10/17/2019 (Thu) 00:23:05
If you had the other person's consent, is any interaction between you and them "victimless"?
If there was no minimum age requirement placed on consent while all other existing rape laws remained in place, then performing sexual acts with a 7 year old who had consented to them, for as long as that consent still stands, would be morally permissible.
Maybe no genital or anal penetration could take place before she objects, but rubbing the penis against the outside of her genitals or anus (the vulva's slit or the buttock's cleft) could be a good substitute for such activities. The child is not physically harmed by such actions and the mental harm (if there is any) would be greatly reduced to the point where it could be ignored.
Sex between family members, such as a younger brother and his older sister, are objected to most frequently on the basis that any children they have would be more likely to inherit the recessive traits within both parents that result in disabilities, illnesses, and deformities.
Now, while the rates are indeed higher than the rates among genetically distant parents, the rates for a child born from one generation of incestuous parents is still going to be low.
It would take multiple successive generations of inbreeding to make being born with these complications a likely event, in most instances where inbreeding among humans resulted in these conditions, it occurred among royal families in cases where incest was mandated, not in a place where incest was permitted, but people were able to freely choose their own partners.
This would not be like the arabs or indians, where marriages are forced upon one of the partners, so having successive generations of incest would not be nearly as common.
But we can also talk about whether or not a greater risk of genetic consequences can actually be used as an argument against any law, are people with disabilities less valuable as people to the point where preventing their existence is considered a good policy? on what basis are we fit to make the judgement? how does this differ from similar laws in the past, such as laws against interracial relations, or laws against allowing the disabled to breed? and where does the line stop? older women are more likely to have children with disabilities, should they be prevented from reproducing by law? and if so, what exactly qualifies as being "genetically unfit"? someone with an IQ below 100 is likely to have a difficult time in the world, IQ is 80-90% determined by genetics, so should they be prevented from breeding as well, even if they don't fit our current definitions of "disabled"?
Other times people bring up abuse, but usually applied to either instances of rape, which are not being argued to be legalized, or in instances where two people consent, but the consent of one of the two is being considered invalid for some reason that could be applied to many situations which remain legal and whose legality has never been argued against.
Incest may even be favorable, as it allows negative recessive traits to be selected against by expressing them as often as dominant ones, when typically these recessive traits would be very resistant to the evolutionary process, if you fuck your older sister and have some children who do not inherit the recessive genes that would have produced the complications associated with incest, it's likely that the child could not possess them at all, and thus would not pass them down to the next generation.
Eventually, the negative recessive traits would be absent of humanity in their entirety, and as a result, incest would not longer have a higher chance of producing negative traits.