I'm fairly sure most (all) of us feel parent/child incest is wrong, and for fairly obvious reasons.
However, if a brother and sister are very careful about pregnancy prevention or, better, one or both of them is unable to conceive, what would be wrong with it?
BTW, I'm NOT trying to decide whether to do it with my sister (LOL). This is just a question that came to mind while in a discussion with another person.
The shortest answer, is that my sister's so ugly, that when she was a kid, Mom had to hang a pork chop around her neck, just to get our dog to play with her - the poor kid had to sneak up on a glass, just to get a drink of water!
Genetically speaking, and face it, pregnancy is almost always an issue, no matter how much care is exercised, the likelihood increases in such instances, of two recessive genes combining to pass on a negative trait, than with two unrelated people. But the truth is, that many positive traits can be reinforced and passed on that way as well, as has been evidenced in horse-, dog-, and cattle-breeding programs.
In ancient times, such unions were far more common among royalty, in order to preserve a familial blood line. Bottom line - again, never completely eliminating the pregnancy factor - civilizations are simply stronger and more disease-resistant, that have more genetic diversity.
It certainly puts a whole new slant on the phrase, "Oh, Brother!"
It may have been posted already, but have you seen Lawrence Krauss' take on this?
Very interesting. And pleasantly brief as well. (I hate it when people don't present arguments on their own but instead want me to watch a 45 minute video. If you understand the argument, present it yourself.)
Oh, me too.
I wouldn't have done that, don't worry ;)
At risk of having your ire directed at me, you might want to read these two articles (They are not long and they present the research so much more eloquently than I could):
Interesting discussion by the way, you definitely poked the nest with a stick on that one.
Those studies divide into two aspects.
1) the genetic part
2) the psychosocial (taboo) part
We know that it's a taboo. No news there. And while the genetic aspect is well-known and accepted, it's still a fact that the original post was based on "suppose the couple didn't produce offspring," this eliminating the genetic factor as a consideration.
My argument is, as per a previous post, that if one pair of siblings form a relationship and it becomes seen as normal by their peers, then it is natural that others will will copy them and eventually, somewhere down the line, offspring will be produced, by accident or design, then that will be seen as normal, etc.
It is human nature and therefore, I think, should be discouraged, as it is now. As per the two articles, it is probably genetically inbuilt into most of us to not procreate with our siblings.
As an ingrained (and thus nonrational) taboo, there's little risk of it becoming commonplace or "normal."
I like this rational, non-spinned statement.