Mother and son in love in N.M. will go to jail to defend their relationship

[nclib]

As creepy as this is, I say this should be legal. I suppose one could argue that they risk having a child with birth defects, but jail time is excessive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3725551/Mother-36-son-19-fell-love-met-year-gave-adoption-baby-say-willing-risk-JAIL-defend-love.html

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I mean, it's gross, but I can't support legislating sexual activity that doesn't harm anyone. Pregnancy is the grey area.

[RINO Tom]

I mean, it's gross, but I can't support legislating sexual activity that doesn't harm anyone. Pregnancy is the grey area.

It DOES harm someone!  Cousins?  Sure, who cares?  Even brother-sister?  It's not hurting anyone if they don't reproduce.  But parent-child?  That is INHERENTLY without consent.  I firmly believe that a child is incapable of giving sexual consent to his or her parent; they are inherently unequal, and that creates a huge problem.  This goes WAY beyond thinking it's "icky," this opens up terrifying doors for kids who have "given consent to their parents" (the parents swear it's true, and so do the kids when they are in front of their parents!) and sick parents actually just manipulating their kids.

You are inherently "inferior" to your parent in this type of situation, no matter how ed up things are at your home.

EDIT: I am using the "general you" so the sentence flows better grammatically, I'm obviously not directing this at you.

[Santander]

There is no grey area. It's wrong, and if you disagree, your "morality" is below the level of human dignity.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's wrong and shouldn't be legal, but hand-wringing about birth defects isn't the right argument here.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"Give people freedom", they said. "Nothing bad could happen!"

[Mr. Smith]

Illegal, but this thread isn't going to end well.

[JerryArkansas]

And yet the gays are ruining the country.  Yeah, ok.

[Clark Kent]

It's wrong and shouldn't be legal, but hand-wringing about birth defects isn't the right argument here.

[Joe Republic]

Yeah it's gross, but where's the harm to anybody else (except any potential children, as already mentioned)?

I mean, it's gross, but I can't support legislating sexual activity that doesn't harm anyone. Pregnancy is the grey area.

It DOES harm someone!  Cousins?  Sure, who cares?  Even brother-sister?  It's not hurting anyone if they don't reproduce.  But parent-child?  That is INHERENTLY without consent.  I firmly believe that a child is incapable of giving sexual consent to his or her parent; they are inherently unequal, and that creates a huge problem.  This goes WAY beyond thinking it's "icky," this opens up terrifying doors for kids who have "given consent to their parents" (the parents swear it's true, and so do the kids when they are in front of their parents!) and sick parents actually just manipulating their kids.

You are inherently "inferior" to your parent in this type of situation, no matter how ed up things are at your home.

You're going to need to explain your thinking a bit more clearly here.  The son is 19.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

>mother of nine

Jesus.

[Ebowed]

Sexual activity between consenting adults should not be a criminal offense.

[Blue3]

Who am I to judge?

The government should have higher things on its list of priorities, in any case.



EDIT: shouldn't this be in Political Debate or Individual Politics?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's wrong and shouldn't be legal, but hand-wringing about birth defects isn't the right argument here.

[Intell]

The is horrible and anyone who says who am I to judge?, should be put in a mental institution.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I mean, it's gross, but I can't support legislating sexual activity that doesn't harm anyone. Pregnancy is the grey area.

It DOES harm someone!  Cousins?  Sure, who cares?  Even brother-sister?  It's not hurting anyone if they don't reproduce.  But parent-child?  That is INHERENTLY without consent.  I firmly believe that a child is incapable of giving sexual consent to his or her parent; they are inherently unequal, and that creates a huge problem.  This goes WAY beyond thinking it's "icky," this opens up terrifying doors for kids who have "given consent to their parents" (the parents swear it's true, and so do the kids when they are in front of their parents!) and sick parents actually just manipulating their kids.

You are inherently "inferior" to your parent in this type of situation, no matter how ed up things are at your home.

EDIT: I am using the "general you" so the sentence flows better grammatically, I'm obviously not directing this at you.

Yeah, I should have been a lot more specific in my phrasing here. Parent-child relationships are on a completely different level, as you explained. I think the mother and son in the OP are both legal consent age, and haven't seen each other in years. I do think, however, that parent-child relationships where the child is under the age of consent goes beyond incest and shouldn't be legal.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You probably know I'm pretty liberal, but there must be some line. Beside, you may talk about it's being harmless, but, from psychological point of view, it can't possibly be harmless.

[Illiniwek]

It should be illegal, but sending them to jail seems excessive.

[RINO Tom]

Yeah it's gross, but where's the harm to anybody else (except any potential children, as already mentioned)?

I mean, it's gross, but I can't support legislating sexual activity that doesn't harm anyone. Pregnancy is the grey area.

It DOES harm someone!  Cousins?  Sure, who cares?  Even brother-sister?  It's not hurting anyone if they don't reproduce.  But parent-child?  That is INHERENTLY without consent.  I firmly believe that a child is incapable of giving sexual consent to his or her parent; they are inherently unequal, and that creates a huge problem.  This goes WAY beyond thinking it's "icky," this opens up terrifying doors for kids who have "given consent to their parents" (the parents swear it's true, and so do the kids when they are in front of their parents!) and sick parents actually just manipulating their kids.

You are inherently "inferior" to your parent in this type of situation, no matter how ed up things are at your home.

You're going to need to explain your thinking a bit more clearly here.  The son is 19.

I personally don't think it matters.  I strongly believe there's a natural dynamic between any parent and that parent's kid, regardless of his/her age, that makes true consent impossible.  The potential (I'd argue sure possibility of) psychological damage should be reason enough to keep it outlawed, but the inequality between the two parties is what should really bother people.  Bear with me (no pun intended), but imagine a future where we've trained a primate to engage in intelligent conversation; should beasteality be legal because "consent" technically can be given on both accounts?  I mean, shlt, a 10-year old can "give her consent."  So what?  True consent must involve two mentally healthy and equal partners agreeing to sexual acts.  If you ask me, mother-son incest meets neither of those requirements, especially the latter.

[Xing]

Yeah, there is something deeply concerning about a parent and child being in that kind of relationship. As others have said, it's not just about birth defects; there are psychological reasons why this shouldn't be allowed.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

I mean, it's gross, but I can't support legislating sexual activity that doesn't harm anyone.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm not sure it should be legal exactly, but the authorities should basically look the other way and pretend it isn't happening.

[Blue3]

The is horrible and anyone who says who am I to judge?, should be put in a mental institution.

Ideally, we need to move to the place where we no longer need government. If we require government to regulate every aspect of our life, we'll never get there. Jailtime and fines aren't the answer to something like this. I don't like it, but it's none of my business. Why should I judge other people? If there's a God, then God will judge them, I shouldn't feel the need to have society inflict punishment on others for a private thing that's none of my business.

I mean, it's gross, but I can't support legislating sexual activity that doesn't harm anyone.

.

[Wells]

That's disgusting. But it shouldn't be punished.

[Santander]

The is horrible and anyone who says who am I to judge?, should be put in a mental institution.

Ideally, we need to move to the place where we no longer need government. If we require government to regulate every aspect of our life, we'll never get there. Jailtime and fines aren't the answer to something like this. I don't like it, but it's none of my business. Why should I judge other people? If there's a God, then God will judge them, I shouldn't feel the need to have society inflict punishment on others for a private thing that's none of my business.

Yes, God will judge them. But we cannot have a moral or civil society without legislating some degree of morality. We must warn the wicked of their ways and take care of the sick, and if we do not, it is we who will be judged by God for doing nothing. A mother and son who are involved in incest are clearly very, very sick people, and we cannot just take a nihilistic, libertarian view of their actions. We have a duty to treat these people and a duty to collectively affirm that incest is an immoral violation of natural law.

Making something illegal does not mean we have to send people to prison over it. There are other types of facilities and institutions we could use to treat these people, but doing nothing is not an option.