Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: goldstategop

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting the welfare of children, and any children conceived in an incestuous relationship are at an elevated risk of having both major birth defects and other subtler physical defects. That by itself ought to be enough to maintain a ban on incestuous relationships.


2 posted on 08/28/2005 10:13:08 PM PDT by Hetty_Fauxvert (Kelo must GO!! ..... http://sonoma-moderate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Hetty_Fauxvert

The law, according to lawrence, does not consider mere breeding. (even according to the ABA's model divorce code, adult activity defines the relations NOT the mere accessory of producing offspring)

Thus, according to the left SEX for recreation is all that matters.


5 posted on 08/28/2005 10:21:26 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Hetty_Fauxvert

"The state has a legitimate interest in protecting the welfare of children, and any children conceived in an incestuous relationship are at an elevated risk of having both major birth defects and other subtler physical defects."

What about when one of them is infertile? Or when they're of the same sex?

And what about people with genetic diseases that have children ? They're not put in prison even though their children have a higher risk of getting the same genetic disease.


6 posted on 08/28/2005 10:22:09 PM PDT by Moral Hazard ("Now therefore kill every male among the little ones" - Numbers 31:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Hetty_Fauxvert
I agree with you on the need for morals. You can make a good argument sodomy is equally hazardous to the health and welfare of a person. But as Antonin Scalia pointed out, with Lawrence ALL morals legislation is invalid. If one type of love is legally valid, so is every other variety. And how can liberals support a ban on incest when they laud homosexual relationships? I do support morals legislation - I am pointing out the inconsistency in liberals' stand on them.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
7 posted on 08/28/2005 10:22:36 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Hetty_Fauxvert
any children conceived in an incestuous relationship are at an elevated risk of having both major birth defects and other subtler physical defects.

This statement is only valid if the parents (or their parents) are also the product of incest..
The only other contributing factor would be if there were specifically identifiable genetic or physiological defects that had been passed down to the parents / grandparents that could be passed to the offspring..
In other words, it has to be more than a "singular" occurance within a familial group, it has to be an accepted practice..

The taboo against incest requires more than one generation.. then and only then is it valid..

This couple's children stand about the same prospect of birth defects or other physical defect as anyone else..

10 posted on 08/28/2005 10:30:30 PM PDT by Drammach ( I AmThe Sultan of Oom Pa Pa Mow Mow.. Heed My Words..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Hetty_Fauxvert
The state has a legitimate interest in protecting the welfare of children, and any children conceived in an incestuous relationship are at an elevated risk of having both major birth defects and other subtler physical defects.

The same is true of children whose parents are both Ashkenazi Jews.

You really want to go down that road?

29 posted on 08/29/2005 12:28:04 AM PDT by John Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson