorders from inbreeding? If you let first degree relatives procreate they are going to make babies. That's simply reality.
 

FullmetalHeart20

Well-Known Member
FullmetalHeart20 your premise is based on the belief that incestuous couples largely won't choose to procreate when reality simply doesn't bear that out. How do you think all the data points are gathered for studies on the propogation of congenital disorders from inbreeding? If you let first degree relatives procreate they are going to make babies. That's simply reality.
Do you think, and here's a strange concept, that they didn't mean to make these data points? You're assuming that they had babies on purpose, or had access to contraceptions but didn't use them.
 

Two Bears

Active Member
Do you think, and here's a strange concept, that they didn't mean to make these data points? You're assuming that they had babies on purpose, or had access to contraceptions but didn't use them.

Well, now you've gone and shot your whole argument to pieces. Your defense of incest is entirely based on the use of contraceptives but now you go on and state that contraceptives are ineffective if they aren't used and that people fail to use them all the time. So, I think we can finally and mercifully close the book on this one. Saints be praised.
 

FullmetalHeart20

Well-Known Member
Well, now you've gone and shot your whole argument to pieces. Your defense of incest is entirely based on the use of contraceptives but now you go on and state that contraceptives are ineffective if they aren't used and that people fail to use them all the time. So, I think we can finally and mercifully close the book on this one. Saints be praised.
I never said people fail to use them all the time. Contraceptives are there for anyone responsible enough to use them. If they don't, then that's their problem. Now here are the points I'm trying to make.
1. There are no laws or regulations about people at risk for passing on birth defects or genetic diseases. The only time people make a big deal is when the risk comes from relatives.
2. Contraceptives are available for anyone with sense. People being irresponsible enough not to use them is a different problem altoghether.
3. No one pointed out a way that this hurts a third party.
4. With relatives close in age, there is no inherent imbalance of power or dependency.
 

Two Bears

Active Member
I never said people fail to use them all the time. Contraceptives are there for anyone responsible enough to use them. If they don't, then that's their problem. Now here are the points I'm trying to make.

You did. You said that not all the people will use them all the time. That effectively kills your previous argument. As for the rest, I will quickly address them as I am growing weary of this discussion.

1. There are no laws or regulations about people at risk for passing on birth defects or genetic diseases. The only time people make a big deal is when the risk comes from relatives.

Not true. Laws, mores and folkways exist regarding individuals with transmittable diseases, mental and physical handicaps.

2. Contraceptives are available for anyone with sense. People being irresponsible enough not to use them is a different problem altoghether.

No, it is the same problem, unless incestuous couples are going to be somehow magically incapable of irresponsible behavior.

3. No one pointed out a way that this hurts a third party.

Everyone here has, and since page one. Offspring.

4. With relatives close in age, there is no inherent imbalance of power or dependency.

There are plenty of same-age relationships that have an imbalance of power and dependency. Look at the volume of abused spouses. Are incestuous couples somehow above this as well?

Look, it just doesn't work on any level. You seem like a nice guy and I don't think you are trolling, but putting your fingers in your ears and telling us that you don't hear us is kind of silly.
 

Doctor Langstrom

I want to be FEARED!
Don't pay them any mind. They don't like the topic discussed, so they insult it.

He was the one who started this topic, so he should be prepared for the backlash. If a brother and sister want to bang one another, my disapproval isn't going to stop them. However, there are negative outcomes from such pairings and that is what I object to. And humans aren't the only animal who know of these negative possibilities.
 

Recent chat visitors

Latest posts

Top