Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ...
4
12
13
14
  1. #261
    Merely a Setback breadisfunny's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    flying the exodar...into the sun.
    Posts
    25,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanyali View Post
    I mean, you seem to think the inbreeding = bad problems, always!

    That's not the case. You can do so with it by not doing it correctly, which happens when people are breeding for money or just "lolz keep it in the family only" for themselves.

    Which, again, would be abuse in the later case, which has nothing to do with what would be consenting adults (ie, found each other in adulthood, without knowing of their relationship / learning afterwards), and would not repeat itself through generations to cause a problem.

    one generation won't get deformed children at a much higher rate than any other random couple. period.
    science has proven you wrong.
    r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
    i will never forgive you for this blizzard.

  2. #262
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobblo View Post
    Although, i am also against homosexual relationships as well.
    What's wrong with homosexual relationships? Do you find girl on girl porn repulsive too, or is it predominately the male avenue of homosexuality that you have an issue with?

  3. #263
    Deleted
    I feel like it's been done anyways I took a visit over to /r/incest and plenty of people are at it, I would have heavy penalty's for pregnancy's resulting and mandatory abortions to follow tho, I know that sounds harsh but its for the children as much as anything.

    My only concern is that by saying this is "ok" we would see a rise in children been abused, tho ofc that is also still going to happen regardless. But in principle I dont really care as long as children are not created by it or abused because of it.

  4. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by Isotopes View Post
    I feel like it's been done anyways I took a visit over to /r/incest and plenty of people are at it, I would have heavy penalty's for pregnancy's resulting and mandatory abortions to follow tho, I know that sounds harsh but its for the children as much as anything.

    My only concern is that by saying this is "ok" we would see a rise in children been abused, tho ofc that is also still going to happen regardless. But in principle I dont really care as long as children are not created by it or abused because of it.
    Then your comment should be directed at 'old' people [50+] having children, people with genetic disorders (such as Downs, Dwarfism, etc) from having children, etc. etc. etc. as well.

    If not, then you're a hypocrite and asking for double standards... since they all result with a higher chance of children with genetic disorders, not just through incest.

  5. #265
    Personally I believe sex should be between a married man and woman only. However, I don't really care what is legalized nowadays. It's only a matter of time before people are marrying their pets.
    A DWARF IS ONLY AS STRONG AS HER HAMMER.

  6. #266
    Ojou-sama Medusa Cascade's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kawasaki City
    Posts
    4,038
    It's illegal? Well I'm a criminal

  7. #267
    Quote Originally Posted by breadisfunny View Post
    science has proven you wrong.
    You're both wrong. And right. But wrong.

    There's certain genetic disorders where susceptibility is exponentially compounded with each incestuous generation.

    So if one or both of an incestuous couple has the gene causing the predisposition then you end up with a greatly increased chance of that genetic disorder expressing itself in the offpsring. (Like absurdly high, in the 25-50% range)

    However if neither parent has the gene, there's a 0% chance of that disorder expressing itself.

    So screened incestuous breeding could actually eliminate a lot of genetic disorders. However that would require ridiculous amounts of randomly testing people, and then how would somebody react. "Congratulations, you are a non carrier of the blah blah blah gene, and so is your mother, so you are now legally forced to conceive a child with her."

    So I mean you know.. Eugenics...never ethical, even if it's beneficial.

  8. #268
    Quote Originally Posted by Gheld View Post
    You're both wrong. And right. But wrong.

    There's certain genetic disorders where susceptibility is exponentially compounded with each incestuous generation.

    So if one or both of an incestuous couple has the gene causing the predisposition then you end up with a greatly increased chance of that genetic disorder expressing itself in the offpsring. (Like absurdly high, in the 25-50% range)

    However if neither parent has the gene, there's a 0% chance of that disorder expressing itself.

    So screened incestuous breeding could actually eliminate a lot of genetic disorders. However that would require ridiculous amounts of randomly testing people, and then how would somebody react. "Congratulations, you are a non carrier of the blah blah blah gene, and so is your mother, so you are now legally forced to conceive a child with her."

    So I mean you know.. Eugenics...never ethical, even if it's beneficial.
    The exact same thing could happen with a random couple as well, though. Which was my entire point with that paragraph.

    If it's not there, it won't express itself. It being there and no one knowing is as likely as it being there in any other couple (example; my aunt and uncle are both carriers for microcephaly [or something that expresses itself in that matter, i don't know what disease it is exactly]). Not related to each other. An incesteous couple would be more likely to have healthy children than they would.

  9. #269
    Legendary! Pony Soldier's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In my safe space
    Posts
    6,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Pwellzor View Post
    I think it is immoral (if the intention is a child) to endanger a kid's chances of survival and a happy life due to birth defects, but then I was reminded a list of people who can totally have sex.

    People with aids
    people with downs syndrome
    crack addicts
    Donald trump


    So whatever, fuck whoever you want. I'm gonna keep fucking my unrelated significant other and hopefully we'll have a happy kid.
    This is kind of the way I see it. I mean if it's perfectly ok for people with defects and diseases of their own (and Donald Trump) to be having sex why not a perfectly healthy (maybe not healthy in the head but in general) brother and sister? I mean don't get me wrong I think it's totally wrong and weird as shit to be doing this but hey it's not my life. First of all I think ANY law that restricts the way people live their life is wrong. You want to do cocaine, fine. Gay marriage? Sure, why not? You want to have sex with your sibling, have fun. One way or another people are going to do these things anyway so what is the point of the law? This is how people live their life and if their happy with this lifestyle who are we to say otherwise? It doesn't affect me so why should I care if a brother and sister want to fuck each other? If you ask me, again, I will say it's wrong but that's me.
    Last edited by Pony Soldier; 2016-03-01 at 10:54 PM.
    - "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black" - Jo Bodin, BLM supporter
    - "I got hairy legs that turn blonde in the sun. The kids used to come up and reach in the pool & rub my leg down so it was straight & watch the hair come back up again. So I learned about roaches, I learned about kids jumping on my lap, and I love kids jumping on my lap...” - Pedo Joe

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •