Anti-Abortion Logic
#46
Dirty Redhead
Thread Starter
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Commuting? I don't know what that means anymore.
Posts: 7,204
Car Info: 05 WRX Wagon (Crystal Gray)
Originally Posted by subaruguru
For the record, I'm for civil unions. I think it's silly that we're arguing over a word. Most people, even anti-gay-marriage types, will support legal rights for homosexuals that are identical as long as they're called "civil unions." Let the traditionalists have marriage, and give homosexuals civil unions at least for now. Fight over the words after you have the right secured, that's what I say.
Here's my question: For everyone who doesn't agree with people voting on moral questions, what about incest?
If a father waits for his daughter to turn 18, should he be allowed to marry her? Why or why not?
There's no scientific or physical health justificaiton for not allowing it. The "inbreeding" idea is mostly junk science. It would take generations upon generations of inbreeding to potentially create a problem.
So, why shouldn't dads be allowed to marry their daughters at 18?
Here's my question: For everyone who doesn't agree with people voting on moral questions, what about incest?
If a father waits for his daughter to turn 18, should he be allowed to marry her? Why or why not?
There's no scientific or physical health justificaiton for not allowing it. The "inbreeding" idea is mostly junk science. It would take generations upon generations of inbreeding to potentially create a problem.
So, why shouldn't dads be allowed to marry their daughters at 18?
#47
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
[QUOTE=subaruguru]There's no scientific or physical health justificaiton for not allowing it. The "inbreeding" idea is mostly junk science. It would take generations upon generations of inbreeding to potentially create a problem.[QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure I've read reputible journal articles that would argue with this. The inbreeding process starts messing up mice/rats in only 2-3 generations, and humans are actually not very much more complicated than mice genetically. There are also human communities that inbreed consistantly and show very obvious physical traits of it. All it takes is a recesive trait that is detrimental, and even in one generation the effects could be so huge that a child would die before birth.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/lin...600201.x/full/
I'm pretty sure I've read reputible journal articles that would argue with this. The inbreeding process starts messing up mice/rats in only 2-3 generations, and humans are actually not very much more complicated than mice genetically. There are also human communities that inbreed consistantly and show very obvious physical traits of it. All it takes is a recesive trait that is detrimental, and even in one generation the effects could be so huge that a child would die before birth.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/lin...600201.x/full/
Last edited by MVWRX; 11-11-2004 at 03:11 PM.
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 933
Car Info: Stock Legacy Turbo Wagon Silver
Originally Posted by MVWRX
Hahaha, to be honest, I don't really care either way about the argument at hand. My point was that to be intollerant of other peoples intollerance actually isn't hypocritical. If you tollerate other peoples intollerance, then you are in a small way condoning intollerance, which is an intollerant thing to do...on the other hand, your point that being intollerant of intollerance is, in fact, intollerant is also true. So basically, no matter what, everybody is intollerant, no matter how hard they try to be tollerant. But by not tollerating other people's intollerance, at least you are taking the moral high ground by saying that all intollerance is bad, so therefore I do not tollerate anybody's intollerance.
#49
[QUOTE=MVWRX][QUOTE=subaruguru]There's no scientific or physical health justificaiton for not allowing it. The "inbreeding" idea is mostly junk science. It would take generations upon generations of inbreeding to potentially create a problem.
I'm pretty sure I've read reputible journal articles that would argue with this. The inbreeding process starts messing up mice/rats in only 2-3 generations, and humans are actually not very much more complicated than mice genetically. There are also human communities that inbreed consistantly and show very obvious physical traits of it. All it takes is a recesive trait that is detrimental, and even in one generation the effects could be so huge that a child would die before birth.
I'm equally certain that no reputable journal article will argue with my point. Your own post has the key: a recessive trait that is detrimental. If there isn't a serious problem in the family gene pool, things will generally be fine. As it is, genetic defects transfer without incest, so I fail to see how that's an argument against it. Should we prohibit huntington's genes carriers from marrying too?
Edited to add:
Here's a post by a scientist that explains it. Inbreeding by itself does not cause any problems. It only increases the odds of offspring having more of the harmful recessive genes carried by one of the parents.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...7873.Cb.r.html
I'm pretty sure I've read reputible journal articles that would argue with this. The inbreeding process starts messing up mice/rats in only 2-3 generations, and humans are actually not very much more complicated than mice genetically. There are also human communities that inbreed consistantly and show very obvious physical traits of it. All it takes is a recesive trait that is detrimental, and even in one generation the effects could be so huge that a child would die before birth.
