I see absolutely no reason why anyone in their right mind could be opposed to all incest outright, it is justified by the same reasoning as conventional heterosexual or homosexual relations.
Even if you’re against sexual relationships between minors and adults, or non-human and human animals, you think sex is only for consenting adults, if you’re not an adult but you consent it doesn’t matter – well, the same reasoning still justifies incest.
Incest can perfectly happen between two consenting adults.
- One main argument has obviously always been about birth defects, which I think is one of the stupidest points to bring up.
The incestophobe argument roughly goes like this:
P1 – If contraception does not exist, incest results in disabled children, thus is harmful.
P2 – Contraception does not exist.
C – Incest results in disabled children, thus is harmful.
The problem obviously lies in premise 2 here, incestophobes are simply denying the existence of pharmacies that sell condoms and other means of contraception. Of course, if you cum in your mother without a condom, it might result in crippled children.
So what do you do? You buy a condom, you put that condom on your dick, and then you fuck your mother. Maybe she can take the pill too, and if all fails, there’s still abortion. So fact is, there are lots of ways to prevent birth.
- If you want to say incest is wrong based on your false premise that contraception does not exist, all other sex acts that would result in harm (were they practiced without contraception) would have to be illegal as well.
Two disabled people who have genetic defects in general are having sex with contraception. This is wrong I could just as easily argue, because if they were to have sex without a condom, it could result in impregnation, and thus ultimately children with genetic defects.
So if we just cleverly presuppose the non-existence of any and all contraception methods that exist, then obviously any person who has genetic defects in general must never be allowed to have sex under any circumstances. What if condoms didn’t exist? Then they would make a bunch of crippled kids, so therefore, they should not be allowed to have sex with condoms either, because of what would happen if condoms did not exist.
The point here is obvious – condoms, pills, abortion exist. They don’t really believe there is no way to prevent birth, they’re just making this argument when it comes to incest because they feel personally disgusted by it.
Or do you see any of these people protesting against the legality of people with genetic defects having sex in general, just because it would similarly result in children with genetic defects if condoms, pills, abortion did not exist? No.
It’s just like a homophobe bringing up STDs from anal sex to be against homosexuals. Why exactly don’t they bring it up when it comes to heterosexuals? Yes, if contraception did not exist, heterosexual anal sex might also result in STDs, but so what? Contraception does exist, are they saying that homosexuals are for some reason fundamentally too incompetent to use contraception?
Counterintuitive conclusions 