Woman pregnant by her genetic father
Discussion
http://www.thejournal.ie/woman-carries-fathers-bab...
If they are so seemingly aware of GSA (and its apparent implications) and STILL had a sexual relationship they are in no way emotionally suitable to (possibly, depending on whether it's genetically 'normal' FFS) bring a child into this world.
If this does anything other than turn your stomach then I'm afraid you are, in my opinion as 'sick' as these people.
Edited to add. In my opinion it makes no difference what-so-ever that they don't have (and never had) a 'father daughter' relationship.
article said:
Ryan said that the pair felt an instant physical attraction when they met, and soon began an incestuous sexual relationship. Lawrence is now pregnant with his child.
Wrong, seriously wrong on each and every level. If they are so seemingly aware of GSA (and its apparent implications) and STILL had a sexual relationship they are in no way emotionally suitable to (possibly, depending on whether it's genetically 'normal' FFS) bring a child into this world.
If this does anything other than turn your stomach then I'm afraid you are, in my opinion as 'sick' as these people.
Edited to add. In my opinion it makes no difference what-so-ever that they don't have (and never had) a 'father daughter' relationship.
Edited by UncleRic on Wednesday 23 March 13:06
UncleRic said:
If this does anything other than turn your stomach then I'm afraid you are, in my opinion as 'sick' as these people.
Pretty harsh, i'll admit it is wrong, however I don't really care that much, it doesn't "turn my stomach" as you put it, in fact I was eating my lunch as I read it and had no adverse reaction, does that now make me a sick, incestuous human being?...I think not.Edited by UncleRic on Wednesday 23 March 13:06
Ozzie Osmond said:
Upon what do you base your point of view?
Mista_V said:
Pretty harsh, i'll admit it is wrong, however I don't really care that much, it doesn't "turn my stomach" as you put it, in fact I was eating my lunch as I read it and had no adverse reaction, does that now make me a sick, incestuous human being?...I think not.
The 'wrong' POV is based on pure nature. If we were meant to reproduce with immediate genetic relations (familiy) then the offspring wouldn't be born with genetic 'problems' that would in turn potentially stop them from producing their own offspring. The 'if this doesn't turn your stomach' POV was maybe worded a bit on the heavy side. I can understand people who maybe aren't shocked by it (I'm fine with the site of blood, others may faint etc), but if they shrug their shoulders and think 'well, they didn't have an emotional father-daugther relationship so it's not really wrong' then I suggest they get themselves sterilised before their long-lost daughter turns up on their doorstep and they get her pregnant.
The 'dad' in this relationship is just that FFS. A genetic dad. He knows that that woman is his daughter and yet he still chooses to sleep with her. I couldn't care less that he didn't raise her, he still fathered her and I can't honestly believe that deep down he dosen't appreciate that. He's either off his trolley or a raving pervert. The daughter seems to understand (though chooses to ignore) the GSA side of things. She knows that there is a 'reason' why she finds him 'attractive' but still chooses to continue the relationship. "Oh well, I fancy you because I'm genetically programmed to because we haven't formed an emotional relationship through years being raised as father and daughter and I know it's sort of F'kd up, but meh', lets get it on anyway because it feels like we should and neither one of us is willing to step back and realise why we are 'attracted' to each other."
Very sad.
NOt as bad as that couple a while ago, who shacked up got married, had a child and THEN found out they were brother and sister. The courtrs forced them to seperate and iirc one of them ended up in jail because they just wouldn't stop seeing each other.
But from their point of view they weren't brother and sister and didn't have that sort of repulsion- they were just two people who happened to share genetics!
But from their point of view they weren't brother and sister and didn't have that sort of repulsion- they were just two people who happened to share genetics!
UncleRic said:
The 'if this doesn't turn your stomach' POV was maybe worded a bit on the heavy side. I can understand people who maybe aren't shocked by it (I'm fine with the site of blood, others may faint etc), but if they shrug their shoulders and think 'well, they didn't have an emotional father-daugther relationship so it's not really wrong' then I suggest they get themselves sterilised before their long-lost daughter turns up on their doorstep and they get her pregnant.
Oh yes, I am certainly not disputing the situation is "wrong", I would question someone who thought otherwise also, the heavy wording you mention was the only bit that caught my attention!AlexC1981 said:
I don't care what they do together as long as they are happy, but actually having an inbred child is a very very bad idea. I hope the kid doesn't have any health problems.
When civil partnerships were introduced one of the arguments that Labour ministers put forward for not allowing spinster sisters to enter into a civil partnership was that it would condone incest.However the problem is why? Incest between consenting adults might be repugnant to me, YMMV but it's just a moral / religious value.
The issue being the issue, ie children, however the reality is close interbreeding is not necessarily dangerous in a single pairing, if repeated over a number of generations the problems increase - such as seen in cousin marriage in certain ethnic groups, but in itself close interbreeding can fix desirable traits or it can lead to problems. Hence in selective breeding ie the process that gave us domestic animals, it's a common mechanism, and in evolutionary terms IIRC was necessary to fix a beneficial mutation ie evolution happens in small isolated populations where there is inevitable interbreeding.
Although there maybe a increased danger of genetic disease this in itself can't be an argument against incest between consenting adults - otherwise the same value should be placed on unrelated couples who happen by chance to more likely to pass on an inherited condition.
In conclusion incest is a sin, but so is homosexuality and eating shellfish. Just because you or I find it repulsive isn't a reason to outlaw it.
UncleRic said:
The 'wrong' POV is based on pure nature. If we were meant to reproduce with immediate genetic relations (familiy) then the offspring wouldn't be born with genetic 'problems' that would in turn potentially stop them from producing their own offspring.
If you go through life repulsed by anything that is "wrong" based on what nature intended, you'll be very repulsed!Mista_V said:
UncleRic said:
If this does anything other than turn your stomach then I'm afraid you are, in my opinion as 'sick' as these people.
Pretty harsh, i'll admit it is wrong, however I don't really care that much, it doesn't "turn my stomach" as you put it, in fact I was eating my lunch as I read it and had no adverse reaction, does that now make me a sick, incestuous human being?...I think not.Edited by UncleRic on Wednesday 23 March 13:06
Are we wrong, or are they wrong?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff