Is incest always condemnable?

Langis said:
I'm torn on the subject. A piece of me ties a certain "eww" factor to it. And it is something I'd never engage in myself.

But... if two related people (siblings, cousins, whatever) engage in a romantic relationship and it makes them happy, I don't think anybody has the right to judge.
Click to expand...

This does sound like something that many people say about homosexuality.
 
ConspiRaider said:
Are YOU serious?

If a woman wants to have a kid and consciously doesn't want to have a man help her raise it: She needs to get over the entire idea, immediately if not sooner. That mindset makes her unfit as a mother.

Pure selfishness and arrogance - that's what it is. A woman deliberately deciding that a child will NEVER know its birth father. I'd like to be there listening to her try to explain to the kid, especially if he's a boy, why she has no use for men and thought so little of them that they rate no more than a shopping item in a catalog to her. Monstrous. Not human. That is a monstrous attitude, and nothing less. And what else is monstrous? Men jacking off into a jar, getting cash, and that constitutes their association with fatherhood. Absolutely positively monstrous. Yet modern society allows both woman and man to behave in this manner.

As I indicate, in this "You Can Have It All" consumer-driven world we've devised, everything is for sale. "But it's the woman's right to have a kiddie however she wants it!!!" That is what has been marketed to you. What has NOT been marketed to you is the rights of the kiddie. The deliberate elimination of a father in the upbringing of the child. We know that elimination of the father, or the mother, or both, occurs through varied happenstance. War, divorce, abandonment, kidnapping and so forth. But this is different. This is a conscious, thought-out decision to create a child and then deny that child the aspect of "father" as we know it, in the traditional social definition. As we evolved, biologically and socially, to define the parameters of fatherhood.

Because a good father is every bit as critical and important and vital as a good mother in the upbringing of a child. Whether that child is a girl or boy. Your attitude, however, reflects the success by which marketing has been able to minimize a man right down to a 15-second squirt.

And as I mention, it weakens the gene pool. With this new reality, you could end up marrying your half-brother and I could end up marrying my half-sister and we wouldn't even know it. Nature designed a whole set of parameters to try and prevent that from happening. And we shortcut all of those results, honed over hundreds of millions of years, by getting an egg, getting some sperm, mixing 'em in a Petri dish and then implanting it in the woman's womb. Gosh, I'm so proud of us. Aren't we smart? Geez we're just so tremendously clever and smart. Screw Nature. We can do what we want.
Click to expand...

Wow, anyone wonder what he would think about single people adopting?
 
ConspiRaider said:
Pure selfishness and arrogance - that's what it is. A woman deliberately deciding that a child will NEVER know its birth father. I'd like to be there listening to her try to explain to the kid, especially if he's a boy, why she has no use for men and thought so little of them that they rate no more than a shopping item in a catalog to her. Monstrous. Not human. That is a monstrous attitude, and nothing less. And what else is monstrous? Men jacking off into a jar, getting cash, and that constitutes their association with fatherhood. Absolutely positively monstrous. Yet modern society allows both woman and man to behave in this manner.
Click to expand...

Yup. It's getting sad. I'm waiting to see the womb in bag. Just jerk off in this bag, add the vito-mix twice a day, keep it on the heat pad (provided at no extra charge), and in nine months you can be a daddy without having to deal with a woman who wants visitation or child support. Then mothers will cry, "a MAN can't do that, how can a child be raised with no mother?!", and they would be right too.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Why?
Click to expand...

IMO, children that need to be adopted, have NO parents, so ANY loving parent who will focus on the child is better than foster care. Making babies from a sperm bank is not only more for "self" interests, it is counterproductive to the entire adoption system. Why adopt when you can make one in a lab.
 
Tailgater said:
IMO, children that need to be adopted, have NO parents, so ANY loving parent who will focus on the child is better than foster care. Making babies from a sperm bank is not only more for "self" interests, it is counterproductive to the entire adoption system. Why adopt when you can make one in a lab.
Click to expand...

But why let single parrents adopt and not proper heterosexual marriages only?
 
ponderingturtle said:
But why let single parrents adopt and not proper heterosexual marriages only?
Click to expand...

That gets right to it. There are more kids than people who want to adopt. Once a baby becomes a toddler, the chances of a child being adopted start dropping off. More and more people are looking right past adoption and looking what science can do for them. They want a baby that is theirs, no matter if the other parent is unknown or they have an unknown egg and sperm implanted, just so they can give birth. Science is getting so advanced, there are less people overall who will be adopting and only the people genuinely concerned with giving a child a better life will be the ones adopting. Self concern vs. child concern. I personally don't care what the people are as long as they are good parents. IMO, One good parent>Orphanage. Conspi might have a different view, as I don't want my answer to be considered his answer, but this is how I feel about it. I've been having the marital discussion of getting fixed recently:eek: , and my wife has agreed with me, that if we should change our minds later, we will adopt.
 
