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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[afleitch]

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 all this.

^^^

Mental health is a legitimate medical state. A woman's mental state must always be addressed when dealing with pregnancy.

The only way to avoid the harm of pregnancy, if it is a mental harm, is to either use contraception in the first instance or to abort or to induce labour whether viable or unviable. That’s it. If it’s viable, it’s ‘born’; the state of pregnancy has ended. It is no longer an ethical battleground. If it's not viable, it won't ever become viable unless the woman is exposed to increased or sustained suffering.

Opposing abortion because you elevate physical harm over psychological harm by default accepts that morally, you prohibit a woman from taking any action against any physical or psychological harm caused as a result of her pregnancy.

[afleitch]

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.

Where?  I've seen "eww I think this is icky so they must be crazy", but nothing that actually addresses my question from a more objective standpoint.

Why should "it's icky" not be as valid a reason for policy as anything else?

Vaginal sex is icky. I demand legislation to address this.