German incest couple lose European Court case

[Gerald]

A brother and sister from Germany who had an incestuous relationship, arguing they had the right to a family life, have lost their European court case.

Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski had four children together, two of whom are described as disabled.

The European Court of Human Rights said Germany was entitled to ban incest.

Stuebing, who was convicted of incest and spent three years in prison, did not meet his natural sister until he tracked down his family as an adult.

He had been adopted as a child and only made contact with his natural relatives in his 20s.

The siblings grew close after their mother died.

Three of their four children are now looked after in care.

The couple insist that their love is no different to any other.

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


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

[MH]

The couple insist that their love is no different to any other.

What about fruits of their love?
Stupid sick morons.

[Gerald]

Indeed screwed,

[Garion]

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

I'll get my coat

Cheers

Garion

[Skybird]

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.

[Krauter]

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.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Krauter

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.

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?

[Krauter]

Originally Posted by MH

I love you.

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.

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.

Is it that just because something is "old fashion" an established social norm it must be challenged.
Is homosexuality just a psychological deviation?

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

[CCIP]

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Krauter

It is simply not fair to the child who has a greater then normal chance of being born with disabilities.

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 .

[MH]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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

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?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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

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.

[Karle94]

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.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by MH

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?

What if those established social norms are baseless and stupid?

[MH]

Originally Posted by CCIP

What if those established social norms are baseless and stupid?

What if not?