The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)


Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
PhiloSophie223 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 437 times Debate No: 122599
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




Hello there.
Before I start let me state I am open to new opinions and views, Should I find them convincing. This is not a pointless debate for me.

I am pro-incest. I am not basing my argument purely on statistics of percentages (despite usually utilising them in my viewpoints) because the various sources I"ve looked to try find an exact, Accurate average percentage of genetic defects from incestuous reproduction, But the information I"ve found has ranged from some saying the risk is minuscule to some saying it is as high as ~40%.

Also, I am not discussing age or age differences in this, Purely incest and things related to it.

Firstly, I would like to discuss incest purely in a consensual, Non-reproductive scenario. And for any of my arguments, Just know I completely discard the "ick" factor. By that I mean it being frowned upon or generally regarded as morally wrong and disgusting without a real reason.
I believe that, Putting aside the "ick" factor, Consent and reproduction, There is no reasonable argument against incest. The 1 argument I have encountered before against this scenario is that "it"s wrong to be with a sibling or someone you grew up with". Why? People don"t have this prejudice against childhood friends for example, So aside from society" conditioning us to naturally be disgusted by the very idea of an incestual relationship, I truly believe there is no reason to be opposed to this specific scenario. After all, It"s just another human being, There is no real difference between a sibling and any other person in this scenario.

Now to quickly discuss incest and consent: I never agree to sex or a relationship without consent, Incest or not. Even if the majority of incestual relationships are non-consensual, This has nothing to do with the fact it is incest. The issue here is that it is non-consensual, Not that it is incestual. It"s wrong either way.

And finally, For incestuous reproduction. Now the main argument against incest is actually against the reproduction potentially involved in an incestual relationship. Now let"s assume the likeliness for genetic defects in newborns from parents" incestuous reproduction is as high as I"ve read, 42%. The main argument against this now is that you should not reproduce and have a child with this high likeliness of a major defect or possible infant mortality. Let me propose this to you: would you put in place laws to stop people with genetic diseases such as Huntington"s disease from reproducing because the chance of passing it down to offspring is as high as 50%? If not, Then you agree with me on this one, That it"s not our place to do so. And if you would put those laws in place, Then let me continue:

Millions of people carry recessive genes for diseases and aren"t even aware of it. Not all of these will be as major as Huntington"s, But they will be defects nonetheless (such as autism, Dyslexia, Etc). Where do you put the limit and say the percentage is too high to have the couple reproduce? 10%? 40%? 50%? For every child, Even born from the most "normal" parents and conditions, There is a risk of death. And so, I believe this should always be left to the couple and whether they wish to have a strictly platonic relationship or get an abortion.


I saw the title of this debate and found it to be very intriguing. I was somewhat unsettled by the stance that you happened to take, But I will keep an open mind and hopefully come from a non-biased perspective. Now I would hope that you would do the same. Now on to the debate

Firstly, I'd like to point out that I do agree that arguments should be solely based on fact, However, This is more likely going to turn into a moral debate. While one could say that it is technically okay to have an incestual relationship, Is it morally correct? Rather than asking if we can do it, I'd like to ask if we should. Historically in almost every culture and religion, There has been a substantial amount of incest. Even in the animal kingdom, It seems to be prominent. European royalty encouraged it to keep the bloodline intact. While it may be common that doesn't necessarily mean that it's okay. Call me biased, Call me a bigot, But there are psychological and biological facts that point to the problematic nature that is incest.

The outlined arguments will be as followed.
1. There is no such thing as a consensual parent-child incestual relationship.
2. It is immensely important to call attention to the reproductive issues of incestual relationships.
3. Just because people carry the genes, The increase in likelihood solely from being an incestual relationship is in itself problematic.

One of the first things that you point out is that incest is majorly nonconsensual and then brush over it. There is a huge problem that is being overlooked It isn't a mystery that rape is wrong, However, If it is done by a trusted family member it is substantially worsened. An article was written on CNN by a woman who had a substantial relationship with her father. She first claimed that her perceived notion of the relationship was that it was consensual. However, With further evaluation and psychological guidance, She found that this relationship and all other parent-child relationships were not consensual by nature. She said,

"As I was writing the book, I thought, This word (consensual), It kept sitting wrong with me, But I used it for lack of a better word, And since then I've been schooled by thousands of incest survivors all across the world that there really is no such thing as consensual incest due to the inherent power a parent has over a child. "

Psychologist of post-traumatic stress disorder, Joanne Zucchetto, Describes that before the relationship happens, A "molestation" of sorts often occurs beforehand. What I mean by this is that to convince the victim to consent to a sexual relationship between them, They have to groom them, Or convince the victim that the relationship is consensual and okay. When the victim is vulnerable, The parent figure will start this relationship and rape the victim without the victim ever knowing or understanding that it is happening in the first place. There have been 60, 000 reported sexual assault cases in 2000 and around 25% of them were of family members. Many of these victims had experienced PTSD and other mental disorders from these encounters. (1)

Zucchetto concludes that because of some of the predisposed psychological disorders of the victims (i. E. Trust issues, Anxieties, PTSD, Abuse, Etc. ) they are more vulnerable to "falling for" their parental figures. These parental figures with ulterior motives attack that state and create a truly sickening nonconsensual incestual relationship between their children even if they are of consenting age. This isn't to say that I am against age-gap relationships. My parents are 17 years apart in age, I am only against taking advantage of young victims by otherwise trusted family members.

(SIDE NOTE) You stated that the genetic abnormality is as high as 42%. I fail to find any of these statistics and would find it helpful if you put them somewhere so I can see where you get these.

The reasoning behind the problems of genetic abnormalities in an incestual relationship is at a much higher risk than those of a non-incestual relationship. The reasoning behind this is because most genetic disorders are recessive. This means that both of the parents have to carry the allele for the child to potentially carry it as well. When two parents having different or diverse genetic makeup, There is less likelihood for them to both be carrying the allele for this genetic disorder. When one parent carries it, The child will likely carry it as well. In a sibling or even cousin circumstance, There is a higher chance that both of the offspring have the recessive and therefore will carry offspring that will have this disease. The fact is simple: Don't perform intercourse with a sibling because they share an astounding 50% of your genes. It's almost like one parent shares 23 chromosomes and the other shares the other 23, And if half of those are the same (including genetic disorders) the child has around a 50% chance of inheriting the same genes. In all seriousness, All of the genetically recessive diseases that both of the parents have creates substantial issues for the offspring's genetic makeup.

Now you used the argument of Huntington's disease. A valid point I admit, However the statistics of a person with Huntington's isn't as high as 2 siblings having a child together. If both of the siblings carry the gene there is close to a 100% chance that the offspring will have a dominant disorder and a 50% chance that they will carry or have a recessive disorder.

When I say that there is a higher chance, I don't just mean there's a slightly higher chance and that it is no different than if 2 random people just so happened to carry the gene have children. I mean that there is a substantially higher chance than if the couple happened to have a diverse gene pool. So much so that there is a 50% chance that their child will carry the gene and pass it on. This is just simple genetic coding. (3)

Also to claim that the couple should not have the child or simply get an abortion is preposterous. If there is a "normal" (I use that lightly) incestual relationship between two siblings, Or even if they desire a normal relationship, A person is not to say that they can't have children based on the genetic makeup of both of them. You stated,

" For every child, Even born from the most "normal" parents and conditions, There is a risk of death. And so, I believe this should always be left to the couple and whether they wish to have a strictly platonic relationship or get an abortion. "

So what if they don't choose to have an abortion or be strictly platonic. Is the relationship still okay? Is the child of the family members morally correct? Also while many people have children with genetic disease alleles without knowing it all the time, Does that not mean that it is wrong to do it knowingly? I would expand but it would seem I don't have enough space to do it. I'd like to see your sources in the next round. I'm not a fan of blanket statements without substantial evidence to support and I'm sure you feel the same way. So with the utmost honesty, Ask if you do the same for me. Thank you and good luck.

(1) http://www. Cnn. Com/2010/HEALTH/02/05/incest. Therapy. Phillips/index. Html
(2) https://ghr. Nlm. Nih. Gov/condition/huntington-disease#inheritance
(3) https://ghr. Nlm. Nih. Gov/primer/inheritance/riskassessment
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 years ago
DebateArt. Com
Posted by PhiloSophie223 2 years ago
Sorry, I fail to fully understand what you mean by that. You mean incest is inherently wrong because there"s always a chance of a child being accidentally conceived? If so, Would you also say that it the case for (as mentioned in my argument) people with disease genes such as Huntington"s or very minor defects such as dyslexia? How do we class these defects as worth the risk or not?

Also, If you would like (addressing anyone who comments on this), Accept the debate challenge so we can have more in-depth discussion!
Posted by maddyvonree 2 years ago
How could you leave out reproduction when there is a sexually active incestual scenario? Even if it isn't intentionally reproductive, Inherently, There is still a chance that a nonconsensual or unplanned child could result from these acts (specifically if this relationship happens to be heterosexual) and therefore would be problematic. Because of the issues of inbreeding and genetic isolation, It would be impractical if you made the argument that incest is not inherently disordered. This debate would be baseless without that factor.
Posted by PhiloSophie223 2 years ago
Apologies for any confusion caused by my phrasing. My first big paragraph where I said I was talking about incest without regarding consent and reproduction was exclusive to that paragraph, I wanted to counter those aspects separately.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
True consent would not exist is a relationship with one being the authority over the other. E. G. Parent and offspring.
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
You said, "Now the main argument against incest is actually against the reproduction potentially involved in an incestual relationship. ", But you also wrote two paragraphs defending against this argument, While saying that you wish to discuss incest in a non-reproductive manner. Please be more clear in what you would like to discuss. Since you said that you did not want to discuss reproduction, The aforementioned argument is invalid, And therefor so is your opening statement.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.