Incest, does it deserve its taboo?

[Ledger_Damayn]

Hmm... my first post in the DH. Thought I'd like to start things off with a pretty much anonymously considered taboo in Western culture.

I have always felt that incest (for those who don't know, is a relationship, sexual or otherwise, between two related individuals) isn't ethically incorrect at all. Granted, I have never considered it as an option for myself (mostly out of sheer dislike or boredom towards my relatives), but there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the premise.

If you want to speak genetically, then yes, babies made from parents with close genetic matches tend to be less viable than babies with more genetic variability, as well as exposing themselves to a significant amount of recessive genetic disorders, etc. etc.

However, taking children out of the equation, and just analyzing the moral dilemma behind the actual relationship, is there really any?

I speak especially of first-cousin relationships, or even an Oedipus situation, in which a familial connection may not be known, or might not even be developed (i.e. crushing on someone, then finding out that they are related to you). I'm not so sure why we look so down upon an honest relationship EVEN IF there was not even known to be a connection beforehand.

Studies I have read (I'm pretty awful at finding things, if anyone could back me up by finding such studies, I'd be appreciative) report that a significant amount of people, when asked, have admitted that they lightly experimented with siblings, yet this isn't looked down upon whatsoever, and by society's eye, is simply deemed as harmless curiosity and experimentation. The only difference between this and a mature relationship between adults is that kids don't tend to know that it's wrong (knowing something isn't wrong doesn't make it any less wrong), and that there isn't any actual attraction occurring between them. Why is this more acceptable than adults making an informed decision to have a mutually loving relationship without children?

 

[Quicksand]

There is nothing inherently "morally" wrong with incest. It really must depend on the context and whatever social and cultural implications that are involved.

We must also look at the from a standpoint that it's pretty much a guarantee (IIRC) that any children would have fatal mutations and defects.

 

[Scar]

Wow. It seems pretty important to point out that at this point I see nothing inherently wrong with incestuous relations outside of the context of procreation. The reasons behind its status as taboo, then, could possibly be solely the effect on the product of such relations. However the taboo could also be viewed as a sort of social construct.

There are few things as permanent as an end to a sexual relationship. I mean, that's a pretty good way to cut a tie entirely. So it's pretty important to note that if first cousins got serious and then broke up for whatever reason, that could turn into a pretty big rift in an entire family.

Once you have people taking sides, these things tend not to blow over for a while.

 

[snex]

the taboo of incest is considered by most biologists to be genetic. every culture we have examined has it, no matter how far removed from other societies and for how long. most people simply have no attraction to siblings.

some do, however, and i see nothing morally wrong with it (but then im a nihilist, so you knew that ).

it is not the case that incest results in a high degree of defects. the odds of a defect are still quite small overall, but they are much larger than two unrelated people. in fact, while defects are more prevalent among children of siblings, by the same token, so are good traits.

if you work out the population genetics math, it turns out that the optimal solution is to mate with your cousins. this retains the good traits while still having enough variation to avoid the defects. some birds in fact are most attracted to their first cousins and will preferentially choose them as mates (dont ask me how they know who their first cousins are, biologists havent figured out yet!).

 

[Sandy]

Adam and Eve, being the first humans, were in fact perfect, I imagine?

My opinion of the results of inbreeding is that whilst it can produce severe disabilities, it is more likely to merely enhance given (genetic) traits. This would almost always be a bad thing, amplifying an unwanted trait.

That is to say if your family had big noses for example, and you yourself had a larger than average nose and you were to have a child with your cousin (who also has a big nose) then that child's nose would be quite large indeed, amplified by the similarity in the genes causing the big nose.

That is the simplest example I can think to give. On this basis, if Adam and Eve were in fact perfect, it would have taken many generations for the 'inbreeding' to be harmful. Family members procreating with their own is condoned nowadays because of the many imperfections in the human race, compared to back then.

 

[snex]

please only use FACTS in the debate hall, not your wacky religious myths. thanks.

 

[Scar]

please only use FACTS in the debate hall, not your wacky religious myths. thanks.

I agree, I don't even know how to respond when you're talking about Adam and Eve like they actually walked.

 

[snex]

we might as well discuss incest within the context of greek mythology. since aphrodite was related to all the other gods, and she had sex with them, incest must be a-ok!

 

[Sandy]

The reason incest is taboo is because mild genetic weaknesses passed on from your parents to you could match the same genetic weakness in your sister or brother, resulting in a child with a stronger version of the weakness. Your brother or sister has a much stronger chance of having that same genetic weakness as you because you have the same parents.

When your grandfather and grandmother created one of your parents, they probably had a mild genetic weakness from recessive genes matching up. The weakness doesn't really affect you because it's not strong. His sister, or your aunt, probably did not inherit the exact same genes, so she may have some weaknesses and strengths that your father might have.

In addition to that, your father marries your mother and your aunt marries your uncle, further diluting the gene pool. Strengths and weaknesses your aunt has blend with strengths and weaknesses your uncle has, and the same thing goes for your parents. Therefore, the genes with you and your parents are too likely to give a child with a strong weakness or disorder, and the same goes for a sister.

A cousin, however, probably has a diluted-enough gene pool to have enough genetic diversity between the two of you to birth a good child. The odds of still having a recessive weakness matching up between the two of you would probably be just a little more than with an unrelated person.

However, there's still a higher chance, so you should get genetically tested to see if, even after all this variety, you both still carry one of those weaknesses. In summary...

It's pretty much okay to interbreed with your first cousin and beyond.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

That is the simplest example I can think to give. On this basis, if Adam and Eve were in fact perfect, it would have taken many generations for the 'inbreeding' to be harmful. Family members procreating with their own is condoned nowadays because of the many imperfections in the human race, compared to back then.

I've read both this and your last post. And as politely as I can manage, I must say that you need to be sure what you're saying is even remotely accurate before you spout it off as fact.

No, I'm not talking about Adam and Eve (that's up to opinion). I'm speaking of genetics, and you're obvious holes in understanding. Genetics isn't blending. Big nose + big nose =/= big nose. There are too many factors for it to occur like that. The biggest probably with incest is the mixing of rarer recessive alleles that run in your family, that normally would be filtered out if you mated with someone unrelated to you. This is a generalization, of course.

You can't go off saying that weaknesses and whatnot will just get weaker and weaker. It's all genes. The reason that people born from mixed pairings seem to have a larger vitality is because there's more of a chance that recessive disorders will be overshadowed by dominant alleles. It's also the reason why children born from different races mixing together tend to be more viable. The less similar the genetics, the less chance that two recessive alleles for the same trait can meet.

Oh, and my last point. If Adam and Eve were perfect, with no genetic blemishes, then their offspring, regardless of generations, would also be completely perfect, oh, and they would have minimal, if any variation in phenotype. The only way new alleles could enter the gene pool would be through mutation, but in the 6000 years that the Bible places man's creation, that's HARDLY enough time for any significant evolution to have taken place.