That seems a bit unfair.
It's even more unfair to carelessly bestow genetical deficiencies on one's children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_St%C3%BCbing - "The older two children suffer from severe physical and mental disabilities. The third child was born with a heart condition but is healthy after undergoing a heart transplant"
Actually given further information in that page, and after learning how the woman was still a minor at the beginning of their relationship, I withdraw my hypothetical "applauding" anyway; though at least on 2004 the man finally did undergo a vasectomy.
just because some people are freaked out by them?
Downvoted: I don't see how you could have legitimately misinterpreted my words to mean that people being freaked out is the reason I offered for their need for birth control.
Lots of downvotes. So do we think there's a good case for coercive eugenics here then? That's got a sort of Schelling-pointy feel to it to me, so that I wonder if prohibiting incest might actually be the lesser of two evils.
If a case can be made for coercive eugenics here, where else can it be made? And how does the incest ick-factor influence the arguments?
Do people without siblings feel the ick-factor? Or do you need personal experience of the Westermarck effect?
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.