Mother and son arrested for having incestuous relationship

[REALITY 80,167]

7 minutes ago, Miracle said:

B) is completely unnecesary. Would you say the same about a gay/straight/lesbian couple?

And scientifically wrong isn't the right word...I mean, it may be bad in an evolution ways but science has evolved so genetical problems can be solved when in vitro fecundation takes place

 

I wouldn't say the same thing about an LGBTQ+ couple because the situations are different. An LGBTQ+ couple is just a couple that isn't heterosexual, in this particular situation, if they, let's say, have a child, that could lead to actual genetic errors within that child—which would lead to long-term affects if that child has a child, and so on and so forth.

 

[Redstreak 6,653]

21 minutes ago, Swan Heart said:

...just as much as an older women getting pregnant/giving birth or even less.

I don't see people calling that disgusting though.

Besides the fact that the statement you quoted is just totally disingenuous. The argument is centered around the legality of their relationship, not the hypothetical child they don't have.

[ALGAYDO 35,135]

Cum and visit my thread and VOTE 

 

[Swan Heart 7,382]

11 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

Besides the fact that the statement you quoted is just totally disingenuous. The argument is centered around the legality of their relationship, not the hypothetical child they don't have.

How excatly is it disingenuous?

And the 19 pages of this thread seem to disagree. The hypothetical problems that can come with a chidd born out of an incest relationship has been discussed here.

[LUO YI 6,089]

This is disgusting to me but If they love each other I don't have any problem. This doesn't affect anyone of us. 

[Redstreak 6,653]

4 minutes ago, Swan Heart said:

How excatly is it disingenuous?

Because the person you quoted focused the entire argument on hypothetical reproduction as if that's what we're discussing and trying to validate when it's not.

I'm saying the other person is disingenuous. Not you.

[uo111 5,282]

1 hour ago, Swan Heart said:

...just as much as an older women getting pregnant/giving birth or even less.

I don't see people calling that disgusting though.

People do look down on pregnancies past 40 (even past 35 sometimes).

It's not "just as much" risk as parent-child relationships until the women is about 49 though.

 

24 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

Because the person you quoted focused the entire argument on hypothetical reproduction as if that's what we're discussing and trying to validate when it's not.

I'm saying the other person is disingenuous. Not you.

I have a very clear view on this issue.

Sterile straight people can consensually stick it wherever they want, I don't care.

This woman has had nine babies and you are gonna use the term hypothetical reproduction.

[420 1,042]

5 hours ago, kevindjibouti said:

o.O why dya ask here? lol

No, she doesn't hate RedOne, she worked with him like 2 months ago. 

Gaga and Tony will start working on Red, Hot & Blue next year, so yes, LG5 is coming first

Because sarcasm. @Yanko claimed to be a psychic, or at least I thought he did. He seemed to know that the couple wanted to have kids even though it wasn't mentioned in the article at all.

[Redstreak 6,653]

8 minutes ago, uo111 said:

People do look down on pregnancies past 40 (even past 35 sometimes).

It's not "just as much" risk as parent-child relationships until the women is about 49 though.

 

I have a very clear view on this issue.

Sterile straight people can consensually stick it wherever they want, I don't care.

This woman has had nine babies and you are gonna use the term hypothetical reproduction.

It is hypothetical because A) they have no children together currently and B) I thought at this point the conversation had devolved to incest in general hence hypotheticals  

[Swan Heart 7,382]

1 minute ago, uo111 said:

People do look down on pregnancies past 40 (even past 35 sometimes).

It's not "just as much" risk for parent-child relationships until the women is about 49 though.

But it's legal, isn't it?

And it's most definitely not getting the same outrage.

[Yanko 9,860]

15 minutes ago, 420 said:

Because sarcasm. @Yanko claimed to be a psychic, or at least I thought he did. He seemed to know that the couple wanted to have kids even though it wasn't mentioned in the article at all.

you're not funny. 

[uo111 5,282]

2 minutes ago, Swan Heart said:

But it's legal, isn't it?

And it's most definitely not getting the same outrage.

Just because something else is legal doesn't mean that this should be. Older women having babies is a completely different can of worms. It deals with bodily autonomy and intent. Additionally, we would have to consider things like smoking and drinking. There is no easy way to set a limit on an appropriate age for a woman to have a baby.

On the other hand. Are you parent and child, yes or no? Easy question.

 

5 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

It is hypothetical because A) they have no children together currently and B) I thought at this point the conversation had devolved to incest in general hence hypotheticals  

They haven't been having sex since they were caught. Let's not pretend they were using condoms or birth control when they were having sex. These two want babies.

The only thing I meant by my post is that incest that leads to pregnancy is wrong. That's the only thing that science can support, I should've been more clear.

[Swan Heart 7,382]

2 minutes ago, uo111 said:

Just because something else is legal doesn't mean that this should be. Older women having babies is a completely different can of worms. It deals with bodily autonomy and intent. Additionally, we would have to consider things like smoking and drinking. There is no easy way to set a limit on an appropriate age for a woman to have a baby.

On the other hand. Are you parent and child, yes or no? Easy question.

I don't think it's that different at all actually.

And no, I'm not a parent.

[uo111 5,282]

Just now, Swan Heart said:

I don't think it's that different at all actually.

And no, I'm not a parent.

Older woman getting pregnant is factually different from babies that are the product of incest. It's not reasonably up for debate.

You read that second part wrong.

[Swan Heart 7,382]

Just now, uo111 said:

Older woman getting pregnant is factually different from babies that are the product of incest. It's not reasonably up for debate.

You read that second part wrong.

It's still putting kids at risk. The one is legal, the other isn't. Why not make them both illegal untill it's found a way to prevent it? I think that's fair.

And I simply don't understand what you mean. It may be my not so good English or my lack of sleep but I don't.