|
|
|
|
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 1:24:07 PM |
Trial Raises Questions About Germany's Incest Law Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Should sex between siblings be legal in Germany? Following a recent high-profile incest trial, legal experts have called for a review of Germany's incest law, saying that consensual sex between siblings should no longer be punishable.
For his incestuous relationship with his sister, a judge in the eastern German town of Leipzig sentenced Patrick S. to two and a half years in prison this week. The 28-year-old man grew up with foster parents and didn't meet his 21-year-old biological sister, Susan K. until 2000. The judge placed Susan under the supervision of social services for one year.
Since they met, the siblings have had four children. After the first child, Patrick received a suspended sentence. He began serving a 10-month prison sentence in connection with the second and third child shortly after fathering the fourth.
Punishing sex, not reproduction
While it was procreation that led to the trials, Patrick was actually sentenced for sleeping with his sister rather than fathering the children.
That's because Germany's incest law only punishes heterosexual intercourse between close relatives such as siblings or parents and their children. That means that infertile siblings would face prosecution while a sister who gets inseminated artificially with the sperm of her brother would not have to stand trial.
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Spanish siblings Maria Rosa and Daniel Moya were not prosecuted for parenting children Saying that the law is based on outdated moral concepts, legal experts have said that Germany should follow the example of many other countries, such as France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Portugal, Turkey, Japan, Argentina or Brazil, where incest is no longer punishable.
"The question is whether criminal law should be used to safeguard cultural, purely moral beliefs of society," Joachim Renzkikowski, an expert for sexual criminal law at Halle University, told Deutschlandradio. "I would say no."
Renzkikowski added that the incest law was the last of its kind as others, such as a law against adultery and another penalizing homosexual sex were taken off the books decades ago.
Parliamentary review
Others, who are in a position to push for change, said they would seriously consider a review of the law.
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Joachim Stünker "I think we should calmly check whether it's still appropriate," said Joachim Stünker, a former judge and the Social Democratic Party's legal affairs spokesperson in parliament, adding that he will suggest a review in the legislature's legal affairs committee.
But Jörg van Essen, Stünker's counterpart for the opposition Free Democratic Party, said he thought the law should remain in place.
"I believe that the state should hold off when two people love each other, but we have a responsibility towards the children," said Essen, a former prosecutor.
He added that the law should serve as a deterrent and help prevent children from being born with disabilities that result from genetic defects.
Ethics vs. genetics
The question of whether children from an incestuous relationship stand a higher chance of being disabled is a contentious issue among medical experts.
While some say that such a connection cannot be made, others cite studies showing that 50 percent of children parented by siblings or as a result of sex between parents and their children, are at risk.
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Experts differ on whether incest produces more disabled children "The fact that we deal with people who are disabled as a result of incest is proof enough," said Ulrike Dierkes, who runs a support organization for children born as a result of incestuous sex.
Dierkes, who was born after her father had sex with her sister but is not disabled, said she would actually back tightening the law to cover the unlikely case of artificial insemination.
"I'm not interested in morality," she said, adding that she didn't think consenting incestuous relationships should be punished as long as they don't result in children being born.
Dierkes said she was happy with the Leipzig court's decision to send Patrick to prison.
Patrick's lawyers on the other hand have said they will appeal to Germany's highest court to review the constitutionality of the law.
Holy crap! I just watched a clip of this on BBC and apparently they are actually thinking of legalizing incest because of this specific case! I got this information off of a website promoting Germany.
How long before this sort of stuff reaches Canada???!!! I can't believe it! Incest is WRONG. Anyways, I was just appalled and wanted other's reactions to it! | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 1:34:24 PM | I heard about this too, but I believe that Germany is the last country in Europe to be banning incest, meaning that its legal in every other country there. In the USA, the stereotype of inbreeding in the south probably has some basis in fact.
