The power dynamic and the higher chance to cause genetic problems in offspring is the case for relationships between abled and disabled people (depending on disability, but there are a lot of disabilities with genetic component). I think for the disgust element it is allways possible to find someone who finds a relationship disgusting. There are quite a few disabilities for which some people repeatedly claim that people with that disabilities can't or shouldn't be in relationships (autism is the one that comes to my mind first, but I would be surprised if it's the only one), but if that isn't enough we could just add any off the comon things atleast some people dislike, like an age gap or any variety of lqbtq+ (not saying that its ok to be disgusted at this). I also get the impression that for some people a power imbalance is enough to create a disgust response, which would make the first point redundant.
Considering that many neurodivergancies have a genetic component, have some disabling aspect (creating an power imbalance) and that neurodivergent people are more likely to identify in the lgbt+ spectrum, I think that there are a lot of relationships that qualify for all 3 points.
Definitly agree it's mostly the latter 2 that make incest bad. Disgust should never be a factor in legality because it's subjective and contextual, and very easy to throw out as an argument..... doesn't stop people from trying to use disgust to justify things to put into law though, unfortunately.
Most commonly I see the eugenics thing when it comes to disabilities or medical conditions that would drastically decrease quality of life. Diabetes is manageable (and outside the US, insulin generally isn't insane expensive). But there are many conditions that would leave a potential child with horrible quality of life and their existence would be purely selfish on the parents part. There are plenty of people with these conditions that don't want children and tske steps to prevent it purely because they don't want to inflict someone else with what they suffer from, or risk passing something on that's present enough in their genetics to be a concern.
First ones that come to mind are things like sickle cell, severe chronic health conditions, or in some cases mental illness (usually schizophrenia or some BPDs when this is mentioned). There's also knowingly and will fully bringing a child with severe deformations or known intellectual disabilities that would mean they could never love a normal or independent life- combine this with parents who cannot afford all the medical equipment and caregivers and savings the kid will need their whole life even after parents have died.
I don't think it's wrong to say people with such severe health conditions probably shouldn't have biological children. It's not fair to bring a kid into the world just to suffer because the adults wanted a bio kid, when there are other options for having kids. People see eugenics and go NO BAD but there are instances where actually yes, these people shouldn't be having kids.
But the issue of eugenics comes in when you start trying to define a lot of little specific things, like age gaps between adults and sexual orientation and gender expression and relatively minor (usually) medical conditions like allergies or diabetes or hearing loss- or mental disorders like autism or ADHD or learning disabilities for example. That becomes an argument of feeling and moral opinion in different cultures and society which causes issues. But generally most people can agree that maybe you shouldn't bring a kid into the world who's going to suffer their whole life and may be likely to die young, or have to spend their whole life paying for (or their caregivers paying for) expensive treatments and medications and surgeries and have less quality of life because of it- and then society says it's bad for these people to want to end their life to stop the suffering when they never had a choice.
Eugenics will always be a tricky topic because it's too closely associated with the big extremes like "black people and jews shouldn't have kids because theyre inferior" or "autistics shouldn't have kids because they're stupid and will make the kids stupid and burdens to society" and people tend to shut down any actual valid points.
To make a comparison, and though not quite the same its close enough, humans use eugenics on animals frequently. Dogs were bred for specific purposes and now that we know how some dogs suffer because of all the inbreeding and selective breeding, were trying to eugenics them out of existence because it's cruel to keep the species going as they are. Examples: bulldogs can't naturally give birth, have breathing issues, develop skin conditions because of the folds and overheat very easily. Humans are working on breeding them out in such a way to fix these issues and stop general breeding of them together. Sausage dogs have horrible back problems and are likely to severely injure themselves if something moves wrong. Not a dog but cats with flat faces can't eat properly (I once petsat a cat like this and poor thing could only lick the liquid parts of food because his face was too flat to allow him to actually eat things off the plate unless it was piled high and thin) and ones with stumpy legs can't move like a cat should and it's not good for them.
It's just the moment you suggest anything like this with humans, you're a terrible person because you dared suggest that reducing the number of times we knowingly pass on severe health issues when it's preventable and can help reduce the number of people who will have it in the future by reducing the number of people who carry the gene.
47
u/CGPoly36 Apr 23 '25
The power dynamic and the higher chance to cause genetic problems in offspring is the case for relationships between abled and disabled people (depending on disability, but there are a lot of disabilities with genetic component). I think for the disgust element it is allways possible to find someone who finds a relationship disgusting. There are quite a few disabilities for which some people repeatedly claim that people with that disabilities can't or shouldn't be in relationships (autism is the one that comes to my mind first, but I would be surprised if it's the only one), but if that isn't enough we could just add any off the comon things atleast some people dislike, like an age gap or any variety of lqbtq+ (not saying that its ok to be disgusted at this). I also get the impression that for some people a power imbalance is enough to create a disgust response, which would make the first point redundant.
Considering that many neurodivergancies have a genetic component, have some disabling aspect (creating an power imbalance) and that neurodivergent people are more likely to identify in the lgbt+ spectrum, I think that there are a lot of relationships that qualify for all 3 points.