In all seriousness, at face value, I agree — consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. However, things get sticky when you introduce reproduction to the mix.
Charles Darwin was one of the first scientists to demonstrate the effects of inbreeding depression, through numerous experiments on plants. Darwin’s wife, Emma, was his first cousin, and he was concerned about the impact of inbreeding on his ten children, three of whom died at age ten or younger; three others had childless long-term marriages.[14][15][16]
If this was happening where I lived, I would care about the potential impacts on the community from the possibility of an increase in genetic disorders of children born from such a union. Including increased stress on Healthcare, increased mortality rates during childbirth, increased citizens on government assistance, etc. Not saying these things would happen, but I would care enough to look into it.
There’s also the impact on reputation resulting from one of the states leaders thinking this was an important enough issue to create a bill for, and then the impact on reputation if it gets enough votes to pass. Would the opinions surrounding morality and / or reproductive rights carry less weight? Could it even sway people away from the side taken by Kentucky just because it is the side Kentucky is on?
Well keep in mind the odds of a birth defects from first cousins is the same as a women over 40 have kids at all. But i don’t see applying that argument to this case.
Maybe I could have been more clear, but you seem to have inferred a different argument than what was intended.
The original comment was asking “who cares”. My response was intended to say anybody that anybody in the jurisdiction of any bill / law should care enough to educate themselves on the potential impacts and not merely consider the surface level impacts on themselves as an individual.
My intent was to answer your question “who cares” question. Now it I see that you care.
People should care about laws that are and are not imposed on others, especially if they are in a position to voice support or opposition to those laws.
So we would also conclude abortion bans are eugenics then?
I mean fine be free to fuck your cousin, if we agree on the government having no place in our bedrooms. But surely sex crimes should be prosecuted then… as this bill also wants to provide leniency to those offenses down to age 12…
Weird, but who cares?
Is it gross? To me yes. If they’re consenting adults should we stop them? No, and I don’t see why we should care.
Bill also reduces the penalty for diddling relatives from … 12 years old onwards…
Why would you read past the headline??
Do you have a moment to research the extinction of the Hapsburg family line?
In all seriousness, at face value, I agree — consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. However, things get sticky when you introduce reproduction to the mix.
(Can’t believe I’m saying this) then the target of the law should be reproduction with your first cousin, not intercourse with your first cousin.
children shouldn’t be punished for their parent’s horrendous decisions - we’ve already got MTG & Boebert, haven’t we suffered enough?
Wikipedia
If this was happening where I lived, I would care about the potential impacts on the community from the possibility of an increase in genetic disorders of children born from such a union. Including increased stress on Healthcare, increased mortality rates during childbirth, increased citizens on government assistance, etc. Not saying these things would happen, but I would care enough to look into it.
There’s also the impact on reputation resulting from one of the states leaders thinking this was an important enough issue to create a bill for, and then the impact on reputation if it gets enough votes to pass. Would the opinions surrounding morality and / or reproductive rights carry less weight? Could it even sway people away from the side taken by Kentucky just because it is the side Kentucky is on?
Well keep in mind the odds of a birth defects from first cousins is the same as a women over 40 have kids at all. But i don’t see applying that argument to this case.
Maybe I could have been more clear, but you seem to have inferred a different argument than what was intended.
The original comment was asking “who cares”. My response was intended to say anybody that anybody in the jurisdiction of any bill / law should care enough to educate themselves on the potential impacts and not merely consider the surface level impacts on themselves as an individual.
Policing other people’s possible genetic disorders sounds a bit like eugenics. Should we also make it illegal for autistic people to breed?
My intent was to answer your question “who cares” question. Now it I see that you care.
People should care about laws that are and are not imposed on others, especially if they are in a position to voice support or opposition to those laws.
So we would also conclude abortion bans are eugenics then? I mean fine be free to fuck your cousin, if we agree on the government having no place in our bedrooms. But surely sex crimes should be prosecuted then… as this bill also wants to provide leniency to those offenses down to age 12…