German incest couple lose European Court case
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17690997


Note: 12 April 2012 Last updated at 11:52 GMT

:hmmm:

What about fruits of their love?
Stupid sick morons.

Indeed screwed, :shifty:

"Waddingtons Incest, the game the whole family can play" :woot:

I'll get my coat

Cheers

Garion

The "couple" is split since years. The court case to the latest instances has been pushed by the brother alone.

His sister was held as not fully liable, since she was assessed by psychologists to be an extremely labile, fearful personality who was in a state of dependency and submission to her brother.

Both came from a broken home, with a background of sexual abuse by the father.

The sister says she feels guilty and has separated from her brother, saying she never wants to see him again, and having said several less nice things about him. She now agrees that incest should be forbidden,

Two of their four children have handicaps. Which to me is the primary and decisive argument why incest should remain to be under penalty. There is a simple biological reason why societies in all cultures and since many centuries if not millenia raised taboos over incest. So the primary argument against tolerating incest is a hard-facted biological one, not a soft moral one.

That a German federal judge once ruled against his colleagues, accusing them that their consideration of biological-genetical risks of incest borders eugenics, imo is a scandal. Seems to be another one of this infamous "anything goes" crowd.

I don't know what kind of reputation this will garner me, but I honestly don't see the problem with an incestuous relation where both partners consent to the relationship (After having reads Skybirds post which was posted as I was writing this I disagree with the brother in this case and agree that he should be charged.)

That being said, I do believe there should be a penalty to incestuous couples bearing children. It is fine for two individuals to love each other intimately like this, but I think that other means should be sought out if they want to bear children. It is simply not fair to the child who has a greater then normal chance of being born with disabilities.

IMO It is similar (NOT THE SAME) as gay and lesbian marriages. Who is a judge or anyone for that matter, to tell someone who they can and cannot love. However, in the case of incestuous relationships you also have to consider the consequences of bearing a child into the world. Seek other alternatives such as adoption.

I love you.:haha:

So now what?
You would sort of allow this kind of relationship but force the couple to have abortion in case of pregnancy.
Tell your son to use rubber if you see him locking himself in a room with your daughter.
Is it that just because something is "old fashion" an established social norm it must be challenged.
Is homosexuality just a psychological deviation?

I would allow someone to choose who they decide to love and express their love with. If an accident happens, then obviously they can choose to abort if thats their decision, otherwise they can choose to keep the child and raise it and hopefully it turns out for the best. What I am implying by saying other means should be looked it is to avoid unnecessary suffering by a child that will most likely have a disability. Besides the fact that there are droves and droves of orphans out there, there are other means of achieving pregnancy.

Not sure what you're implying here :hmmm: can you explain further?

So what about relationships between disabled people, or women having children after 35? Both are scientifically more likely to produce birth defects than incest.

Not fair to the child? A sick child with mental handicaps causes immense costs that the tax payer has to come up for. It is not fair towards society in the first! It's also an exploitation or a corruption of the overall biological "quality" (don't know another adequate word at the moment) of the human gen-pool. The risk of genetic defects becoming latent mounts with every incestously born generation.

Incest relations therefore should not be considered normal, and by the biological desiogn of our sexual reproduction cycle they are not normal, too, like homosexual relations aren't normal in that context, too.

And lets not throw "agape" and "eros" into the same pot. It's two very different concepts.

We do not pay attention to this single fact because after the Nazis we are afraid to be accused of eugenics immediately, but increasing the survival rate of individuals with crippling genetic defects, as modern medicine enables us, not only comes at the price of growing financial costs, but also at the price of making the human genome more defective - at least when people with genetic defects survice until they can reproduce and their disease gets carried over to their offspring. For this reason for example we see a constant rise of weak eyes in civilised industrial populations, and see more and more people needing to wear eye glasses. We also have more and more bleeders, becasue they do not die in acidents anymore before becoming sexually active.

We pussyfoot around these impolications from medical innovations, becasue a.) we so far have no answers to the challenges raised by these implications, and b.) it is only a question of time until we get accused of being Nazis and their eugenic policies when we dare to mention these implications.

Let'S keep it simple and managable and safe. Incestous rerlations tabooised in general, no matter whether they are platonmic or not. For the same reason I am against this weasel-dance about alcohl limits when driving car, 0.8 or 0.5 promils - keep it simple and easily managable: zero alcohol for car drivers. Period.

We just cannot please just everybody .

What about common sense?
What about minimizing the risks with in established social norms and trying to keep them that way instead of challenging them on some theoretical ideas?
This is a problem so why make it even bigger just because the "ancient" law must be challenged?

