Mother and son in love in N.M. will go to jail to defend their relationship

[Simfan34]

This thread is almost as fun as the one about Rachel Dolelzal! People just keep on tripping over the contradictions of ideology. I think Kalwejt's post-- and I don't mean to call him out in particular or anything-- sums it up best: "there should be a line". You're not really sure where exactly this line should be drawn, but you have the general impression there ought to be one somewhere.

[Simfan34]

Honestly, the only arguments for this being illegal are definition of consent and potential for birth defects.

I really think it's remarkable that a certain stripe of social liberal will adopt baldly eugenicist reasoning to talk themselves into keeping incest illegal because they can't come up with enough other reasons to do so.

When you take morality out of the picture...

[Simfan34]

I am (and always have been) against considering "morality", a notion I thoroughly oppose but whose effects I do not particularly abhor in respect to efficacy, in the making of law. Such consideration would be  tantamount to legislating based off of religious doctrine, in the face of that for which America stands.

The relationship itself is questionable but not inherently dangerous. The line is clearly vaginal sex with insertion of the penis. Anything short of that, in my opinion, should be well legal. However, it is neither the government's duty nor right to legislate exactly what actions may be taken in the bedroom.

Considering all of this, I conclude that such a relationship should be legal, and were there to be a pregnancy, abortion should be mandatory.

obama pls ban, mods pls drone

What's wrong with that? Surely we're just talking about a bunch of cells here, no?

[Simfan34]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

obama pls ban, mods pls drone

What's wrong with that? Surely we're just talking about a bunch of cells here, no?

Oh for f**k's sake, don't start playing gotchas with this. There are just as many reasons to find this post absolutely horrifying from a pro-choice perspective as there are from a pro-life perspective, and you know it.

Fair enough. For some reason I was under the impression you'd emphasized the last sentence.

[Simfan34]

Well, of course, "pro-choice" is ultimately a euphemism. When you are vigorously opposed to any notion that the yet-to-be-born have any kind of personhood (see: NARAL's reaction to a Super Bowl ad), then the issue of "choice" becomes irrelevant sind you're dealing with an action with no substantial impact. Control over women's bodies, on the other hand... in such a (moral?) framework there's a salient issue there.

The term simply allows politicians like Joe Biden and Tim Kaine to claim that they "personally" oppose abortion, in conformance with their religious views, while supporting it in every other practical sense.

But I digress, and am perhaps being facetious. While forced abortions would presumably violate the same right to privacy that supposedly makes them a Constitutional right in the first place, it cannot be denied that the de-humanizing view that enables abortions to be viewed as morally unproblematic in the first place renders them an essentially inconsequential procedure. I think abortion supporters would agree with me here; there's no need for a stigma since nothing is being lost, it is a "simple medical procedure".

I am not being facetious, however, on the point that this is not an unnatural conclusion of a perspective that abhors making decisions based on a normative moral framework, aside from the mere consent of direct participants, in the first place, or even regards the government doing so-- "legislating morality"-- as tantamount to "fascism".

[Simfan34]

You know what I found even more icky than incest? Transgenderism.

That's a... problematic opinion.

Well, regarding that, pretty much everything we've taken for granted about human physiology and psychology is problematic. And there's no point in pointing to brain scans, people support transgenderism on the basis of feelings rather than brain scans (which, also show abnormalities in the brains of people with other identity disorders, which, for some reason, we don't take as validating their identity!) and we all know it.

If you'd like to shut me up you can hit me with the club of "trans suicides", as is usually how these "discussions" end; I'll comply. Indeed, this isn't the time or place for this discussion at all.