I was reading this article and it got me thinking, what one society thinks is beyond the pale is considered normal in another - do you think that the federation has any laws against incest?
Does the Federation ban incest?
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
i would suspect that would be a matter for the planetary governments individually to determine and legislate on, like age of consent, age for consuming alcohol - if they even allow it - or age for voting etc.
It's hard to tell, really. We can't even predict what the cultural taboos in other societies might be. Since, to me, the Federation is sort of the epitome of a liberal society I hope they wouldn't have that law. It doesn't seem right to lock people up for having a consensual relationship.
The respective German law which was the cause of the article in the OP was already revised in the 70s and made less strict. There's at least one party that's come out against it as a reaction to the trial and one of the judges of the Constitutional Court also argued against it. So, I think it's already on its way out here, too, in the long run.
The respective German law which was the cause of the article in the OP was already revised in the 70s and made less strict. There's at least one party that's come out against it as a reaction to the trial and one of the judges of the Constitutional Court also argued against it. So, I think it's already on its way out here, too, in the long run.
Except there is a practical reason to ban incest. Inbreeding often creates birth defects, which has a negative impact on the child. Frankly banning incest promotes a practical good for children and society, maintaining bio-diversity is important for the entire human race. The more inbreeding there is, the more these children would be burdened by birth defects.
I almost don't see how the Federation could have a UFP-wide law about it, given the wildly varying cultures and biologies of its Members' species. Rationally, you'd think they'd leave that sort of thing to its Member State governments to legislate for themselves based upon their own species' biologies.
The interesting question becomes, what happens when species with incompatible needs and taboos reside on the same planet? What if, say, what Humans consider taboo incest or sexual abuse of children is actually vital to the good health and emotional development of, say, the Bzzit Khaht? It's all well and good as long as Humans stay on Earth and Bzzit Khaht stay on Bzz Khah. But what if both species try to colonize Planet X together and found it as a new Federation Member independent of their species' homeworlds? Or what if some Bzzit Khaht families emigrate to Earth -- would United Earth laws against incest or sexual contact with children apply to such a species?
(Note: I intentionally chose the extremely alien-looking Bzzit Khaht because I wanted to explore the question of radically different biologies yielding radically different cultural values and emotional needs, but wanted to do so without using a Human-looking species that a particularly sick reader, like a pedophile, could view as a "Human surrogate" to project their emotionally traumatizing desires onto.)
The interesting question becomes, what happens when species with incompatible needs and taboos reside on the same planet? What if, say, what Humans consider taboo incest or sexual abuse of children is actually vital to the good health and emotional development of, say, the Bzzit Khaht? It's all well and good as long as Humans stay on Earth and Bzzit Khaht stay on Bzz Khah. But what if both species try to colonize Planet X together and found it as a new Federation Member independent of their species' homeworlds? Or what if some Bzzit Khaht families emigrate to Earth -- would United Earth laws against incest or sexual contact with children apply to such a species?
(Note: I intentionally chose the extremely alien-looking Bzzit Khaht because I wanted to explore the question of radically different biologies yielding radically different cultural values and emotional needs, but wanted to do so without using a Human-looking species that a particularly sick reader, like a pedophile, could view as a "Human surrogate" to project their emotionally traumatizing desires onto.)
Well, the article also raises the question that if we follow this line of reasoning shouldn't other groups of people also be barred from having children which I think we all can agree does indeed open up a can of worms. And the actual case in question demonstrates that the ban isn't necessarily effective in preventing that, anyway. The couple has 4 children.
Without checking the internet, I'm not even sure we (Americans) have a specific law against it. We have laws about sex with underage children, and you can't marry your second cousin (and in some states your third), but again not sure about consensual adult incest sex.
As CaptColhoun said, likely such a law, if any, would originate with the respective member.
As CaptColhoun said, likely such a law, if any, would originate with the respective member.
What other groups getting together promote inbreeding? Yes there will be some birth defects that occur naturally, but I think its cruel to engage in activity that increases the chances of birth defects burdening the children. Plus inbreeding often ruined the old European royal families, Czar Nicolas the second's son suffered hemophilia because of inbreeding.
It would be like intentionally using thalidomide to treat morning sickness even if you know that causes birth defects. Society frowns on pregnant women smoking, drinking and using drugs while pregnant, because that is bad for the child. Besides saying just something should be made legal because a law cannot prevent all instances of it is not logical, there will always be murders, should murder be made legal then?
That's not the point. You cited the higher risk of birth defects as the reason for banning incest. But other groups, e.g. people with hereditary diseases or older women, also risk that when they get pregnant. A vast majority of people would thankfully be against banning them from having consensual relationships. So, I'm not sure the genetics argument is really good enough from a purely rational point-of-view (i.e. excluding the ickyness factor due to the taboo our society has assigned to it) to justify sending people to prison.
Wasn't it determined that inbreeding is only a concern when it's immediate family or generational incest? I thought I read somewhere that a second cousin or two getting together wasn't really an issue. It's when you repeatedly pull from the same family genes that problems start to crop up, like with the royal families of europe.
The Federation's laws are probably more strict than we realize. For instance, there is a Federation wide prohibition against eugenics. Yet it was based SOLELY on events that happened on Earth.
To me that suggests that Federation laws are not always as diverse as we would hope.
To me that suggests that Federation laws are not always as diverse as we would hope.
Hereditary disorders don't threaten biodiversity and no one said anything about sending people to prison, a pregnant woman won't be sent to prison for drinking while pregnant, but its certainly something society will discourage.
Well, laws banning incest usually carry prison sentences as one possible consequence. The case discussed in the article in the OP involved the man being sentenced to a prison sentence. How else would you enforce a ban than by some form of legal punishment?
Fines could work. There are other legal punishments besides prison time. Plus some things are legal, but not encouraged by society, society is filled with unwritten rules that are enforced by peers rather then the state.
Sure, but the OP asked whether the Federation would have laws against incest. Due to the way the economy in the Federation works I doubt fines would make much sense (or even exist, for that matter). That raises the question how laws are enforced within the Federation in general - penal colonies, psychotherapy, community work (although isn't that what everyone's supposedly doing, anyway?)?
There is a lot about Federation society is not well explained, so that's a hard question to answer.
However the federation is still bound by concepts like biodiversity and inbreeding does have a negative impact on it. This is one of those times where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Inbreeding depression is a possible outcome of inbreeding, if it is wide spread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_depression
Besides if inbreed child become too difficult for their parents to take care of them, what would happen to them? Would they become wards of the state? This brings up a ton of unpleasant questions for the Federation.
Frankly, I’d only care about the Federation’s attitude toward incest if I were writing Trek porn.
Link
In fact, all 50 states allow marriage between second cousins. 25 states prohibit marriages between first cousins, while six states allow first-cousin marriage under certain circumstances.
Link
My state, Alabama, does indeed allow first cousins to marry. I hate to admit this, but my maternal grandfather's parents were first cousins.
My country allows it, too.
Similar threads
- Poll