The worst thing is that these people keep having kids because the child aid agencies keeping taking away each of their previous kids. When you consider the fact that there is a 50% chance of massive deformities and birth defects, on top of just run of the mill defects and abnormalicies, these two are just breeding misery. I think of their 4 children, 2 of them have "severe to very severe" defects, while the other two have no apparent defects. Nice eh? | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 1:40:22 PM | Perhaps it is wrong in your eyes and in mine. But why should we put restrictions on the way other people want to live. I agree that the thought is horrendous but punishing someone for something that is consentual and presents no harm to themselves I believe is wrong. We (as in society) are always trying to dictate how others should live according how WE think a life should be lived. Wasn't to long ago that homosexuality was deemed against the law and was punishable and brought horrible bashing to those who just wanted to live they way they felt. But incest begins to enter the grey area on where do we draw the line? should we draw the line? why should we draw the line? who are we trying to protect?
Its just one of the things i get frustrated reading about when people try to impose their beliefs on other people. the world isnt black and white.. its f...ked up. and thats okay.
Although you may argue that it can be harmful to society.. thus punishable..hmmm..
how much of a free world do we actually live in? | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 1:41:37 PM | | well, lets start from the begining,.. in biblical days, very early right after adam and eve, there kids married each other, they had kids, and so on,.. their genes were excellent, as time went on, our genes got worse, just think how bad they r know, u marrie your cousin or sister, and have kids, they wont be normal. its common sense, law or no law. | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 1:51:52 PM |
How long before this sort of stuff reaches Canada???!!! I can't believe it! Incest is WRONG. Anyways, I was just appalled and wanted other's reactions to it!
Exactly what standards of measurement are you using to determine what is right and what is wrong? I think that people who believe in an invisible spirit man in the sky should be locked up in insane asylums. It's wrong to let them walk among people of mental health, for they can be a danger to society. But I can at least express why I feel this way, instead of just saying that they are wrong.
I agree with the people who say that punishing incest among consenting adults is merely forcing a code of conduct on someone.
If one uses the argument that incestuous relationships might endanger future offspring, or cause mental retardation, then with that mind set, people who have a genetic disposition, or who have already had several children affected with a mental or physical defect, should also be imprisoned if they continue to have more kids, because of the risk factors.
The argument that Incest among consenting adults is just disgusting and plain wrong is obviously false, because if that was truly the case, then people would not be doing it.
However, there can be an argument made, that if incest is allowed if no one is being harmed, then where exactly do we draw the line? Technically, no harm is being done when a nercrophiliac has sex with a dead person, unless we consider the psychological trauma this might cause to the relatives of the deceased. But what if the deceased does not have relatives?
People tend to quote laws and regulations as some kind of godly order, but fail to realize that laws change as time goes by (though usually more are put on the books, while hardly any are removed), and what is the LAW of the land in one place, is laughed at in other lands.
Personally speaking however, I would much rather have my neighbor playing hide the wee wee with his sister, then having him dig up corpses and drag them back into his apartment for a late night rendevous. | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 1:55:03 PM | feeltobefree...
But incest begins to enter the grey area on where do we draw the line? should we draw the line? why should we draw the line? who are we trying to protect?
I really appreciate the fact that you are so open minded! But I AM concerned about this particular part in your post as it fully explains my initial reaction to seeing this on TV. Our societies have become soooo politically correct that we have blurred the lines between right and wrong so much we have no idea which way is up and which is down. Your questions and my answers (only my opinions):
1. Where do we draw the line? It seems to me that I can remember not too long ago, when homosexuality (as you mentioned) was going through the ringer about being legalized, many opponents of it stated "if we allow this, what is next? Incest? Child marriages?" I can actually fully recall those statements being made. And yet we approved it, saying "that won't happen, our goverment would never allow it!". And yet now incest IS on the Canadian news as possibly being legalized in Germany. How long before this reaches Canada? And how long before other "minorities" (a.k.a. child molestors, etc) start fighting for THEIR rights???!!!
2. Should we draw the line? I think someone DOES NEED to draw the line. I think that people need to take a stand against what is right. Seriously...how far do we let this go? And by allowing more and more deviant sexual practices (in the eyes of the majority) do we not lose our credibility when opposing other acts?