Edited to add:
Here's a post by a scientist that explains it. Inbreeding by itself does not cause any problems. It only increases the odds of offspring having more of the harmful recessive genes carried by one of the parents.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...7873.Cb.r.html
Last edited by subaruguru; 11-11-2004 at 03:10 PM.
#50
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by subaruguru
Here's a post by a scientist that explains it. Inbreeding by itself does not cause any problems. It only increases the odds of offspring having more of the harmful recessive genes carried by one of the parents.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...7873.Cb.r.html
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...7873.Cb.r.html
I agree. But check out the link I added to my post. They have problems with recesive genetic diseases in many communities that traditional endorse consanguinese breeding.
EDIT: I like my source better...(PubMed Search for legit jounal > madsci.org)
Last edited by MVWRX; 11-11-2004 at 03:17 PM.
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 933
Car Info: Stock Legacy Turbo Wagon Silver
Originally Posted by ericdared81
So even if your not gay, and you get married at a justice of the peace your still not "married" by your standards?
#52
Originally Posted by MVWRX
I agree. But check out the link I added to my post. They have problems with recesive genetic diseases in many communities that traditional endorse consanguinese breeding.
EDIT: I like my source better...(PubMed Search for legit jounal > madsci.org)
EDIT: I like my source better...(PubMed Search for legit jounal > madsci.org)
#53
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
First of all, there's no way you read that entire article in that amount of time. Second, it doesn't agree with you; there's no way to screen people for every recesive and detrimental genetic trait. Hell, there's genetic diseases that we don't even know how they work or how they're triggered yet. The reason inbreeding is not good is because of the uncertainty in predicting when something real bad could come up. That's a 'laymens' summary of the article I posted.
I agree with you on the legal issue though. If some idiot wants to take a chance and marry his daughter (once she's 18, of course), then I don't care. I think suicide should be legal too. And hard drugs. Because, and I'm sure you agree, the government should not control what we do to ourselves as long as we don't negatively impact the people around us.
I agree with you on the legal issue though. If some idiot wants to take a chance and marry his daughter (once she's 18, of course), then I don't care. I think suicide should be legal too. And hard drugs. Because, and I'm sure you agree, the government should not control what we do to ourselves as long as we don't negatively impact the people around us.
#54
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by subaruguru
Yeah, you might like your source even more if you could read it.
Arogant bastard. Where did you study molecular genetics? OH you DIDN'T. That's funny...
"This was evidenced by a survey conducted among medical geneticists and genetic counsellors in the USA, with estimated risk rates for birth defects and mental retardation in first cousin progeny ranging from 0.25 to 20%"
That's pretty obvious for you. Inbreeding causes problems even between cousins. By the way genes work, it's much worse between father/daughter.
Last edited by MVWRX; 11-11-2004 at 03:40 PM.
#55
Originally Posted by MVWRX
First of all, there's no way you read that entire article in that amount of time. Second, it doesn't agree with you; there's no way to screen people for every recesive and detrimental genetic trait. Hell, there's genetic diseases that we don't even know how they work or how they're triggered yet. The reason inbreeding is not good is because of the uncertainty in predicting when something real bad could come up. That's a 'laymens' summary of the article I posted.
I agree with you on the legal issue though. If some idiot wants to take a chance and marry his daughter (once she's 18, of course), then I don't care. I think suicide should be legal too. And hard drugs. Because, and I'm sure you agree, the government should not control what we do to ourselves as long as we don't negatively impact the people around us.
I agree with you on the legal issue though. If some idiot wants to take a chance and marry his daughter (once she's 18, of course), then I don't care. I think suicide should be legal too. And hard drugs. Because, and I'm sure you agree, the government should not control what we do to ourselves as long as we don't negatively impact the people around us.
Alright, so you're going back to "inbreeding is dangerous" without answering the point. What if a dad and daughter get a genetic screen? And, should huntington's carriers be allowed to marry? The evidence your posting does nothing for your point.
Now, you did answer the question: Fathers and daughters should be allowed to marry. Let's take it a step further: Do you think there's a constitutional right for fathers to marry their daughters? I'm hoping you'll say no. Why not?
What I don't agree with is your apparent assumption that nothing you do to yourself could hurt someone else. If you get addicted to drugs, and quit working, and start stealing to support your habit...that hurts other people. Just like some people's deeply held traditions are crushed by homosexual relationships in public. I'd like to see how you would draw the line between a permissible harm on someone else and an impermissible one.
I'd also like for you to read the pubmed article you posted.
#56
Originally Posted by MVWRX
Arogant bastard. Where did you study molecular genetics? OH you DIDN'T. That's funny...
"This was evidenced by a survey conducted among medical geneticists and genetic counsellors in the USA, with estimated risk rates for birth defects and mental retardation in first cousin progeny ranging from 0.25 to 20%"
That's pretty obvious for you. Inbreeding causes problems even between cousins. By the way genes work, it's much worse between father/daughter.
"This was evidenced by a survey conducted among medical geneticists and genetic counsellors in the USA, with estimated risk rates for birth defects and mental retardation in first cousin progeny ranging from 0.25 to 20%"
That's pretty obvious for you. Inbreeding causes problems even between cousins. By the way genes work, it's much worse between father/daughter.
I never claimed to study molecular genetics. What I claimed, and what's obvious from reading your article and mine, is that there is no conflict between the two.
Edit:
Although I don't like to get off the point, I would like to point out...if you're going to call someone Arrogant, you should probably learn how to spell Arrogant first.
Last edited by subaruguru; 11-11-2004 at 04:12 PM.
#57
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by subaruguru
Alright, so you're going back to "inbreeding is dangerous" without answering the point. What if a dad and daughter get a genetic screen? And, should huntington's carriers be allowed to marry?
Now, you did answer the question: Fathers and daughters should be allowed to marry. Let's take it a step further: Do you think there's a constitutional right for fathers to marry their daughters? I'm hoping you'll say no. Why not?
What I don't agree with is your apparent assumption that nothing you do to yourself could hurt someone else. If you get addicted to drugs, and quit working, and start stealing to support your habit...that hurts other people. Just like some people's deeply held traditions are crushed by homosexual relationships in public. I'd like to see how you would draw the line between a permissible harm on someone else and an impermissible one.
I'd also like for you to read the pubmed article you posted.
Now, you did answer the question: Fathers and daughters should be allowed to marry. Let's take it a step further: Do you think there's a constitutional right for fathers to marry their daughters? I'm hoping you'll say no. Why not?
What I don't agree with is your apparent assumption that nothing you do to yourself could hurt someone else. If you get addicted to drugs, and quit working, and start stealing to support your habit...that hurts other people. Just like some people's deeply held traditions are crushed by homosexual relationships in public. I'd like to see how you would draw the line between a permissible harm on someone else and an impermissible one.
I'd also like for you to read the pubmed article you posted.
Of course I don't think there is a constitutional right for fathers to marry their daughters. Unless you take a very liberal reading of the 'right to persue happyness,' but that's for the courts to decide, not the actuall constitution.
I see very clearly your point about the drugs and hurting people other than yourself. It's true, usually drug use does hurt people other than the user. But if drugs were legal, this impact would be lessened considerably. But comparing getting mugged for drug cash to being diswrought because you saw some lesbians making out is hardly a good comparison. Where would I draw the line? I'd have to go case by case in terms of what specific thing you had in mind. For the two examples we have going: drugs-legalize them to ensure quality and lower price (and taxes for the gov't), and designate places where they can and can't be done. So if you don't like it, go somewhere they're not allowed. Gays in public- if you don't want to see someone making out with their mate (regardless of if they're straight or gay) you should leave or look away. Otherwise your imposing your values on them, and that's exactly what America is not about.
Edit: thanks for being level headed and civil...for a second there I thought we we're gonna end up in another pointless argument, but somehow we saved it...
Last edited by MVWRX; 11-11-2004 at 04:12 PM.
#58
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by subaruguru
Although I don't like to get off the point, I would like to point out...if you're going to call someone Arrogant, you should probably learn how to spell Arrogant first.
#59
Originally Posted by MVWRX
If you read my post, I addressed the genetic screen. There are too many diseases that are too unpredictable to accuratly screen to the point that the threat of inherited diseases would be eliminated. The second question, about the carriers of disease, is a good question that is highly debated by many people that are a lot more qualified than both of us. My stance on that one is the same as my stance on inbreeding; if the people know they're getting into something that could end up bad, I don't care and it shouldn't be illegal, it's their choice to risk it.
Of course I don't think there is a constitutional right for fathers to marry their daughters. Unless you take a very liberal reading of the 'right to persue happyness,' but that's for the courts to decide, not the actuall constitution.
I see very clearly your point about the drugs and hurting people other than yourself. It's true, usually drug use does hurt people other than the user. But if drugs were legal, this impact would be lessened considerably. But comparing getting mugged for drug cash to being diswrought because you saw some lesbians making out is hardly a good comparison. Where would I draw the line? I'd have to go case by case in terms of what specific thing you had in mind. For the two examples we have going: drugs-legalize them to ensure quality and lower price (and taxes for the gov't), and designate places where they can and can't be done. So if you don't like it, go somewhere they're not allowed. Gays in public- if you don't want to see someone making out with their mate (regardless of if they're straight or gay) you should leave or look away. Otherwise your imposing your values on them, and that's exactly what America is not about.
Edit: thanks for being level headed and civil...for a second there I thought we we're gonna end up in another pointless argument, but somehow we saved it...
Of course I don't think there is a constitutional right for fathers to marry their daughters. Unless you take a very liberal reading of the 'right to persue happyness,' but that's for the courts to decide, not the actuall constitution.
I see very clearly your point about the drugs and hurting people other than yourself. It's true, usually drug use does hurt people other than the user. But if drugs were legal, this impact would be lessened considerably. But comparing getting mugged for drug cash to being diswrought because you saw some lesbians making out is hardly a good comparison. Where would I draw the line? I'd have to go case by case in terms of what specific thing you had in mind. For the two examples we have going: drugs-legalize them to ensure quality and lower price (and taxes for the gov't), and designate places where they can and can't be done. So if you don't like it, go somewhere they're not allowed. Gays in public- if you don't want to see someone making out with their mate (regardless of if they're straight or gay) you should leave or look away. Otherwise your imposing your values on them, and that's exactly what America is not about.
Edit: thanks for being level headed and civil...for a second there I thought we we're gonna end up in another pointless argument, but somehow we saved it...
Now with drugs, yes there's the policy issue...I brought the example up only to point out how something you do to yourself might impact someone else. As for gays in public, would you extend that to say a community has no right to define standards of decency? What can people prohibit from public, and what can't they?
I'm with you on the policy question of homosexual unions, obviously as I said that in my first post on this thread. But the fact that you and I agree with a certain policy doesn't make it illegal for a city or state to enact a law that goes against it.
#60
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Well...I suppose that a very conservative reading of the constitution would allow the banning of just about everything. Except alcohol, guns, speach, etc... So I suppose it is LEGAL to ban homosexuality. But by that logic, it's also LEGAL to ban all sexual relations even between straight couples.
Good point about the standards of decency. Clearly we have laws to uphold those. I guess I would just hope that everyone that has the ability to make these laws would look at gay PDAs the same way as straight PDAs. Same thing for 'civil unions'. Like you said, our opinions don't make it illegal to make them illegal. But if enough like-minded people did get into office...you see where I'm going with that...I just have a problem when people say that they are 'personally hurt' or 'offended' by seeing gay people. To those people: are you personally hurt when you see an argument that uses bad launguage? Or a fist fight? Or adultary? If so...man up, mind your own business, and don't be so easily hurt/offended. If not, how does homosexuality affect your morals any more than those examples?
Good point about the standards of decency. Clearly we have laws to uphold those. I guess I would just hope that everyone that has the ability to make these laws would look at gay PDAs the same way as straight PDAs. Same thing for 'civil unions'. Like you said, our opinions don't make it illegal to make them illegal. But if enough like-minded people did get into office...you see where I'm going with that...I just have a problem when people say that they are 'personally hurt' or 'offended' by seeing gay people. To those people: are you personally hurt when you see an argument that uses bad launguage? Or a fist fight? Or adultary? If so...man up, mind your own business, and don't be so easily hurt/offended. If not, how does homosexuality affect your morals any more than those examples?
Last edited by MVWRX; 11-11-2004 at 04:28 PM.