Welcome to Gaia! ::

There is a really interesting thread about an article about the abortion of unborn humans created through rape and/or incest in the main forum. I thought I would comment on it here (since I can't say anything there *grin* and it interests me).

The article brings up an interesting thesis (that Pro-Choicers seem to be Pro-Abortion in the case of rape and/or incest). That is, until one looks at why rape and incest clauses exist. Pro-Choicers aren't the ones who seek to pass laws that prohibits abortion in except in the cases of rape and/or incest (and the woman's live and/or health). These clauses are added in for the fence riders, those who are Pro-Life...But ("what about rape"). Most Pro-Lifers believe that rape and/or incest is no reason to abort an unborn human. Most Pro-Choicers believe that it should always be the choice of the woman.

So it is the fence riders, the Pro-Life...Except-When and the Pro-Choice...Only-If people who perpetuate the idea that an unborn human conceived through rape and/or incest is no longer valuable because of the crime involved in their creation (incest is a crime, right?).

Oops - I thought I had all of the options. I'll fix it.

Rape between family members is both rape and incest, but you are right that it would be covered under a rape clause. I don't think that family members should breed, but I don't really understand why an abortion clause should be made for those cases, like it says in one of the threads on the main page.

I asked my dad that once (a cop for Vuequa-Verina in NC), incestues rape is only documented as rape, the word incest is really never mentioned. Honostly though...it seems a little redundent to say "What? He incestuesly raped his sister!?" Am I mackign sence? o.0

I hate the fact that incest and rape are mushed together as though they're the same thing. Considering that I see nothing wrong with consentual incestuous relationships I find it kinda of... insulting doesn't feel like quite the right word because I'd never enter that kind of relationship, but you know what I mean.

That rant aside, also I'd like to point out that incest in itself isn't illegal. You could live with and have sex with your sibling/cousin whatever, if you really wanted and as long as you're both the age of majority there's nothing illegal about it. You're just not allowed to marry someone that you're too closely related to.

Also there's not huge dangers with incest in the first generation. The problems arise when it's done over and over. However people with genetic problems are not disallowed from having children, or looked down upon for having children and they're just as likely if not more likely to have children with genetic problems, than people who are having children with someone they're related to.

As for rape, I don't agree with abortion in the case of rape simply because the child has not caused the rape. The child did not choose to be created, and the child did nothing wrong. Therefore I disagree with punishing the child for something it didn't do, nor had no idea of.

Actually the chance that a first generation child born through an incestuous relationship, is going to have defects isn't as high as people make it out to be. The problems begin to arise when it's done over and over and there's no variety within the gene pool, therefore all the negative family traits become expounded on and don't have a chance to get overrun by positive traits from other families.

Like I said, the chance of the child having a defect is actually lower than if 2 people who had genetic defects decided to have a child.

It works this way. Let's suppose that a recessive gene for Hypertrichosis (or "werewolf syndrome" which causes excessive hair growth on some or all of the body - not a really harmful disease, but an interesting example) runs in your family. Suppose that both you and your sibling of the opposite gender carry this recessive gene.

If you and your opposite gendered sibling were to have a child together (eww), it would have a 1/4 chance of getting this gene (hypothetically, though this disease is probably caused by a lot of different genes and you would need to get a very specific set of traits passed down to get it) and being a wolf baby. It would also have a 1/4 chance of getting two dominant genes and not being a carrier of this trait. And that child would have a 2/4 chance of being a carrier.

If two people who had this disease had a child together (still assuming it is a 1-gene trait and recessive) they would have a 4/4 chance of having a wolf baby.

Inbreeding, in humans or animals, causes more potential for unwelcome recessive traits to turn up. But people who suffer from those traits can only pass on the genes for them, and their children do indeed have a lot more chance of suffering from such traits.

However, since rape is already a clause, the only reason for a separate incest on is in the case of consensual incest. The only real danger is a slight increase in the chance of passing on some birth defect (though, admittedly, less of a chance than two handicapped persons passing on a defect).

Rape, incestuous, or not, is damaging. Consensual incest (while totally gross in my opinion) is not really any more psychologically damaging than being attracted to one's family member(s).

I'm only talking about parent/child, sibling, or close cousin incest. Anything second cousin or beyond is a little odd (in my opinion) but doesn't really increase the chance of birth defects and isn't illegal (in most states - some have a Biblical Incest law, which even rules out in-laws and maybe godparents).

Actualy, biblical incest laws (which we actualy went over in our Human Living class, which is alot like home ec, during the time we discussed human reproduction) state that only immidiate family, such as mother, father, brother, or sister are not to be layed with. Othe relitives such as your aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, etc are okay.