All the time in abortion debates, I read the opinion that abortion should be aloud in cases of "rape and/or incest." In the context of this forum, I do not want another abortion debate. Rather, I want to know why incest is always grouped with rape.

I always had the impression that incest simply means sex between people who are members of the same immediate family (not a very exact use of the word "immediate", but bear with me), even if the people are consenting adults.

My question: does the word "incest" as it is used on abortion debate forums necessarily imply it is a case of rape within the family (in which case the term "rape and/or incest" is redundant) or does everyone think that sex between consenting adults who are related is such a travesty that it is equal to rape itself?

By the way, I have done no research, so any information on the legality of incest, and the physiological effects of incest on the child of such would be greatly appreciated.

Not at all.
Those are just the two main causes that even the most rabid anti-abortion forces must acknowledge are difficult circumstances- the rape because a woman would be forced to bear the child of a vicious attacker, incest because of the vastly increased chance of birth defects.

About how much are the chances of birth defects increased? As a matter of fact, I don't know how much chance of birth defects a child from a non-incestuous relationship has. Some kind of quantitative comparison would be useful.

For useful reference, we had a similar thread going on this topic once here: Incest: Moral Outrage?. It has since been closed due to age.

Because often times incest is at the expense (rather than the pleasure) of at least one of the people participating. And the term participating is used lightly, usually there is some form of coersion.

I grew up next door to a family that fit the definition of incest- cousins married, had six children, 2 of them deaf or near deaf I should say. They moved up here before statehood to get away from the persecution they were facing in thier home state. Never had to change thier names when married kinda thing. All of the unatractive features of each parent were passed on to the kids, the whole family is butt ugly I am afraid, and a couple maybe not quite mentally imbalanced but damn close. So I understand the reason for society not putting up with incest, but this was certainly not raped, they have been married for 50 years or more.

I believe that when the term "incest" is used in relation to abortion it is meant to define rape of a child or minor by a relative. I agree that it's rape but a more defined rape.

Incest when used in the context you reference (at least in my case) implies non-consensual sex between an authority figure and a minor within the same family. Non-consensual based on the fact that a minor under the age of x (depending on state of residence) is unable to legally consent to such an act. Whether it be father/daughter, uncle/niece, etc that is the context in which I use the term. I do not pretend to speak for others in this respect.

There is of course consensual incest between brother/sister, cousins, etc. but such cases fall into an entirely different category in my mind although the behavior is equally unacceptable on a social level from my perspective.

CR,

I lost it when reading this.
yes, I am bad.

Isn't incest the sexual (consensual or not) contact between any blood members within a family?

If it's something else than I've been misinformed

Incest has nothing to do with child rape or non-consentual relations between an adult and a child in the same family. The definition follows, as do my further comments:

This is the definition from dictionary.com:
in·cest ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nsst)
n.
Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom.
The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near relative.

OK, so now that we have the definition, let's discuss it further, and I do have questions... Why should incest be illegal as ordained by the government? I understand the child bearing issues, but other than those, why is the government involved at all??? In fact, fundamentally, why is the goverment involved at all???

Thirty five years ago, a next door neighbor was explaining to me why she killed her child. She had been a lifelong victim of incest. The child was fathered by her father. She had moved away from him, found a job, found a house, etc. While she was working, someone had been hired to watch the baby. Her father "dropped in for an unexpected visit." When she returned from work, the sitter had been sent home and he was "nursing the baby." He was not using either his breasts or a baby bottle. She grabbed the baby from him to protect it, threw it across the room, and it died. I advised her to call an attorney. The attorney called the police. I sat with her until they came.

Locally in Muskegon, shortly after we arrived here, a high school student delivered a baby in the ladies room and left it in the wastebasket to die. It, and the baby before it were fathered by her father. She wasn't going to take a second baby home for him to abuse.

It is not unusual for incest to start when a child is very young, and an abuser often sees a next generation as his property; just as he views his wife, his children, his girlfriends...

The government gets involved because behavior like this exists. A dry dictionary definition does not begin to explain how badly human beings can treat one another.

Incest among consenting adults doesn't belong in the category with rape.

Sex involving an unconsenting or minor person goes in the same category whether its incestuous or not, right?

I think the "rape and incest" line is used:

1) because it gets the right emotional response (who can argue that a rape or incest victim should be forced to bear the resulting child).

2) as shorthand for "incest involving a minor"

But I appreciate the original question on this thread - I've never looked at it this way before.

With the advent of closed adoption comes the risk of incestual relationships..Take for example a brother and sister are married, have a couple of kids only to find out they ARE indeed brother and sister? Then what? Do the kids need to be penalized their entire lives for the actions of their parents? How do you say this is wrong yet if it's happened its ok? Or do we go so far as saying ok well everyone has to undergo DNA testing before being married?

I mean if you want to take a biblical aspect the Lord destroyed the earth leaving 4 men and 4 women to reproduce and refill the population of the earth so somehow we are all related extremely distantly. Still related none the less..Where (and how) do you draw the line? (or even the example in the bible if a man dies his brother should take and care for his wife, then what? you have cousins that are also half brother and sisters to each other?)

I will concur that daddy doing his daughter over and over just to have kids, that is a little extreme yes. Or on the flip side Mom doing her son to have his children. Yes that also is extreme.

In other parts of the country marriages are arranged and usually between 1rst counsins (yet we in this country for the most part even shy away from that). There is a gray area to all of this somewhere and I honestly don't believe you can say it's totally correct or incorrect.

If people are that set on incest for the start and get "fixed" then who is it hurting? No one is asking it to be legalized or asking for any special benefit from it. And even the children of such said relationships (again see above for my first example) do not need to suffer because of acts their parents were not aware they commited until the deed was done. This is an extremely gray area to be sure

Three issues here:

Firstly, As has been pointed out, a great deal of incest is also sexual assault, in particular of young girls by relatives.

However the issue of consentual incest is complicated. For direct relations, (brother/sister for example) the chance of bith defencts increases dramatically, in particular when there is a history in the family. (Usually such things will be in recessive genes, which will be definition become dominant) Stats are wide and varied, but as a general rule the chances of birth defects increases by about 10 to 15 times.

For indirect relatives, first cousins for example, the dangerous effects drop significantly. First cousin marriages are not that uncommon (Einstein, Darwin, FDR, John A Macdonald, etc). Once again, statistics are uncertain, but the chance of birth defects in this case is low, about double that of a completely non-cosanguinous relation. Of course, when cosanguinity is repeated over generations, (Hapsburg Monarchy) then the chance of defects or recessive illnesses increases arithmatically.

For distant relatives, (second or further cousins) there is no evidence of increased birth defects or illnesses.


I suspect the reason rape and incest is grouped together in the minds of the people mentioned in the first post is the link between incest and sexual assault, not the link between incest and birth defects.