• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why incest

roguenuke

roguenuke

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
66,807
Reaction score
30,059
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
So I've argued both sides of the abortion debate on this site, since when I started I was prolife. I am currently prochoice when it comes to legality, giving that choice to others, even though personally I'm still prolife and would not have an abortion except in circumstances related to my life/health being in significant danger (I have two sons who need me).

So having shared that, my question is, why, if there is an exception made to abortion laws, is incest always included with rape?

Logically either incest is consensual between adults or it is rape/child rape, or at the very least statutory rape, which would already be covered. So if it is consensual incest (since rape is already covered as an exception), then what reason is there for including incest as an exception?

I'm for allowing women to make the decision for themselves to carry a child, but the only thing that I can see that sets apart pregnancy from consensual incest and other pregnancies is the increased risk for birth defects. However, the thing is, most who would give this exception also would not include exceptions for when birth defects are found in utero for other pregnancies. They also would not give exceptions for those who have about a similar risk of birth defects given other factors, such as age, health of mother, or even occupation.

It actually makes more sense to make an exception for those under 18 or those over a certain age than broadly "incest".
 
Due to insulated family power dynamics, incest is always rape.
 
roguenuke said:
So I've argued both sides of the abortion debate on this site, since when I started I was prolife. I am currently prochoice when it comes to legality, giving that choice to others, even though personally I'm still prolife and would not have an abortion except in circumstances related to my life/health being in significant danger (I have two sons who need me).

So having shared that, my question is, why, if there is an exception made to abortion laws, is incest always included with rape?

Logically either incest is consensual between adults or it is rape/child rape, or at the very least statutory rape, which would already be covered. So if it is consensual incest (since rape is already covered as an exception), then what reason is there for including incest as an exception?

I'm for allowing women to make the decision for themselves to carry a child, but the only thing that I can see that sets apart pregnancy from consensual incest and other pregnancies is the increased risk for birth defects. However, the thing is, most who would give this exception also would not include exceptions for when birth defects are found in utero for other pregnancies. They also would not give exceptions for those who have about a similar risk of birth defects given other factors, such as age, health of mother, or even occupation.

It actually makes more sense to make an exception for those under 18 or those over a certain age than broadly "incest".
Click to expand...

Setting aside any moral/social arguments, my understanding is consanguinity leads to much greater instances of inbreeding depression and birth defects.
 
How does incest or rape change the value of a developing human fetus? Many of us may have been conceived during rape or incest, why would that decrease any of our individual humanity?

Abortion as about someone else apply an arbitrary definition of human worth to someone else. It is no different than genocide.
 
roguenuke said:
So I've argued both sides of the abortion debate on this site, since when I started I was prolife. I am currently prochoice when it comes to legality, giving that choice to others, even though personally I'm still prolife and would not have an abortion except in circumstances related to my life/health being in significant danger (I have two sons who need me).

So having shared that, my question is, why, if there is an exception made to abortion laws, is incest always included with rape?

Logically either incest is consensual between adults or it is rape/child rape, or at the very least statutory rape, which would already be covered. So if it is consensual incest (since rape is already covered as an exception), then what reason is there for including incest as an exception?

I'm for allowing women to make the decision for themselves to carry a child, but the only thing that I can see that sets apart pregnancy from consensual incest and other pregnancies is the increased risk for birth defects. However, the thing is, most who would give this exception also would not include exceptions for when birth defects are found in utero for other pregnancies. They also would not give exceptions for those who have about a similar risk of birth defects given other factors, such as age, health of mother, or even occupation.

It actually makes more sense to make an exception for those under 18 or those over a certain age than broadly "incest".
Click to expand...

Incest is generally illegal whether consensual or not.
 
Bum said:
Setting aside any moral/social arguments, my understanding is consanguinity leads to much greater instances of inbreeding depression and birth defects.
Click to expand...

Depends on the level. And as I've said, there is no exception being made for known genetic birth defects.
 
Drawdown said:
Incest is generally illegal whether consensual or not.
Click to expand...

Nope. Depends on the state and level of incest. Rhode Island for example has no laws against incest. And there are lots of states that allow all but immediate, blood siblings, parent/child relationships.

So what level of incest are the exceptions made for? What happens if laws against incest change?
 
Court Jester said:
How does incest or rape change the value of a developing human fetus? Many of us may have been conceived during rape or incest, why would that decrease any of our individual humanity?

Abortion as about someone else apply an arbitrary definition of human worth to someone else. It is no different than genocide.
Click to expand...

Human worth is always arbitrary. It is based on many factors, not just an entity's humanness. Worth is subjective for everything, as it is relative to time, place, circumstances and many other factors.

How much is the life a person convicted of death penalty or LWOP worth? What about those in war zones, whether combatants or just innocent bystanders?
 
ecofarm said:
Due to insulated family power dynamics, incest is always rape.
Click to expand...

I only partially agree, and not everyone does. And the law only agrees to a very small degree. Most cases of incest that are consensual are not viewed legally as rape, both people are charged if laws are against the incest.

However, there are definitely cases where someone was raised apart from their siblings or even mother/father, and met those people later in life, as adults, and fell in love before they even knew they were related, especially that closely. There would be no power dynamics there, especially for siblings. Which only leaves chance of birth defects.
 
Last edited:
It seems pretty clear to me. If someone believes that the unborn has equal rights to born people, and/or believes the unborn is of the same value as born people, they could no more accept abortion in cases of incest (or rape) than for other reasons.

You cant kill a toddler that is the result of incest or rape.

This is why I'm sure that for many, if not most, pro-life supporters, their real agenda is punishing women for behavior they disapprove of rather than concern for the life of the unborn.
 
I'm leaning towards "free IUDs" where the government will pay for you to get an IUD.
 
I would think that if a girl really cared for her brother she would carry his baby to full term.
 
roguenuke said:
I only partially agree, and not everyone does.

However, there are definitely cases where someone was raised apart from their siblings or even mother/father, and met those people later in life, as adults, and fell in love before they even knew they were related, especially that closely. There would be no power dynamics there, especially for siblings. Which only leaves chance of birth defects.
Click to expand...

That's a myth employed by "Southern folks" to excuse their "heritage".

All incest is rape.
 
swing_voter said:
I'm leaning towards "free IUDs" where the government will pay for you to get an IUD.
Click to expand...

Not everyone can use IUDs or other forms of birth control. I'm all for free IUDs, if you choose to get one, as this would be a way to decrease unwanted pregnancies.
 
roguenuke said:
Not everyone can use IUDs or other forms of birth control. I'm all for free IUDs, if you choose to get one, as this would be a way to decrease unwanted pregnancies.
Click to expand...

There are also other types of implants (chemical) that they can try too. One is a set of hormonal implants under the forearm skin.
 
roguenuke said:
Nope. Depends on the state and level of incest. Rhode Island for example has no laws against incest. And there are lots of states that allow all but immediate, blood siblings, parent/child relationships.

So what level of incest are the exceptions made for? What happens if laws against incest change?
Click to expand...

I said it is GENERALLY illegal. 48 states prohibit it.
 
Drawdown said:
I said it is GENERALLY illegal. 48 states prohibit it.
Click to expand...

Like I said, to a point. Not all prohibit the same things. And those laws can change.

At what level is incest exceptions made for and why when it comes to abortion laws? The legality or illegality of incest gives the fetus growing inside worth?
 
Lursa said:
There are also other types of implants (chemical) that they can try too. One is a set of hormonal implants under the forearm skin.
Click to expand...

Hormonal implants can be more of an issue than IUDs. I'm for making all forms of birth control free or at least very affordable to all. But not everyone can use the same things and I think that too should be a choice, not mandated.
 
ecofarm said:
Oh, please. Lottery chance encounters are not why hillfolk apologize for incest and try to pretend it's something innocent.

Don't buy into the family rape apology. Incest is rape.
Click to expand...

I've shown that not all is. There are exceptions.

Plus, whether you like it or not, agree or not, the law does not view all incest or even most as rape. In most cases, both people, if of consenting age, are punished for incest, not just the oldest/elder, more dominant person.
 
roguenuke said:
I've shown that not all is. There are exceptions.

Plus, whether you like it or not, agree or not, the law does not view all incest or even most as rape. In most cases, both people, if of consenting age, are punished for incest, not just the oldest/elder, more dominant person.
Click to expand...

There are bs "exceptions" (which are not the same thing at all) employed by family-rape apologists to gas-light incest. You should be able to see that. No one is concerned by a 1 in 100 million chance; that's not the issue.
 
roguenuke said:
So I've argued both sides of the abortion debate on this site, since when I started I was prolife. I am currently prochoice when it comes to legality, giving that choice to others, even though personally I'm still prolife and would not have an abortion except in circumstances related to my life/health being in significant danger (I have two sons who need me).

So having shared that, my question is, why, if there is an exception made to abortion laws, is incest always included with rape?

Logically either incest is consensual between adults or it is rape/child rape, or at the very least statutory rape, which would already be covered. So if it is consensual incest (since rape is already covered as an exception), then what reason is there for including incest as an exception?

I'm for allowing women to make the decision for themselves to carry a child, but the only thing that I can see that sets apart pregnancy from consensual incest and other pregnancies is the increased risk for birth defects. However, the thing is, most who would give this exception also would not include exceptions for when birth defects are found in utero for other pregnancies. They also would not give exceptions for those who have about a similar risk of birth defects given other factors, such as age, health of mother, or even occupation.

It actually makes more sense to make an exception for those under 18 or those over a certain age than broadly "incest".
Click to expand...

The fact that Pro-Life makes the rape and incest exceptions proves that they don't actually value the unborn. Abortion-control isn't about abortion, it's about control.
 
ecofarm said:
Due to insulated family power dynamics, incest is always rape.
Click to expand...

I do not know about "always" but certainly frequently it is.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
So I've argued both sides of the abortion debate on this site, since when I started I was prolife. I am currently prochoice when it comes to legality, giving that choice to others, even though personally I'm still prolife and would not have an abortion except in circumstances related to my life/health being in significant danger (I have two sons who need me).

So having shared that, my question is, why, if there is an exception made to abortion laws, is incest always included with rape?

Logically either incest is consensual between adults or it is rape/child rape, or at the very least statutory rape, which would already be covered. So if it is consensual incest (since rape is already covered as an exception), then what reason is there for including incest as an exception?

I'm for allowing women to make the decision for themselves to carry a child, but the only thing that I can see that sets apart pregnancy from consensual incest and other pregnancies is the increased risk for birth defects. However, the thing is, most who would give this exception also would not include exceptions for when birth defects are found in utero for other pregnancies. They also would not give exceptions for those who have about a similar risk of birth defects given other factors, such as age, health of mother, or even occupation.

It actually makes more sense to make an exception for those under 18 or those over a certain age than broadly "incest".
Click to expand...

Many many pro choice people are pro life.
But, no one can understand the 1000s of reasons why anyone might want/have to go through an abortion.

Incest and rape are 2 reasons religious folks have caved. Because of the horrible situation each of them are. But if truly religious with the belief God is in control, they never could actually make an exception for rape or incest. For that means man is in control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom