#pro consang

incest is not inherently damaging whatsoever as long as its consensual. there is zero scientific evidence that consensual incest is damaging. NONE. of course, incestuous abuse absolutely exists and is extremely damaging to the victims of it, but what i am talking about is consensual relationships between adults.

before you call me insane, here:

in an article by clare kasemset from stanford university, she states that one of the main (and only) scientific reasons that incest is illegal is that "the offspring of partners with a high level of consanguinity are more likely to have birth defects". however, this is eugenics: disabled people's children are also very likely to have children with birth defects, and anyone really could potentially have children with birth defects. this argument is simply that incestuous relationships should be illegal so that birth defects cease to exist. keep in mind, the definition of eugenics is "to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable"; in essence, make sure that the only people born are "desirable", which would include being able-bodied. kasemset goes on to explain that "the act of incestuous sexual intercourse does not cause harm". incest does not inherently cause harm. the only reasons people give for the illegalization of incestuous relationships are eugenics and the potentially offensiveness of it due to the fact that "the vast majority of people in this country have deep-seated beliefs that incest is immoral".

article source: https://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/intersect/article/download/137/35/615

in an article by maria campo redondo and gabriel andrade, they state that "incest represents a risk, but this is not reason enough to illegalize incest". this is because "other circumstances of sexual intercourse may lead to similar risks, and yet, such practices are not illegal". think of how AIDs is used to say that homosexuality should be illegal, how the possibility of miscarriage is used to say that people should only be getting pregnant at young ages, how the possibility of disabled children is used to say that disabled people shouldnt be having children: all of these are arguments that rely on nothing but "disability should be eradicated". ableism is so extremely ingrained in our society that people constantly search for the cure to every disability so that they wont have to deal with disabled people existing. i have had friends who have been told "your children will be disabled though!!!!! 😥" for being disabled just like those who are in incestuous relationships have. you should be allowed to have a child as long as you or someone else is capable of taking care of them, no matter if that child is disabled or not - a child potentially being disabled is not a morally wrong thing. as the authors of this article say, the reasons why incest is illegal "do not relate to public health and genetic risks".

article source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phil.12332

in a paper by jeff sebo, he states that "incest increases the incidence of inherited genetic diseases by about three percent". three percent. that is only three out of every hundred children born out of incestuous relationships. the argument of incest increasing disabilities is not only founded on eugenics, but founded on a very small statistic - especially compared to the fact that the probability of an autistic person have an autistic child is, on average, 3.45%. it is no different from any genetically disabled person having a child. advocating for incest to be illegal based on the possibility of disabled children is no different from advocating for disabled people to be sterilized.

he also explains that family is not dramatically different from any other relationship, and that there "are numerous important relationships in our lives—some of which are based on blood, others of which are not—and it is ridiculous to assume that our family members, whoever they may be, are necessarily our emotional centers". for many, many people, friends can even more important than family, or family can seem much more similar to friendly dynamics than typical family dynamics. the argument of families is also very often used against queer people by saying that it ruins the inherent family dynamics that are supposedly present, when in reality, families all function very differently and many people see their siblings or cousins as more like friends than how families are typically portrayed. as the author says: "no relevant moral distinction neatly separates our family relations from the other relationships in our lives".

he also explains that many people claim that incest "turn[s] out badly frequently enough to warrant a categorical ban". incestuous relationships are often abusive ones, this is very evident. however, "the outcome of our test will depend largely on how we run it". if we only ask abuse victims what their experience was (as many, many articles do), we will come to the conclusion that it is all abusive. only looking at people who were children abused by adult family members is not looking at the effects of incest, but looking at the effects of child abuse. yes, there may be a lack of scientific evidence for incest being good - but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and there are many, many person experiences from people. on top of that, "those who breach the taboo are branded as outsiders, they suffer the effects of social ostracism, and since others misinterpret this suffering as caused by the act and not the label, they are used as evidence in support of the taboo". if someone is in an incestuous relationship, they will be hated by everyone, which will lead to them being depressed and possibly suicidal - not because of the incest itself, but because of how its treated.