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

[RINO Tom]

Never thought I'd say this, but this thread is a perfect example of "who am I to judge" attitude going too far.

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain why the consenting relationship itself should be illegal.

Multiple people have.

[SATW]

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

What is wrong with some people here?

The idea that there could possibly be anything vaguely resempling genuine consent between a parent and their child flies in the face of basic notions of psychology and sociology that I really thought were supposed to be common knowledge. I have no idea if you people actually don't know these things or if you're being willfully ignorant because "who am I to judge?" is the hip and trendy response to give to issues like this.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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

[Simfan34]

This thread is almost as fun as the one about Rachel Dolelzal! People just keep on tripping over the contradictions of ideology. I think Kalwejt's post-- and I don't mean to call him out in particular or anything-- sums it up best: "there should be a line". You're not really sure where exactly this line should be drawn, but you have the general impression there ought to be one somewhere.

[Oakvale]

These people should receive the death penalty imo. Society needs to take a stand.

This thread is almost as fun as the one about Rachel Dolelzal! People just keep on tripping over the contradictions of ideology. I think Kalwejt's post-- and I don't mean to call him out in particular or anything-- sums it up best: "there should be a line". You're not really sure where exactly this line should be drawn, but you have the general impression there ought to be one somewhere.

Correct.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Honestly, the only arguments for this being illegal are definition of consent and potential for birth defects.

I really think it's remarkable that a certain stripe of social liberal will adopt baldly eugenicist reasoning to talk themselves into keeping incest illegal because they can't come up with enough other reasons to do so.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This thread is almost as fun as the one about Rachel Dolelzal! People just keep on tripping over the contradictions of ideology. I think Kalwejt's post-- and I don't mean to call him out in particular or anything-- sums it up best: "there should be a line". You're not really sure where exactly this line should be drawn, but you have the general impression there ought to be one somewhere.

You're right. It's hard to say where exactly this line should be drawn and it would be arrogant to pretend to know every bloody answer. Unfortunately, just stating all over again "consensual/who am I to judge?" it's quite vague as well.

I guess I can address only this particular case. I have serious doubts about "consent" argument applying here, due to whole complicated dynamics of parent-child relationship. And even if we consider it perfectly consensual, there is still a question of longterm psychological effects, which puts "but nobody is getting hurt" argument in doubts. I'd probably agree with most of you if it was about sister-brother relationship (I would still find that gross, but not sinister). Still, parent-child is an exceptional case.

Ftr, I don't think they should go to jail.

[afleitch]

The whole issue itself is nuanced. If we wish for incest to be illegal how can we justify it? Evidently there is no physical harm to those who participate in sexual acts. If we start thinking about the detriment to progeny, then that takes the stance that such things 'matter' over the relationship. If such things matter at 'mother-son' level, then why not at first cousin level? (which some jurisdictions and traditions are okay with). If they matter because birth defects/disabilities matter, rather than straightforward incest, then that should also matter for non incestuous progeny, which would be a form of eugenics. That's saying to people you cannot have sex/be together and that this relationship is invalid because of issues that may arise with offspring, because offspring matters more than the quality of the relationship. Then you have the quality of the relationship. Which is much murkier, because you have to start talking about 'love.'  You might not understand an incestunous relationship. It might repluse you. It might anger you, but then so to does my relationship in the eyes of sadly too many. And any appeals I make to human biology and genetics and evolutionary theory and basic human worth won't sway people who are 'replused' by that.

So you have to approach this matter somewhat more tentitively. I do not agree with incest, but I acknowledge that it is difficult for me to actually argue why I disagree and why I think it should be prohibited in law. It is one of the very few base acts, alongside acts of rape and 'post pubescent on pre pubescent' acts that I take issue with. I can argue coherently and consistently as to why rape is wrong and why adult sexual activity with children is wrong and why this should be enforced, but arguing why incest is wrong other than 'because it's weird and it just is', is not easy.

For those who go down the 'capacpity' route be very careful. I have spent years in my regular work assisting victims of crime who have suffered severe mental health issues and disabilities. You can be disabled; physically or mentally and have capacity to make choices, even bad ones. You can have capacity to consent to sexual activity.

[Simfan34]

Honestly, the only arguments for this being illegal are definition of consent and potential for birth defects.

I really think it's remarkable that a certain stripe of social liberal will adopt baldly eugenicist reasoning to talk themselves into keeping incest illegal because they can't come up with enough other reasons to do so.

When you take morality out of the picture...

[dax00]

I am (and always have been) against considering "morality", a notion I thoroughly oppose but whose effects I do not particularly abhor in respect to efficacy, in the making of law. Such consideration would be  tantamount to legislating based off of religious doctrine, in the face of that for which America stands.

