Wrong to marry/have kids with second cousin?

@LoveYourSmile Apparently it's legal for half-blood siblings to marry in Sweden, but they need special approval by the government, which seems kind of restrictive, but still the most progressive law worldwide in this regard.

@Zarutaku How in the fucking universe is that progressive??

@LoveYourSmile Apparently it's legal for half-blood siblings to marry in Sweden, but they need special approval by the government, which seems kind of restrictive, but still the most progressive law worldwide in this regard.

@DigiCat Because I call everything that grants more liberty progressive, restricting people in their mating choice is an authoritarian & antiquated habit.

@Zarutaku There is a big difference between having liberty and putting others in danger

@DigiCat Flawed argument, do people with genetic disorders or women in their 40s put others in danger if they decide to have children?

@FanofAction Sorry, don't get what you're trying to say.

@FanofAction Sorry, don't get what you're trying to say.

@Zarutaku Flawed argument ehi...

Let's see, you're a big fan of liberty, should people then have the liberty to murder those who disagree with them?


Btw

Depends on the genetic disoder

Incest is more dangerous than giving birth in your 40s, one has the chance of birth defects, one has the chance of birth defects + lowered immune system

Not that I agree with Zaru's position on incest, but this is a false equivalence. Murdering someone you disagree with would be considered an act of aggression, and would be in direct violation of the ethics of liberty. It's probably the most obvious example of what liberty isn't.

@Zarutaku Flawed argument ehi...

Let's see, you're a big fan of liberty, should people then have the liberty to murder those who disagree with them?


Btw

Depends on the genetic disoder

Incest is more dangerous than giving birth in your 40s, one has the chance of birth defects, one has the chance of birth defects + lowered immune system

@Zarutaku
Great, now that we got that out of the way


It does if they have an offspring, it has the potential to harm them physically, and it definitely harms them psychologically

@DigiCat
The immune system weakens in age and an older mother will have a weakened immune system. Babies get their immune system from the mother. Not only that it comes from breast milk and an older woman is less likely to be able to produce milk.

@DigiCat



That's a rather eugenistic and anti natalist view, it base itself around that any sort of negative the child is birthed with is a direct harm given to it by the parents. Such view is generally condemned in society, as society itself condemn ableism eugenics & antinatalism, ofc society choose to have a hypocritical stance on this issue.

Also before we continue with the conversation let me ask you this, do you share this view on any couple who has any substantial/comparable chance to birth a genetic deficiant baby or just on the case of incest babies?

@Cielord I'd say if a couple knows for sure they both carry genes that'd cause serious genetid deficiantcies, the responsible thing to do would be to monitor the pregnacy for it since we now have the technology to do so

Alternatively they could adopt, there's unfortunately no shortage of kids who need a loving home

Every pregnancy has the potential of deficient offspring, if some authority draws an arbitrary line above which they claim it to be "too risky", then why should everyone agree with it instead of giving it a chance? Besides, giving life to children can never infringe on their rights, else they wouldn't even be alive, saying otherwise would be antinatalism.

Edit: nvm the 2nd part, just saw @Cielord already mentioned it.

@Zarutaku True, but incest has a higher chance of it


Now that's an interesting claim coming from someone who said this

@DigiCat I don't see any contradiction, allowing optional abortion doesn't imply being an antinatalist. If a woman wants to abort during early pregnancy to avoid giving birth to a deficient child, she should have the option, but should never be forced to do so. If she wants to give birth anyway, then that's her decision and she should be aware of the consequences. The most difficult question concerning this matter is, when should a fetus gain its basic rights of not getting killed by abortion? From pragmatic point of view I would say it should depend on how early most deficiencies can be detected including an appropriate period to make a decision.

@Zarutaku
That is not the contradiction and wasn't my point

In one breath you say "abortion is an option"

But in another you say "giving life to children can never infringe on their rights, else they wouldn't even be alive"

By that last statement it seems you're saying every child has the right to live, so therefore, by your own logic, isn't abortion infringing on their right to live?

@DigiCat I already tried to explain in the 2nd half of the reply:

@Zarutaku And based on your previous response i don't know how you're finding that question difficult

@DigiCat It's difficult because there's a wide range of very different opinions.

@Zarutaku I'm not asking for a wide range of different opinions, i'm asking for yours

@DigiCat Ideally once the fetus gains consciousness it should gain its rights, but I don't know when that happens.

@Zarutaku Once the fetus gains conciosness... and how exactly would you describe conciousness?

@traed I theory true

But the human immune system generally only significantly drops around 50+, reason why 50ish is the avarage age for menopause, nature knows what it's doing

And yes, breast milk does help greatly with the baby's immune system, but it's not the only factor

Also by your logic, would you stop women and men who have a lower immune system than avarage to procreate? (considering that the immune system is influenced by a mix of internal and external factors)

@DigiCat
But the original argument that was presented by uh who was it again, would still apply that it isnt seen as immoral for like a 40 50 year old to have a kid. Though other factors come into play once you go into like 60 or 70+ like how long before they might die.

Wouldn't that question apply to you more since you were who brought up immune system as an argument against even second cousins having kids to begin with? and what about say for example people with dwarfism, they have a genetic disorder and it doesnt just make them small they can have hip problems too. And what about mental illnesses, they also have genetic factors. Any argument against someone related can be used on people not related (well actually everyone is related just different degrees)

@DreamWindow Yes it's of course mroe aggressive, but don't really see how it differs, you're still harming someone

If murder is to extream of an example, substitute it with anything else that for various reasons wouldn't be considered morally correct, say psychological abuse, that's not a physical act of aggression, but you're nontheless harmin someone, should people have the liberty to do that? (i know it's not something that generally leads to legal trouble, but in the sense should that person get away with their behavious without consequence, should the person being abuse let the abuse go on because of the abusers liberty?)

@DigiCat

Sure, but not all harm is equal. A slap on the face does not hurt as much as being stabbed with a knife, even if both are technically harmful.

It would depend on what constitutes psychological abuse. Are you insinuating that it's inherently an act of psychological abuse to bring a child into the world, if they have some kind of inherited disability? You are correct, in that, incestual offspring have a higher chance at inheriting disabilities, which is a genuine concern, and one of the many reasons why incestual relationships are not advisable. But I'm not sure I see the comparison to how that makes it abusive, per se.