by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Post

Region: Lazarus

Free market buisnesses

Dernel wrote:Why take the risk? Again, its not just the lives of the two, its the third as well, what reasoning can you give for changing someones life in a way that puts them at a disadvantage compared to a normal person born of a normal family? Is it not the point of progress to attempt to prevent things like this? Is the point of progress, science, and medicine not to minimize the chances of someone having an issue no matter how big or small? Why take the risk, and throw the progress we have made as a species out the window simply for an urge that can likely be satiated elsewhere in a more respectable manner?

You cannot guarantee that webbed toes or a seemingly equally unimportant issue will be the change, or even the only change. As you perform these actions, you increase the possibility of ruining someones life, and that is the issue. Even if it were just a 1% for a normal child to have a severe issue, by having a child created through incest you increase that chance. That is the scientific reason why it is immoral, this doesn't even begin to explain the societal or religious reasons that something like this is immoral.
put in child terms:
You cannot encourage bad behavior with more bad behavior.

In the end you asked for a reason why it is considered wrong, I have given my reasons, others can if they choose, but I will not go on further as this is simply an opinionated topic that likely neither will change. (At least I certainly will not)

Well, what causes the increased risk? Is it an increased chance of new mutations?

Delta Vega IV wrote:What use would the crystals be if I dunno how to handle them?

Noah had 3 sons in the Ark, and each of the 4 had a wife with him. So you got some diversity there.

This is the consultation. Instruction costs extra.

Delta Vega IV wrote:What use would the crystals be if I dunno how to handle them?

Noah had 3 sons in the Ark, and each of the 4 had a wife with him. So you got some diversity there.

Is that enough? Science says... Not enough!

Dernel wrote:I believe it was a minimum of ?99? people to avoid inbreeding when starting a new population.

That depends on how you classify inbreeding.

ContextReport