The relationship itself is questionable but not inherently dangerous. The line is clearly vaginal sex with insertion of the penis. Anything short of that, in my opinion, should be well legal. However, it is neither the government's duty nor right to legislate exactly what actions may be taken in the bedroom.

Considering all of this, I conclude that such a relationship should be legal, and were there to be a pregnancy, abortion should be mandatory.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I am (and always have been) against considering "morality", a notion I thoroughly oppose but whose effects I do not particularly abhor in respect to efficacy, in the making of law. Such consideration would be  tantamount to legislating based off of religious doctrine, in the face of that for which America stands.

The relationship itself is questionable but not inherently dangerous. The line is clearly vaginal sex with insertion of the penis. Anything short of that, in my opinion, should be well legal. However, it is neither the government's duty nor right to legislate exactly what actions may be taken in the bedroom.

Considering all of this, I conclude that such a relationship should be legal, and were there to be a pregnancy, abortion should be mandatory.

obama pls ban, mods pls drone

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I am (and always have been) against considering "morality", a notion I thoroughly oppose but whose effects I do not particularly abhor in respect to efficacy, in the making of law. Such consideration would be  tantamount to legislating based off of religious doctrine, in the face of that for which America stands.

The relationship itself is questionable but not inherently dangerous. The line is clearly vaginal sex with insertion of the penis. Anything short of that, in my opinion, should be well legal. However, it is neither the government's duty nor right to legislate exactly what actions may be taken in the bedroom.

Considering all of this, I conclude that such a relationship should be legal, and were there to be a pregnancy, abortion should be mandatory.

[Simfan34]

I am (and always have been) against considering "morality", a notion I thoroughly oppose but whose effects I do not particularly abhor in respect to efficacy, in the making of law. Such consideration would be  tantamount to legislating based off of religious doctrine, in the face of that for which America stands.

The relationship itself is questionable but not inherently dangerous. The line is clearly vaginal sex with insertion of the penis. Anything short of that, in my opinion, should be well legal. However, it is neither the government's duty nor right to legislate exactly what actions may be taken in the bedroom.

Considering all of this, I conclude that such a relationship should be legal, and were there to be a pregnancy, abortion should be mandatory.

obama pls ban, mods pls drone

What's wrong with that? Surely we're just talking about a bunch of cells here, no?

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

obama pls ban, mods pls drone

What's wrong with that? Surely we're just talking about a bunch of cells here, no?

Oh for f**k's sake, don't start playing gotchas with this. There are just as many reasons to find this post absolutely horrifying from a pro-choice perspective as there are from a pro-life perspective, and you know it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Oh, I see, a vaginal intercourse between a mother and a son is unacceptable, but anal sex between the parties is just fine?

I think this issue goes a little deeper than that (no pun intended), whatever your ultimate position is.

I generally subscribe to the notion of government staying away from what consenting adults are doing in bed and when there's no harm done to either side, but again, I'm not convinced we can talk about normal contest in such situations as well as claim there's "no harm".

[Santander]

Wow, when you thought this thread couldn't get any worse...

[Simfan34]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

obama pls ban, mods pls drone

What's wrong with that? Surely we're just talking about a bunch of cells here, no?

Oh for f**k's sake, don't start playing gotchas with this. There are just as many reasons to find this post absolutely horrifying from a pro-choice perspective as there are from a pro-life perspective, and you know it.

Fair enough. For some reason I was under the impression you'd emphasized the last sentence.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

obama pls ban, mods pls drone

What's wrong with that? Surely we're just talking about a bunch of cells here, no?

Oh for f**k's sake, don't start playing gotchas with this. There are just as many reasons to find this post absolutely horrifying from a pro-choice perspective as there are from a pro-life perspective, and you know it.

Fair enough. For some reason I was under the impression you'd emphasized the last sentence.

I'm no longer pro-choice, but typically the idea is that one does get a choice (whether or not most women who have abortions are actually given meaningful options is another question). Forced abortion is (ideally) just as anathema to that mindset as is being compelled to carry a pregnancy to term.

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

obama pls ban, mods pls drone

What's wrong with that? Surely we're just talking about a bunch of cells here, no?

Oh for f**k's sake, don't start playing gotchas with this. There are just as many reasons to find this post absolutely horrifying from a pro-choice perspective as there are from a pro-life perspective, and you know it.

Fair enough. For some reason I was under the impression you'd emphasized the last sentence.

I'm no longer pro-choice, but typically the idea is that one does get a choice (whether or not most women who have abortions are actually given meaningful options is another question). Forced abortion is (ideally) just as anathema to that mindset as is being compelled to carry a pregnancy to term.

