Is it wrong for the government to prohibit incest? This is the question that German authorities are asking themselves after a brother and sister have had four children together.
They’ve been prosecuted several times for breaching the incest law that Germany has on the books.
The history of the couple, as the article states, can be summarized: the man is 8 years older than his sister, and was taken from the home at the age of 3, before she was born. They never met until he was 23 when he was finally re-introduced to his birth mother and met his sister for the first time. It was not love at first sight - they did not become intimate until after their mother died, and they admit that their relationship happened in part because of the trauma of losing their mother.
Their first child was born when she was 17.
Here are the problems: first, this is a grown man who should have known better, allowing a teenage girl who is obviously in serious grief, make a huge mistake. Second, the article make mention that the girl is also “a bit slow mentally” according to the article. So you have someone with some cognitive limitations, in massive grief, not yet 18, getting sexually involved with her brother. Third, all four of their children have suffered from physical or mental handicaps resulting from their genetic heritage - it is not healthy for the offspring of such a relationship.
My opinion is this: it should still be illegal because:
- This case proves the point that incest, even consensual incest, is the result of severe problems that need to be treated by psychologists.
- This case shows many signs of a person taking advantage of, or failing to act in the best interests of another. Was it really consensual given all the variables? Is it healthy for either of them?
- There is the question of public health. As much as society seems to want to pretend there aren’t, the children’s health belie that idea. Sanctioning or destigmatizing incest will result in more unhealthy babies, more unhealthy children, and more unhealthy adults. In a day of socialized medicine, where everyone pays for other people’s unhealthy choices, these things need to be thought about. If medical care were private, then that would be one more reason, personally, not to get sexually involved with close relatives - you don’t want to get stuck with high medical bills for children resulting from it. But when it is public, then everyone pays for your bad decisions. (I know this could be applied to all kinds of unhealthy lifestyle choices - that perhaps is a subject for another post - the reality that in a universal health care state, the state has the right to intervene in its citizens’ lifestyle choices, because if you and I are paying the medical bills, we have the right to expect that the governing body will legislate to minimize health care costs. Interventionist, yes. Limiting to personal freedom, yes. That is the price you pay for taking from the government.)
At first glance, this seems to be a question of personal liberty. As long as the participants in the “lifestyle” are consenting, the public should have nothing to say about it. But in reality, in a socialist system, “lifestyle” choices become issues of public concern and legislation. You can’t have personal freedom in a system where you are beholden to the public teat for benefits mitigating the consequences of your “lifestyle choice”.
Cool Blue wrote:
Criminalizing it because it can lead to genetic defects in the children is a slippery slope.
It brings to mind the Canadian couple who were deaf and who used fertility technology to ensure that their child would also be deaf (the female embryos had a high chance of carrying the genetic defect).
Eugenics is going to be a BIG topic of debate over the next few decades.
Posted on 14-Mar-08 at 8:15 am | Permalink
Shane Edwards wrote:
It isn’t that it can. It is that it does.
4 out of 4 is not a situation where we can say maybe. 4 out of 4 is practically guaranteed.
How can you love someone so much that you would willingly and with intent, produce disabled progeny? How is giving broken progeny to your love a good thing ever?
It is one thing for a couple who are normal and healthy to produce a disabled child. You still love that child, but you also know that it is just an extraordinary circumstance. It is completely different to produce them on purpose.
I am not advocating sterilization or that kind of nonsense. I am just saying it is one factor that should remain in the picture to maintain a cultural and legislative stigma against incest.
Posted on 14-Mar-08 at 8:24 am | Permalink
Attila wrote:
Does anyone remember when opponents of affirming gay marriage complained that it would start us down a slippery slope?
It’s interesting how the arguments for decriminalizing incest sound sort of familiar.
Posted on 14-Mar-08 at 9:09 am | Permalink
Foster Karcha wrote:
The libertarian mantra is that two consenting adults should be prevented, or punished, by government as long as no one is harmed. While we can argue whether a 17 year old can make adult decisions, we can all agree that a combination of immaturity, mental handicap, and traumatic events seem to suggest this case did not involve two consenting adults.
In the event that there is actually two consensting adults, then you must ask: how do you define harm?. Is increased change of genetic defeact harm? Slippery slope indeed.
Posted on 14-Mar-08 at 9:24 am | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
Just show them how to use a condom or give them free birth control. Problem solved.
Why make this discussion so complicated?
—
There is a reason why this discussion is so complicated: outlawing incest is ridiculous.
Even if the goal is to prevent mentally retarded children from being born, it is a ridiculous thing to outlaw. You may as well outlaw bad parenting or promiscuity.
What are you going to do?? Put them in jail??? Take the children away?? Confiscate their property??
“In the event that there is actually two consensting adults, then you must ask: how do you define harm?”
No, you must not ask that question. The concept of harm does not apply.
Rather, you restrict the discussion solely to whether the actions were consensual as you did by questioning maturity and mental capacity.
Nevertheless, consent is consent. Just because a person is unintelligent or misinformed and makes what-we-would-define-as bad choices, we still can not dismiss their consent particularly for things that are subjective.
“It is completely different to produce them on purpose.”
You can never really know the intent of a person.
Posted on 14-Mar-08 at 11:00 am | Permalink
Lori wrote:
If the brother and sister truly love each other, and provide support for each other in a way that no one else could, it does seem cruel to separate them.
The people who will suffer most from this are the children.
Let them stay together if he has a vasectomy or she has her tubes tied.
End of story. It seems so obvious.
Posted on 14-Mar-08 at 12:20 pm | Permalink
Billards Champ wrote:
At the end of the day there really is no case against the parents.
If you based your argument against incest on the premise that the children might have genetic defects, then you might as well extend that to ANYONE with genetic defects i.e. sufferers of Parkinsons disease, MS, AIDS, etc. which I am sure you won’t hear many people talking about. Eugenics is a sensitive topic.
I agree it SHOULDN’T happen, but lets all pull our heads out of the sand and be realist for a change ;).
Posted on 26-Apr-08 at 8:50 am | Permalink