3.Why should we draw the line? To start our world from going down the proverbial moral crap shoot, that's why. Moral and norms guide our society and governmental law institutions. Why do we put murderers in jail? Because they broke a moral code imposed by our society. It's the same idea here.
4.Who are we trying to protect? I would say we are trying to protect our society as a whole.
JMO
Thanks for all your opinions! Keep them coming! | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 1:58:29 PM | freedom............a lovely concept................the freedom of one individual should not be an attack on the rights of another....freedom does not mean that an individual can act without concern for the consequences for another...I believe that that is more appropriately referred to as TYRANNY...............................would ANY OF US choose to be parented by a brother and sister......................? How is that FREEDOM?:
I encountered that ignorance in my own home recently....the friend of a friend who rationalized their abusive and menacing behaviour with the excuse " I was DRUNK" ..your freedom ENDS where my nose begins.....me thinks | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 2:03:43 PM | | First of all I cannot believe that any government had so much say in what a person does behind closed doors. My understanding the reason why incest was outlawed or forbiden in the first place was for the simple fact of the off spring. If brother & sister has a child the chances of so many birth defects are increased so much that the child is at a disadvantage. Therefore if brother & sister are fixed or too old to have children than the reason to forbide them to ingage in sex does not hold. However, my personal view of incest is gross. How can anyone engage in sex with their own sibling or family member is beyond me. Impure thoughts about a cousin who you did not know maybe. But a sibling, no way! Ukk!! Also if I am not mistaken, you have to go to at least 3rd cousins before the off spring will not be affected. Believe a technician can determine this through a blood test. | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 2:16:58 PM |
But a sibling, no way! Ukk!! Also if I am not mistaken, you have to go to at least 3rd cousins before the off spring will not be affected. Believe a technician can determine this through a blood test.
So again, using your arugment about birth defects, I pose the question. Why do we not imprision those selfish mothers who have a disposition for having retarded children, or ones with other birth defects. After the second child is born handicapped shouldn't we say enough is enough, and perhaps force her to have abortions in the future or sterilize her?
If you think that is ridicolous, then why is your argument valid? | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 2:38:59 PM | ^^^
Just so you know, it's not always the MOTHER'S "fault" and often times, these things occur because of the mixing of the genes of BOTH people. Please don't blame mothers here. Thanks. | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 2:44:40 PM | Do you know.......I find it insane that anybody could actually defend this perverse act in their wildest dreams.
Its just sick .
Only saving grace is that these two didn't know each other as brother and sister all their life.Its wrong and I hope that society does not deem it to be a "freedom" It isn't.Its a sickness.
I heard that Holland has a party that is pushing for much worse than this.
I can't find any words to debate this issue in any manner at all. If we start saying this is a "freedom"...forget it go back to the jungle.
Me----- I would want to get lost on a desert island. | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 2:50:02 PM |
Just so you know, it's not always the MOTHER'S "fault" and often times, these things occur because of the mixing of the genes of BOTH people. Please don't blame mothers here. Thanks.
Ok, point taken. Then both parents should be imprissioned if they keep making kids who are born with disabilites.
But like I said, if this is absurd, then the argument for incest being that it might bring disabled off spring into the world, might need to be reconsidered.
I am not saying that there isn't a valid argument against incest, I just haven't read any here yet, aside from personal opinions, without even attempting to define the reasons behind them. | |
|
late™
| Joined: 1/9/2005 Msg: 13 | |
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 2:53:25 PM | And yet now incest IS on the Canadian news as possibly being legalized in Germany. How long before this reaches Canada? And how long before other "minorities" (a.k.a. child molestors, etc) start fighting for THEIR rights???!!!
Ahh, the slippery slope fallacy, like, ...since they eat dogs in some Asian countries, how long before they do this in Canada? and how long before they legalize cannibalism???!!! People! Soylent Green is made from political correctness!!!!
(Zzzzzzzzzzz...)
| |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 2:54:01 PM | Whoa! Incest laws were abolished to allow marriage among first cousins, not necessarily for nuclear family siblings.
http://www.slate.com/id/2064227/
Relative risk for birth defects rises to just above 6-7% for first cousins compared to non-related spouses. The risk for siblings is quite a bit higher. This couple didn't have one kid - they banged out *four* of them, increasing risk yet again. Had these parents stopped at one, the father wouldn't have been punished at all. He was warned off with a suspended sentence for the first child, yet he persisted in having three more children.