The risks latently add from generation to generation of incestous relations. That'S why the isolated incestous village crowd in some god-forsaken place from some point on sees an explosion of immune defects and genetic vulnerabilities and deficits, if the population is too small to stirr the gene pool sufficiently.

But must we really go to extremes here to just relativise incestous behaviour? Must we really try to make incestous relations look the same as births given by mothers above 35 years? I think there still is a tremendous and extremely big difference.

I hope you do not seriously demand an explanation on that now. An ordinary couple having a baby with the mother being 37 is one thing. An incest relation resulting in babies is somethign totally different.

I think you Germans should just say your meaning and don´t give a **** what other think about you/it. It´s what you think of your self that matters. You are who you choose to be, not what others say you are.

What if those established social norms are baseless and stupid?

What if not?

No there isn't. Scientifically at least, you can't demonstrate that. There is no difference, and while incest does come with obviously heightened risks, these risks are substantially lower than many other conditions under which marriage is considered socially acceptable.

I'm not going out of my way to challenge "ancient laws" here, but there really is very poor scientific basis for this prohibition. Rather, the prohibition on incest is a purely social one, meant in large part to secure the traditional economic institution of marriage.

All I see is the usual panic-mongering of "we can't allow this one block of our traditional social norm to fall, or the rest of the society will go to hell with it", even if the norm is stupid, baseless, and in this case clearly damages and breaks up what was up to now a more or less functioning family. Society has nothing to fear from incest. What exactly is the threat from a sexual activity between two consenting adults? The fact that your tax money might have to pay for their disabled kids? Shouldn't you then attack all preventable cases of disability and demand mandatory abortions for all mothers at risk of producing unhealthy children? The fact is, incest between adults would not do anyone any significant harm, and certainly far less harm than many other things that are considered to be acceptable, right, and inalienable. But yet it's attacked, because apparently it makes a lot of people fear for their kids suddenly getting hots for their sister and/or brother. Just like allowing homosexuality is a threat because it makes your children gay, right?

Not really sure what to think of those atm, in the middle of studying and checking this thread so I'll get back to it when I've got more concentration.

I completely agree that incestuous relations, to be precise, sexual relations are not normal and naturally speaking are not in the least bit close to natural. I also agree that the risks of genetic defects mounts with each incestuous born generation.

This is why in my earlier post I said if an incestuous couple would want a child, that's fine, just adopt one or get artificial insemination from a sperm bank instead of your partner. That way the risks of genetic defects doesn't like with incestuous sexual relationships.

All I'm saying here is that if someone chooses to love another, whoever they may be, and their partner loves them in turn, it is in no ones rights to tell them they cannot do this. This is a completely different topic then that the OP posted and I apologize for derailing the thread, but I just wanted to get that out. A judge doesn't have the right, in my opinion, to tell someone he or she cannot love someone else.

How do you know this? There is a lot of incestuous behaviour observed in nature and among primates particularly (just do a quick google search - there is a vast amount of academic material on this subject out there). What makes it unnatural, then, and how can we prove this? I'm afraid a lot of it is simply a common-sense assumption that the loss of genetic variety makes it unnatural, but in fact that in itself is pretty poor reasoning to justify the 'unnaturalness' of it alone.

Just a quick question, point to ask. I can't remember where/when I read or saw this but I remember reading or seeing in a documentary on ancient cultures and such that incestuous relations were looked down upon not only because it is socially unacceptable, but because it is a natural instinct imbedded in us to not view family members as potential partners. From what I believe this was an instinctive countermeasure to ensure that a species gene pool does not become contaminated or reliant on solely one groups DNA.

Oh there is definitely a measure of aversion that most people have. But it's the same as the aversion to, you know, homosexual relations. And yet many people do not have this aversion - just as there are many people who are instinctively homosexual. I think it's dangerous to assume that a majority aversion is the "natural" thing, and a minority deviation is "unnatural". The fact is that deviations from the norm are also part of nature.

I don't dispute that there is a natural element to the taboo on incest - there is definitely that. But that's not the whole story. I don't think you can make an argument about 'unnaturalness' based on that alone. The nature of the aversion is also not entirely clear. In many cases, animal populations (and indeed human populations) rely on incest to survive. In some cases, preservation of same DNA is no less important than the drive for genetic diversity, and we in fact see this expressed in many people's preference for particular genotypes that are more similar than different to them (or, to put it less politically correctly, people's pickiness about the race and appearance of their partners). It's not simply an A vs. B thing going on here in terms of genetics.