This is what I understand from this thread:
"Ohh, bawwwwww. Two people want to make babies. But we won't let them love each other because something might go wrong with the baby, like they might make a retarded baby, and all of them will be retarded or something. But of course, this chance is higher than normal because its two related people, its proven, but we're going to let retarded people or people with a family history of awful disorders who have an equally broad chance of passing down their disorder breed as well. and its totally different!"
Here's a question. Why is it morally wrong. Is it because it is disgusting? How so? Can you give a clear answer? Is it because someone told you its wrong? Who or what tells you what is morally right or wrong. Or do you simply say it is. Take it as word.
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5654 ... rse2qo.jpg[/img]
See this horse? Its pretty high up. Get off it.
A female boinking another female won't net a whacked out genetically inferior baby, though. A dude boinking his mom has a very high probability of that. And there's something very wrong with a person who'd willingly and knowingly endanger his/her kid's health/life/mental stability for such an unnecessary thing as mommy lust.
People willingly enter situations where it would cause danger to other people, especially children, on very many occasions, I doubt incest is the least of your worries.
Driving, for one, is rather dangerous, and guess what? It affects not just one or two children, it affects everyone who drives or simply walks upon the land. You're going to call a person who would willingly put someone in danger "very wrong" over "mommy lust", a miniscule detail in a world so dangerous? Do you know how many people are crippled, killed, crushed, or whos lives are utterly destroyed by car crashes? They, no, EVERYONE knows cars are dangerous when used in any situation. And you willingly and knowingly trust other people,
complete strangers whos face nor voice nor gender is known by the least bit to you, who could care less what happens to you after you leave their field of consciousness, to keep you or your child safe from harm, and to not impede on your well-being?!
And here, you're worried that a male who fosters a child with a relative has something wrong with him. I do say you need to rethink your priorities, because what you proposed is ridiculous.
Or is it the fact that you're not trying to be dangerous that makes you right. Is that the case? Do you think every man bonking his mom or sis wants their child to be defected? Or rather, do you think every man bonking his mom or sis is deliberately trying to cause harm? What are the odds of a child defect from incest? Under 5-10%?
Or is that too high for you.
And what about genetically inferior? Do you want everyone to be genetically superior? Because its either one or the other, there is no "genetically average", unless you're going to create a specific group of "average" for the sake of argument.
I am going to say take your morals, which have no bounds within proper logic, and do not apply them here. You can believe them, and you are certainly free to share them, you don't have to listen to me. But from what you proposed, we are all "very wrong".
P.S. While incest has a "high" probability of creating a "monstrosity". I think theres a pretty high chance that everyone will die sooner or later. So what does it matter. Go
believe that you are right, that incest is "wrong", because I know you aren't accepting a single thing.
However the fact that people would knowingly possibly fuck up their own children is absolutely abhorrent.
STOP DOING ANYTHING THEN. Its easy, if you don't do anything at all to knowingly possibly endanger your children, then probably nothing will happen. Hook up some tubes or something because food or air-borne contaminates might cause cancer. Or is that ridiculous. Hm? Perhaps it is.
However fucking your uncle is just playing with fire. It's not just morally wrong, it's in bad taste, and it's moderately regulatable (i.e. you can't wed your sister). There are 6 billion people in the world--do you REALLY need to keep it all in the family???
You're right, I'll just go marry that 10 year old african girl. If you say 6 billion people, I'm assuming you're allowing... well, all 6 billion people, which happens to include underaged children. Sicko.
"Ohh, bawwwwww. Two people want to make babies. But we won't let them love each other because something might go wrong with the baby, like they might make a retarded baby, and all of them will be retarded or something. But of course, this chance is higher than normal because its two related people, its proven, but we're going to let retarded people or people with a family history of awful disorders who have an equally broad chance of passing down their disorder breed as well. and its totally different!"