In a society with socialized medicine, genetic risk assessment maybe necessary to avoid multiple birth defect children in these primary sibling marriages. | |
|
| |
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 3:05:39 PM | I think Geneseo and Feeltobefree have really good points.
Why do we have laws that are based simply on one person's or one group's revulsion toward something else? Personally, I cannot eat raw oysters, and don't really like seeing them eaten because it makes me imagine what it felt like when I tried them, but when I go to a restaurant, I don't get mad at other people who enjoy them in front of me. Guess what. I look away. Everyone in this country is way too concerned with what other people are doing, and if you don't believe me, go to your grocery store and check out the magazine rack. It seems to me, in my humble opinion, that if everyone quit focusing on everyone else and worried more about getting their own lives in order, we'd all be just a little bit happier with each other and ourselves. Why do you really care if a brother and sister are shacking up, other than "Eww eww it makes me feel icky!" It's not my personal choice, but if others want to, I'm just glad they found something that makes them happy.
As for the increased risk of birth defects: the increased risk comes from the fact that many birth defects are caused by recessive genes. Close family members are more likely to share those recessive genes and are thus more likely to pass them on to offspring. However, statistically, there are many unrelated husbands and wives who both have particular recessive genes that cause birth defects, but, as Geneseo pointed out, we don't do anything about them. However, just because we don't now, doesn't mean we shouldn't. Because what I would call "irresponsible breeding" tends to place a financial burden on the state and thereby the tax payers, such acts become the business of others besides the parents. I'm willing to entertain arguments on both sides of the fence pertaining to laws against incestuous procreating, because I can see valid arguments on both sides, freedoms vs. financial liability of the state. Maybe there is a happy medium, such as no law against incestuous procreating, but no financial assistance if DNA tests show a child to be the result of "irresponsible breeding."
The only problem I may have with incestual relations is that between a parent and child, simply because of the issue of authority. For the same reason that it is frowned upon even for an adult college student of legal age to sleep with a professor (and there are many other instances that I'm sure you can think of that are frowned upon), I find it difficult to condone relations between a parent and child under 18. However, even I must contradict myself by stating that age is simply a number. Really, how did 18 become such an arbitrary number so as to determine so much about our lives? I don't mean to get off topic, but am I the only one who thinks that with TV, the internet, and more interactive educational opportunities, we are maturing much faster than we used to? I think that a typical 14 year old today has seen more, done more, and is thinking more about the future than a 14 year old 20 years ago. | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 3:28:00 PM | You're kidding, right? Inbreeding is not a good thing...you don't even allow it between dogs...and please, don't start the preaching about the rights of people and what they do in their own home...if someone was molesting a kid, do you think that person has a right because it's in his or her home?
Use your head...common sense...whatever you have...wake up. You people are starting to scare me. | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 3:40:40 PM |
if someone was molesting a kid, do you think that person has a right because it's in his or her home?
I think I already addressed this by saying that I did have a problem with it.
The only problem I may have with incestual relations is that between a parent and child, simply because of the issue of authority. For the same reason that it is frowned upon even for an adult college student of legal age to sleep with a professor (and there are many other instances that I'm sure you can think of that are frowned upon), I find it difficult to condone relations between a parent and child under 18. ... and to add to that, I might as well say aunt, uncle, etc. to include just about anyone who would be considerably older than the child.
but could you give me a reason why you have a problem with it besides the increased risk of birth defects (which I already addressed) or the "eww it makes me feel icky" reason? | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 3:52:58 PM | It appears that in the case cited above, there is a strong psycological effect known as GSA (Genetic Sexual Attraction) at work, which aside from any moral, medical, religious or legal considerations, does mitigate to some degree the behaviour of those consenting adults. If it is so that humans are predisposed to being attracted to siblings, and these siblings had as a result of family breakup not met until they were adults as I believe was the case, then surely they are both victims of nature, and not perpetrators of a crime against nature. If it was a crime against society, then it was a victimless crime as both were adults, and both had consented to the acts. It surely was not a crime against god because as many of you may know, the biblical account of the going forth of the human race is founded upon such Incestuous relations, so I think the evidence is clear that God is in ffavour of incest, though thankfully to my mind, most humans have moved away from this godly practice.
