It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Ethical Incest

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:21 PM

posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:29 PM
This is only an interesting debate if your sister is really pretty and you're trying to justify sleeping with her....
"it's cool sis, the kids will be fine, I checked it out on ATS"...

As a general 'rule of thumb' I don't think you should breed with family members, I don't care how pretty your sister is, call it unethical if you want... But whatever you call it, I wouldn't do it.

posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by Guenter

I'm finding that all very interesting. I'm going to look further into Village Idiot Syndrome when I next get the chance. I would agree with you with the natural side of things outside of our human ethics. Unfortunate that with our current artificial selection of pets we would ultimately doom their species. I believe the same could be said with how we engineer our livestock and poultry. Artifical selection and epigenetics keeping them fat, slow and stupid. Not exactly a negative thing from our human standpoint though. Should civilization fall we should be able to begin agriculture quite rapidly because of this. If they don't die out before we can get to them.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I'm unsure, I haven't seen that show. A designer baby is when the genes in an embryo are altered before birth. Scientifically, this is feasible. We have future plans to use this to cure babies of diseases before they are even born. We have problems with ethics at the moment because of that too. Just because we can cure them, should we be allowed to make other alterations? For example, Is it OK to choose and determine their eye color? To what extent should we make changes.
The question I have presented to you is not directly related to the ethics of designer babies. It is instead directed toward the ethics of the potential byproducts.

reply to post by FancyName and post by deadcalm


Thanks for taking the time to actually read my post and carefully consider your answer which as by judging by your statement- you have clearly done.
Please allow me to further literate as I have clearly not already done so (as you would know, being that you have actually read what was posted)- It's a hypothetical. We were on the topic of designer babies should you require additional information. To hypothetically have entire sequences switched on/off for one child and while the other child has a different genetic mix- the shared genes are switched vice versa.
edit on 4-4-2014 by Gear because: Heinous Grammar.

posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by JohnFisher

Very astute of you.

My justification to have morality exempt from this discussion was to avoid the one liners 'No, it's immoral' without any reasoning behind it, allowing an intellectual and scientific discussion. It was pointed out to me earlier though that this is a social ingrain and cannot be left out of the equation due to the very nature of the topic.

posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:03 PM
Of course if its done au natural, its legally incest. I think most people understand the concept of incestuous relationships.

Now, here is the tricky part. Should genetic manipulation to enhance offspring be done in the future,it done test tube style, would it be incest to include a combination of genes from various siblings. For example, there may be natural traits that are very desirable and even somewhat unique running in certain families.

Would it be different than, say, your brother donating a kidney because its a match?

To me, if this was in good hands, and used in positive ways (which unless we start to win on the corruption and system, its not going to be) then using DNA, in this manner is NOT incest.

And this is a common sense answer.

posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by Gear

I have to admit that I wasn't sure exactly what you were asking until I read your response to AfterInfinity. I'd say the answer is no. In the situation you're talking about the conditions leading to the negative effects which were the reason there is a taboo against close relations mating in the first place would not be present therefore, not incest.

posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by Gear

Is it incest.
Holy cow dude who would have sex with there sister or brother and not think its incest.
I feel sick just thinking about some people I know doing this and what there kids will come out to be like.


posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:50 PM
The test tube baby would not be "ethical incest" per say..since no interaction occurred between the parties... but the effect of incest would be in the body... like biological defects.

Also, a brother and sister will have more than small genetic makeup. They will have a lot in common.

Tho Cousins are distant, they still share a very big percentage of the genes.
edit on 4/4/2014 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 02:07 PM
Incest is culturally determined. Yes, it CAN lead to genetic issues, but it doesn't HAVE to, especially if practiced once in awhile. Hemophilia in European royalty is a good example of what can happen with prolonged interbreeding, though here it wasn't technically incest. But it is incorrect to say that the prohibition against incest is universal. Some cultures have had a more practical approach to the issue. The South Sea island cultures are one example. I have two second-hand stories that relate, told to me directly by a professor of anthropology who did his field work on one of the islands and observed these two accounts first-hand.

If you're interested, I'll tell the stories. I'm on a short leash today and must leave the house in a few minutes. My overall point is that incest is a cultural issue which may have roots in genetic issues and observation, but is applied in various ways (sometimes prohibiting 1st cousin marriages, sometimes not) and is not universal.

posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:45 PM
I think it would be unethical to inflict that sort of life on a baby, the social stigma of it's background would mean that the baby would be ostracised (sp), from society and have constant misery.

I can't remember where I read it but apparently family members exude pheremones that repel other family members. There is probably a very good reason for this.

I think it would be unethical.

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 05:24 AM
If I understand correctly you are saying, perhaps the only reason incest is frowned upon is because the potential adverse side affects of the genetic process? You are saying if that could be avoided via technology, what could possibly be seen as 'bad/negative/unethical' about incestral breeding. I say I would agree. But I also think maybe there are 'genetic' advantages maybe of the family tree spreading out, and trying to latch on and accumulate the best of all worlds, 2 siblings who find 2 separate partners, who have 2 children who are siblings who find 2 separate partners etc., instead of 2 siblings who have 2 children, who have 2 children, who have 2 children. Maybe there could be a desired purity of the blood line. Maybe they will be able to make synthetic genetic code someday so asexuality will be possible, where one can formulate the half of DNA code to their liking, with knowledge of the reaction. But back to incest, maybe the only negetive thing I can think of, is not even reaction from society as much, as the maybe 'awkwardness' of living at home, and being a parent growing up, with your two children making out and in love with each other, or...idk, maybe after generations if that was normal and accepted, it would be cool.

new topics

<< 1   >>

log in