So you're still 'pro-choice' then (even if you don't like that quintessentially American terminology), if you think so strongly against the absurdity and disgrace of a woman being compelled to carry a pregnancy to term?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

obama pls ban, mods pls drone

What's wrong with that? Surely we're just talking about a bunch of cells here, no?

Oh for f**k's sake, don't start playing gotchas with this. There are just as many reasons to find this post absolutely horrifying from a pro-choice perspective as there are from a pro-life perspective, and you know it.

Fair enough. For some reason I was under the impression you'd emphasized the last sentence.

I'm no longer pro-choice, but typically the idea is that one does get a choice (whether or not most women who have abortions are actually given meaningful options is another question). Forced abortion is (ideally) just as anathema to that mindset as is being compelled to carry a pregnancy to term.

So you're still 'pro-choice' then (even if you don't like that quintessentially American terminology), if you think so strongly against the absurdity and disgrace of a woman being compelled to carry a pregnancy to term?

I can't tell if this is a gotcha or if I actually wrote this unclearly. I think forcing someone to kill their offspring is worse than forcing someone not to kill their offspring. If I didn't think that the conceptus was a person or had rights, which Antonio doesn't, I would think both were equally bad.

[Simfan34]

Well, of course, "pro-choice" is ultimately a euphemism. When you are vigorously opposed to any notion that the yet-to-be-born have any kind of personhood (see: NARAL's reaction to a Super Bowl ad), then the issue of "choice" becomes irrelevant sind you're dealing with an action with no substantial impact. Control over women's bodies, on the other hand... in such a (moral?) framework there's a salient issue there.

The term simply allows politicians like Joe Biden and Tim Kaine to claim that they "personally" oppose abortion, in conformance with their religious views, while supporting it in every other practical sense.

But I digress, and am perhaps being facetious. While forced abortions would presumably violate the same right to privacy that supposedly makes them a Constitutional right in the first place, it cannot be denied that the de-humanizing view that enables abortions to be viewed as morally unproblematic in the first place renders them an essentially inconsequential procedure. I think abortion supporters would agree with me here; there's no need for a stigma since nothing is being lost, it is a "simple medical procedure".

I am not being facetious, however, on the point that this is not an unnatural conclusion of a perspective that abhors making decisions based on a normative moral framework, aside from the mere consent of direct participants, in the first place, or even regards the government doing so-- "legislating morality"-- as tantamount to "fascism".

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

obama pls ban, mods pls drone

What's wrong with that? Surely we're just talking about a bunch of cells here, no?

Oh for f**k's sake, don't start playing gotchas with this. There are just as many reasons to find this post absolutely horrifying from a pro-choice perspective as there are from a pro-life perspective, and you know it.

Fair enough. For some reason I was under the impression you'd emphasized the last sentence.

I'm no longer pro-choice, but typically the idea is that one does get a choice (whether or not most women who have abortions are actually given meaningful options is another question). Forced abortion is (ideally) just as anathema to that mindset as is being compelled to carry a pregnancy to term.

So you're still 'pro-choice' then (even if you don't like that quintessentially American terminology), if you think so strongly against the absurdity and disgrace of a woman being compelled to carry a pregnancy to term?

I can't tell if this is a gotcha or if I actually wrote this unclearly. I think forcing someone to kill their offspring is worse than forcing someone not to kill their offspring. If I didn't think that the conceptus was a person or had rights, which Antonio doesn't, I would think both were equally bad.

It's not a gotcha But I was just curious as to why one extreme piques your concern and not the other.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, of course, "pro-choice" is ultimately a euphemism. When you are vigorously opposed to any notion that the yet-to-be-born have any kind of personhood (see: NARAL's reaction to a Super Bowl ad), then the issue of "choice" becomes irrelevant sind you're dealing with an action with no substantial impact. Control over women's bodies, on the other hand... in such a (moral?) framework there's a salient issue there.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you seriously not conceive that some people might value the psychological well-being of the woman (and, thereby, how she herself perceives and understands her pregnancy)? No, surely there has to be some sinister amoral intent behind the pro-choice movement.

To Nathan's characterization, let me clarify that while I believe personhood and rights ought to begin well after conception, I also believe at least some of them must begin well before birth. I realize that " where to draw the line" is a terribly tricky issue and a weakness of the pro-choice side, but I have philosophical reasons to believe that drawing the line somewhere (the point when the fetus is capable of feeling pain is the one I find most appealing personally, although it's not an easy call) is preferable to taking either of the two extreme positions.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Btw, I genuinely wonder what would be Dave's reaction had he seen this thread.