I had not seen GSA mentioned in any of the posts, so if anyone is interested you may wish to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction, for a brief introduction to the topic. I also found the following scholorly little book to be instructive on the topic "Incest and the Medieval Imagination" ELIZABETH ARCHIBALD CLARENDON PRESS • OXFORD. | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 3:57:11 PM |
but could you give me a reason why you have a problem with it besides the increased risk of birth defects (which I already addressed) or the "eww it makes me feel icky" reason?
Most of them can't. "Making me feel icky" is good enough for people who believe that their opinions are something more then what they are.
These people knew that everyone should have jesus in their hearts, so they killed and tortured millions of people with different beliefs, in order to show them the love of their god.
When someone didn't fit the mold of the good little puritans, they knew that those people were witches, so they burned them for their god.
Sheep in number do not need valid arguments for their beliefs, because they KNOW or FEEL that they are absolutely right, so if anyone makes them feel "icky" they herd together like mindless cattle, and stampede everything in their way, often times even each other.
But aside from such small nuances, they LOVE us all. Amen. | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 4:14:43 PM | OMG - I can't believe the ignorance I'm seeing. People - not a person, but several - are saying that incest is a harmless crime. Its not.
For anyone who has inkling of understanding of genetics and modern medicine, interbreeding between immediate family members has a 50-50 percent chance of producing horrible, not so-so, but horrible birth defects. The other 50 percent produces slight to mild defects to even a chance that there are no problems ( I know cause I've studied genetics thoroughly). Gambling with a child's life like this is NOT harmless.
Think about it - when the child asks - "why do I have no arms?" - a response being "Cause I wanted to bang my sister" seems to pale in comparison. | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 4:22:12 PM | Ahh, but Renfew, in Ye Old Biblical times, multiple wives were possible, and that reduced the genetic consequences of inbreeding among clans. Moreover, serious birth defects almost always resulted in infant mortality, which is not the case today with modern medical procedure intervention.
The point is, with genetic assessment and counseling, its possible to avoid the pitfalls.
But of course, the requisite of genetic assessment will be seen as 'an invasion of privacy' and social prejudice, until such time that all adults are required to undergo genetic assessment and counseling at the onset of adulthood / age of consent. | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 4:24:01 PM | | Well, i find the thought of incest between adults personally repulsive, but only based on the oft quoted "Ick Factor", not for any of the other reasons I've read here. If you are only arguing that it is wrong because a child may be born without arms etc, then presumably you would be ok with it if one of the parties was sterile and no children could issue from the relationship. Is that what you are saying. That you would see no problem with it as long as the woman was on the pill and the man used double condoms etc. | |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 4:34:09 PM | If the prospective parents were tested and counseled, and risk was found to be minimal for certain fatal or severely debilitating diseases, then ...yes, I wouldn't be morally opposed to marriage between siblings.
BUT, the problem lies in the simultaneous assessment of thousands of gene interactions and risk is also compounded by certain lifestyle choices.
At present, we don't have sufficient technology to assure the prospective parents that they won't put their children at genetic risk for severe disease.
On that basis, I suggest that prudence dictates that first cousin marriages be allowed, but parent offspring and sibling-sibling marriage not be permitted by legal decree due to inherent health risks in their progeny.
You do realize, don't you, that there are usually sound physical reasons behind old social ethics/conduct strictures? That would be the origin of the 'Ick Factor', moral repugnance.
| |
|
| Legalizing incest.... Posted: 3/7/2007 4:49:40 PM | Hey Free, you are right to feel that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is not any of my business. But mine and your rights end when it causes anyone else a problem. And if you think a sister and brother having children is NOT creating a problem for the children, I'm not sure what you would say a problem is. | |
|
|
|