Last edited:
Tailgater said:
That gets right to it. There are more kids than people who want to adopt. Once a baby becomes a toddler, the chances of a child being adopted start dropping off. More and more people are looking right past adoption and looking what science can do for them. They want a baby that is theirs, no matter if the other parent is unknown or they have an unknown egg and sperm implanted, just so they can give birth. Science is getting so advanced, there are less people overall who will be adopting and only the people genuinely concerned with giving a child a better life will be the ones adopting. Self concern vs. child concern. I personally don't care what the people are as long as they are good parents. IMO, One good parent>Orphanage. Conspi might have a different view, as I don't want my answer to be considered his answer, this is how I feel about it. I've been having the marital discussion of getting fixed recently:eek: , and my wife has agreed with me, that if we should change our minds later, we will adopt.
Click to expand...

You decry so many things, then what about those giving the children up for adoption then? Are not they horrible people for prevetning them from knowing their biological parents?
 
What's the situation in other countries regarding donor anonymity? In the UK the law has recently been changed so that the child will be able to trace their biological father.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Wow, anyone wonder what he would think about single people adopting?
Click to expand...
Different ballgame. Entirely. Adopting hasn't a thing to do with a woman having a child from a complete stranger man's sperm that he jacked into a jar for fifty bucks. Totally different scenario, is adopting. Nothing to do with this.
 
Invidious said:
Or perhaps a lesbian/gay couple adopting? Or a lesbian couple using donated sperm to have children?
Click to expand...
Lesbian couple using donated sperm to have children? No. Again - that is a conscious decision to eliminate the father from the upbringing of the child. WITHOUT the child's consent. It is simply thrust upon that girl/boy. "You get no father, kid. Too bad. I decided for you. I don't like men, so you won't be getting influenced by them. Deal with it.".

Adopting? Completely different scenario, I am tremendously open to adoption options. Including lesbian/gay. But in my view - a lesbian couple adopting must be - educated? Strongly encouraged? - I don't know exactly how that would be done, but must be made very very aware as to just how important positive male influences upon that child are to his or her socialization. Exactly the same for a gay male couple adopting. Must be made very aware of just how important positive female influences are for the development of the child.
 
ponderingturtle said:
You decry so many things, then what about those giving the children up for adoption then? Are not they horrible people for prevetning them from knowing their biological parents?
Click to expand...

I never said anyone was horrible, only what the order of best cases for the child is. Having a child that has to be put up for adoption is usually an unfortunate accident (usually). Many adoptions give the child the option of knowing the mother when they reach a certain age. My friend in college was was given the option to receive a letter written to him by his mother when he turned 18. They occasionally wrote back and forth after that, but he still considered his adoptive parents his "real parents". Unless you are saying they can know their true parents from birth? I think that would be a bad recipe. Keeping the childs mind focused on education and the lessons of the caregivers is better than being preoccupied on who the bio parents are and why they gave them up.
 
Last edited:
Langis,may I ask you,will not you be shocked if a father & daughter engage in a romantic physical relationship??But sometimes men do fall in love with women who are of the same age as their daughters,or even younger.We simply don't care & they also don't care.
 
Piscivore said:
An overwhelming preponderancy of our technological knowledge has been applied to circumventing Natural Selection; why should this one area concern you overmuch?
Click to expand...
Actually I'm concerned in a lot of areas as to the impact of our utilization of technology. Across the board. What we've done is establish this mindset that if we can think of it from a technological point of view, then we should do it. We tend to not see, or minimize, or ignore, the deeper ramifications. We forget that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. We didn't think we could affect this planet's weather by large-scale human activity. We can. We didn't think we could marry our half-brother or half-sister and not even know it. We can. We didn't think we could release a poisonous metal into the atmosphere, and then accumulate that same metal to dangerous levels in our bodies. We are doing that now.

All of it affects our survival in the long term. That's why I'm concerned. Our shortsightedness - despite how clever we think we are, how something may appear to have no deleterious effects - can do us in. I don't want there to come a day in the future when Shakespeare's works have absolutely no meaning - because there are no longer any surviving humans around to appreciate his genius. So, I'm doing this all for Bill. :)
 
Piscivore said:
An overwhelming preponderancy of our technological knowledge has been applied to circumventing Natural Selection; why should this one area concern you overmuch?
Click to expand...

We need to be more natural. First we need to get the maternal death rate back where nature intended, then we follow with the infant mortality rate, and we will be doing great to be natural again.

What can go wrong!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom