Is incest always condemnable?

Paulhoff said:
If you look at the one story about Adam and Eve, isn't Adam really having sex with his daughter
Click to expand...

No, looked at it that way, he's having sex with his rib. That's a weird version of jerkin' the gherkin, I'd say.

DR
 
The question is: why do Bible-thumpers believe it? Considering the beginning of the Bible, which starts with Adam having sex with his clone and expands from there, then later has the same thing with Noah and his family, why do the Xians condemn it?
 
Dorian Gray said:
The question is: why do Bible-thumpers believe it? Considering the beginning of the Bible, which starts with Adam having sex with his clone and expands from there, then later has the same thing with Noah and his family, why do the Xians condemn it?
Click to expand...
What is your phobia regarding Christians? Have you sought help for it?

DR
 
ConspiRaider said:
Tell me, Krispin, with a straight face that the above scenario ISN'T monstrous. And if it's monstrous - then so is the notion of a woman's deliberate decision to raise a newborn without a man - without the father around ever.
Click to expand...
That scenario is in no way monstrous. Nature™ is not some magical all-knowing automatically-good-for-you present-everywhere able-to-do-anything panacea. It's a pretty good system, but it has a major flaw - nature doesn't privilege humans. With any luck, technology made by humans does.

And yes, some children might have an issue to deal with that others won't. That doesn't mean interracial marriage or having only one child or failing-to-kill-your-infant-after-his-mother-dies-in-a-tragic-livestock-accident is monstrous.
 
ConspiRaider said:
You want to watch that broad-brushing, Krispin. That is if you ever hope to be taken seriously.

What you fail to realize, with your sweeping generalizations, is that I NEVER SAID Technology should be abandoned and that we should all go back to swinging from trees and scratching for fleas. You inferred that. Erroneously.

If Technology allows us to get an egg from a human female and allow fertilization from a male ostrich - should we take that and put it in her womb and see what happens? Hey - it's TECHNOLOGY! That means we should just plow right ahead and do it. We beat Nature again! We invented a life form that never would have happened! Yay! We're smarter than Nature! We're SUPERIOR to Nature!

Nature is like Ken Kesey's "Combine" of which he used as an allegory in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. The combine they use on farms. It's out there. It's coming. It's going to take it's good old time. But it is unstoppable. And inescapable. And yes - since Nature encapsulates everything that occurs, it is superior. We are a rather minor aspect in the skein of diversity that is Nature. And I don't mean just biology or the Earth or even the Solar System. It's everything else out there as well.

Let's just do a complete scenario-reversal that caused the flare-up in the first place, betwixt ponderingturtle and myself. That if a woman decides she wants to raise a baby without a man - she should be able to.

Let's assume I want to do this (and I don't - this is for the purpose of illustration of a point). Ready? I want to raise a newborn all by myself. Don't want the messiness of a relationship with a woman. Don't like women, want to do this thing myself. Just me and my baby, my little kiddie, who I am going to raise perfectly without anyone else getting in my way. I get a catalog. Nice one, color pictures, slick, well-designed. And I go shopping for a fetus carrier. I'm a Uterus Shopper. My sperm. Her egg. I don't want to know her, don't want to meet her, just give me her vitals. Height, weight, age, eye color, hair color, race, education. Ah! Here's one. Seems ideal. How much? Oh, five grand and she'll carry the fetus to term. Got that. Here's the cash. (9 months later) Hello? Yes? You got my baby? Terrific! Ahhh! Childrearing bliss! No pesky woman to screw up the perfect kiddie. I'll just get this infant formula, feed the kid the bottle, change it, coo and goo-goo with it, burp it, sing to it, read it stories... Your mommy? Who? Other kids have mommies and you want to know where yours is? Sorry, kiddie, you apple of my eye, you. I decided you didn't need a mommy for your upbringing. Dad knows best, right? And it's legal and I got just what I wanted - you - and we didn't have to involve anything like a mommy in raising you. Isn't it wonderful? Isn't technology great? You can do the same thing, kiddie!

Tell me, Krispin, with a straight face that the above scenario ISN'T monstrous. And if it's monstrous - then so is the notion of a woman's deliberate decision to raise a newborn without a man - without the father around ever.
Click to expand...

Not monstrous at all. In fact, sounds like quite a good family model.

One of my best friends has raised her son without a father from day one, because his father was an absolute beast of a man. Abusive, lecherous, hateful, and with many of your same opinions. And she raised her son to adulthood without EVER letting him know about his father. Further, she realized after his birth that she was happier without men whatsoever, so other than myself and a handful of gay friends, her only companions, lovers, etc. were other women. And I only see them about once every four to six years.

And her son has grown to be a fine young man, headed to college, well-rounded, well-read, atheletic, handsome, intelligent, sensible, and level-headed.

In fact, most of the jerks and idiots I've ever met have come from two-parent heterosexual homes.

So, no, it's not monstrous, it's quite nice.
 
nails3jesus0 said:
no but i meant the hetero couples that CAN concieve naturally. in your mind its ok for them to not adopt, but everyone else should. i dont understand why.

but if you could, you would make them adopt?
Click to expand...

No. Those couples are the only ones that can conceive, and therefore we should not prevent them from doing so. If we prevent them from conceiving, then the population not only doesn't grow, it stagnates and falls.

Let me put it another way - if we reach a point of development where adoption has become a non-issue (there are very few unadopted children, perhaps in a future where adoption is an automatic process - those who require adoption have a very short waiting time), and the population is under control, then I would not have a problem with a limited number of artificial conceptions - limited in the sense that it will not cause excessive population growth, which would lead to a whole other bunch of issues.

nails3jesus0 said:
Its sweet to consider unadopted children, but I still dont quite agree with you. it still boils down to the same problem- telling other people how they should structure their families. I dont think its anyone elses business. I dont think anyone should adopt unless their heart is in it 100% anyway. people who cant naturally concieve go through a ton of hard work to get pregnant and have children and naturally fertile hetero couples dont. I dont see a reason to make it harder on people who are going to have one hell of a time having children either way, and its not like everyone gets approved to be an adoptive parent.
Click to expand...

The bolded part - why is it that some people are not approved to be an adoptive parent? I don't know how the system works, but for me if someone has not been approved to adopt, that raises red flags in allowing them to artificially conceive as well.

However, someone with a better knowledge of the system may be able to set me straight on that one.
 
I don't know how it is now...... but it used to be that blonde haired, blue-eyed parents could not adopt a baby with black skin and hair. (This was in UT, if that makes a difference - other states may have differnt rules.) It was felt the child needed someone who resembled them somewhat physically, in order to relate to them. I had many friends who adopted and who could not always get the kids they wanted due to physical appearance, which would certainly not make them unfit parents.

I suppose if you fill out the application and say that you have an unstable relationship, fight frequently and plan to use the kid as a bargaining chip in a game between you and your spouse that you would be turned down...... but I can't imagine anyone actually saying stuff like that on the application. All the people that I knew (not many compared to the nationwide adoption rate) only got turned down for silly things like hair color.
 
Thanks for the info, Amapola. I would have thought that more people got turned down for reasons other than hair colour though - you may not say that you're in an unstable relationship, but certainly the adoption agency would visit your home to inspect where the child is going to live? Wouldn't such inspections be the probable cause of most rejections?
 
Sadly, no. Most rejections happen long before the home visit. Many are based on income, family structure, appearance, suiteability of the applicants' employment (for example, very few truckers or bartenders get to adopt), education level, etc.

Home inspections are often waived or only happen on paper (the workers being VERY overworked and VASTLY underpaid), unless an incident has forced the agency to become more involved. Those that do happen are usually staged with plenty of prewarning (and very few people are unable to prep a house for a Soc. Serv. inspection given a day or two's warning), and only reflect on how well the family can get a house ready if they think they're being watched - not on how well the family ordinarily keeps things.

Personal interviews are treated with such skepticism these days, precisely because in the past, neighbors and friends have attempted to sabotage prospective parents, so even reports of poor behavior are often ignored until it's too late.

The adoption and foster care situation in the U.S. is absolutely appalling.

Recently in Ohio there was a child taken from his mother, who Social Services claimed was unfit to care for him, and given to a couple who ended up locking him in a hot closet while they went away for a trip. When they returned home to find him dead, they instead hid his body, and claimed he ran away or got lost. It took a couple of days for the truth to come out.

Sadly, those sorts of things happen far too often. As far as S.S. was concerned, they were better parents than the woman they took the child from; but due to these parents, the kid is dead.

Meanwhile, anecdotal evidence only, I've known plenty of well-to-do, stable, healthy families turned down for a number of rather irrelevant reasons. Agencies vary, of course, but just as an example, in North Carolina, religion plays a significant factor in adoption: non-Christians applying to adopt are almost entirely rejected (usually on other grounds). Race MUST match, UNLESS the prospective parent is very wealthy. And wealth matters more than anything, to most of these agencies: a family with a six digit income who wouldn't be suitable to raise a stink are given children long before a family with a five-digit income that have a perfectly stable, healthy, and happy home suitable for children are.

It's an ugly, ugly fact of life in the U.S.

Now, I agree that more people should try to adopt, but everyone should be aware that there's a lot of problems with the adoption processes.
 
Thanks for the info. Sounds like the adoption processes in the US need to shape up significantly.
 
hm i never heard the skin color thing. ive heard of/knew a few families who were white and adopted a ton of the unadoptabed older kids locally(disabled, ethnic, etc). they always get like 8 or 9 and usually have their own children as well.
 
Depends on the area, and yea, a lot of areas are like that - for whites. A black family in the same area would be strongly unlikely to be able to adopt a ton of any except black babies.
 
The Painter said:
Not in my book. No God, no sin. Simple, yes??
They may have committed a crime, I'm not sure. Personally, I don't want to bang my sister, brother , mother or father, but I'm funny like that.
Click to expand...

It's probably a crime. Scientists say that having a baby with your cousin is all right, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom