[ ... Continued from part 1]
Which brings us to the next point, do "the obligations of procreation end at childbirth"?
Danderhall previously said of this premise...
(1) First let us take op-ed's premises and suppose further that these obligations only concern conception through childbirth and nothing before or after. Suppose further that the institution only addresses issues relevant to procreation. In this case it would be okay to exclude arrangements without the potential to procreate. (2) This time let us take op-ed's premises and suppose that the obligations include obligations both before conception and after childbirth. Let us suppose further that the institution while set aside to address concerns of procreation also in the process addresses other concerns. Let us suppose further that the institution works quite well even for couples who do not procreate. In this case it would be wrong to exclude arrangements without the potential to procreate.
In short, responsible procreation is easily locked to at least one of the two parents until birth. At that time, the responsibility for the new life can easily be met by transferring to another set of care givers. Hence, one meets the requirement of responsible procreation when they are simply taking care of children. And so any institution meant to focus on responsible procreation should include them.
I could have it wrong. But if that is the argument the answer is pretty clear...
[Read on...]
The obligations of procreation do extend before, during, and after childbirth. Consider this video where a father meets his obligations not only to a handicapped child but to his handicapped wife before, during, and after childbirth.
Note that in the video there are a number of institutions that offer to take on part of that obligation, from insurance companies to full institutionalization. There are also institutions which take can take care of the obligations just between adults, from Reciprocal Beneficiaries to the flexibilities of all contract law. But none of those -- especially in the eyes of that father -- are equatable to his obligations contracted by marriage.
To continue on Op-Ed's basic question, it follows that if procreation is worth supporting with expectations of responsibility (or rather socially recognized commitment to the child and the person you created the child with) it is worth doing right. There is, and should be, one institution directly focused on the whole story.
From the commitment before one even engages in the actions which bring children into the world, to the fulfillment of that commitment. Other institutions assist that are pieces of the whole, but even those are best understood in the context of that whole. Each aspect we recognize in marriage serves the specific purpose of encouraging that complete recognition of responsibility and rights to all involved in the human mating practice. Without the context, each responsibility may exist in a government recognized form if we choose. However, they become like poorly chosen words which are given any context one may wish.
Still little or no disagreement here. I especially endorse the statement that none of these--especially in the eyes of that father--are equatable to his obligations contracted by marriage.
ReplyDeleteI would like to remind you, though, that based on this premise (with which we both agree) I would not reach the conclusion that marriage and/or family should be withheld from those couples that cannot procreate.
"I would not reach the conclusion that marriage and/or family should be withheld from those couples that cannot procreate."
ReplyDeleteAnd it's not. At least not withheld from couples who cannot procreate, by choice or disability. But it is withheld from couples who cannot procreate by design, and rightly so.
There are no couples who cannot procreate today. Infertile couples can procreate. Same-sex couples can procreate. Individuals can procreate. Freakin' Marilyn Monroe and John Wayne can procreate. Humans and chimps can procreate, humans and pigs can procreate. And SIBLINGS can procreate. You see, "can procreate" has nothing to do with it, and it never did have anything to do with it. SIBLINGS can procreate! 15 year olds can procreate. On Lawn's wife and I can procreate. Same-sex couples can procreate. How many times do I have to say it??
ReplyDeleteWhat matters is, do we APPROVE of a couple procreating. That's what marriage represents, it is a license to procreate, it is approval to procreate.
Hey, which is the post where Howard and On Lawn were calling each other fascists. Actually, On Lawn was calling John a fascist and John was calling On Lawn an anti-gay bigot, which is a kind of fascist: "you're just throwing vague insults at gay people"? I don't want to miss any part of it.
ReplyDeleteArturo, we've been doing that for years, but you probably are looking for Part 1 of the Procreation Question Revisted (this is part 2). Hmm, no, in that one I'm "totalitarian", he says he's against "fascist control" in this one, which was about incest. Apparently he thinks that incest should be legal and allowed, and saying it should not be allowed is fascist. Go figure.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteYour twisting in the wind again. Stick to explaining your own opinions. Your attempts to explain mine have been pretty poorly done.
How so?
ReplyDeleteNot sure, that is up to you. I've outlined my position well enough, that it has you twisting in the wind is your own issue.
ReplyDeleteIn the mean time, stick to explaining your own positions since you are doing so poorly explaining others.
No you haven't outlined your position well enough. These are practical real world questions about public policy, things that have to be decided, not ducked. Do you think incest is a right or do you think people should be punished if they practice incest? Do you think we should allow labs to do same-sex conception and genetic engineering, or do you think they should be prohibited? Do you think everyone should be allowed to marry a person of their choice, and all marriages should all be allowed to procreate with their own genes, or do you think procreation rights are separate from marriage?
ReplyDeletekeep twisting ... your false dichotomies are your own
ReplyDeleteExplain how they are false dichotomies. An incestuous couple is either allowed to continue having sex, or they are not. Frowning on it, saying you wish they wouldn't, is not a middle ground, it is allowing it. The same holds true about genetic engineering and manufacture of children for same-sex couples.
ReplyDeleteDo you think we should allow incest or not?
ReplyDeleteI'm asking everyone, not just On Lawn, btw.
ReplyDeleteI certainly think we should not allow it, we should indeed punish couples with jail for knowingly engaging in incest.
Also, question to everyone: can you help me understand why On Lawn thinks this question is so hard to answer?
The reason no one answers is not the question but the asker. We all realize you are so set on stuffing all answers into one of two extreme pigeon holes, that it just isn't worth it. Take me for example, I gave you my answer, and you keep trying to fit it into two of your own.
ReplyDeleteProhibiting incest is an "extreme pigeon hole"? No, sorry, allowing incest is extreme. There is nothing in between. Either something is allowed or it isn't. There are latitudes of how vigilantly to enforce it and how much to punish it, as there are with every law, but, as with every law, there is also a stark absolute difference between something being legal or illegal. Nothing is "half-legal".
ReplyDeleteActually, I understand that incest is allowed in most states. A mother may have incestuous relationships with her adult son and adult siblings may have incestuous relationships, etc. It is not a crime. Some states consider certain cousin marriages incestuous while others do not. You would put them all in jail, wouldn't you John Howard? That does have a tinge of fascist mentality I would say.
ReplyDeleteJose,
ReplyDeleteI just have to say, one of my favorite characters in the Muppet Show was Crazy Harry. He was the one that randomly showed up with a TNT detonator and with a laugh of enjoyment would detonate charges around the stage. He represented the truely random element of society that a well crafted stage presentation wouldn't be without.
I anticipate if a conversation strikes up between you and John after that entrance, it would be quite the spectacle.
As for me, Mr Howard's totalitarian attitudes show more through his tyrannical enforcement of his own logical progressions, like a shoot running sheep to the slaughter, and his inability to see the other dimensions, and the in-between elements of his own dimension. He has the same mathematical stringency as whole numbers along the spectrum of math. Keep it simple, with definite automotons where one follows the next.
Enter Crazy Harry and something about legalized incest...
I've been researching incest laws and found a bunch of interesting papers. This 2006 Harvard Law Review paper is arguing what you and Jose are arguing, that we should separate procreation rights from marriage and allow all adults to have sex and procreate with each other, regardless of marriage ties and blood ties, based on nothing but consent. It is full of cases from around the world that show the wide latitude and good judgment of judges in prosecuting individual incest cases. But it is primarily a review of the theories of a law professor named Martha Fineman, who "promotes a vision of the family that serves as a useful counterpoint to the traditional conception. She proposes “the abolition of the legal supports for the sexual family,” defined as a family based on a marriage or a marriage-like relationship. She would instead institute a legal system that protects “the nurturing unit of caretaker and dependent exemplified by the Mother/Child dyad,” as opposed to the “Husband/Wife dyad that forms the basic unit of the sexual family.” “Mothers” in this scheme represent natural caretakers of any gender, whereas “Children” represent natural dependents, whether because of age, illness, or disability. The fact that Professor Fineman would “abolish marriage as a legal category and with it any privilege based on sexual affiliation” is not to say that she would abolish marriage-like intimate relationships; rather, those relationships would simply have no particular “legal (enforceable in court) consequences.”
ReplyDeleteLet the record show that OpineEditorials is on the same side as someone who wants to abolish the legal supports of marriage and move to a free-market consent-based model.
I am trying also to find an example of a sibling couple that is allowed to have children, but I have not found such a couple.
I also found a handy pdf of state incest laws, which is interesting due to all the alternative formulations different states have come up with. Some states prohibit marriage, some states prohibit intercourse, some both, yet, they are all intended to accomplish the same thing. The reason for the differences is because of the history of marriage where marriage was understood to be a license to intercourse, and prohibiting marriage meant the same thing as prohibiting intercourse. None of the states that only prohibit marriage intend to allow intercourse, let me assure you. It just doesn't make any sense that a couple that is allowed to procreate be denied marriage, and a couple that is prohibited from procreating be allowed to marry. That is the essential link that we need to preserve, not let Professor Fineman abolish.
At any rate, I've discovered that almost all states and countries have incest laws, and none of them can be described as fascist or totalitarian regimes, unless you are Professor Martha Fineman herself. A couple in Germany just lost their appeal in Germany: Despite their desire to have an open relationship, the constitutional court last week rejected Stuebing's claim that paragraph 173 be overturned because it is unconstitutional to punish adults who have consensual sexual relations. In making the ruling, the court stated that sexual relations between siblings "do not affect them exclusively, but also can have an effect on family and society and have consequences for children who arise from the relationship."
They would have to just let them if there was no law against incest. Supposedly Brazil and Belgium and Rhode Island have no laws, but again I can't find any examples of incestuous couples happily living in freedom, those countries just have very strong moral codes that make a law unnecessary. But that's not true everywhere. The stakes are high enough that merely disapproving of it, as if it were just an unhealthy lifestyle choice that people should be urged to avoid, isn't enough.
Oh, you asked me a question Jose. I try to answer questions honestly, even if they are loaded questions intended to sway an argument emotionally. Yes, if I were the police chief or district attorney or governor, I would put a mother and her adult son in jail if it came to light they were having sex. I think all states would. My state allows first cousins to marry, so I wouldn't put them in jail, I'd treat them like any fornicating couple, where the law only sets a maximum sentence and does not require a minimum sentence. There may be some cases that would come up where I'd arrest and give the maximum sentence to fornicators, but it's hard to envision what they would have to do to provoke that response.
ReplyDeleteSo you agree with Professor Martha Fineman about adult incest (it should not be a crime) and marriage (it should not be linked to procreation rights)?
ReplyDeleteCome on, read that paper and tell us if you disagree or not. This is a discussion site, you are supposed to be interested in these things, not afraid to discuss them.
ReplyDeleteI'm not interested in another of your pigeon holes, John. I'm happy enough to let you twist in the wind on that.
ReplyDeleteJohn Howard, is it your contention that we should be putting aside the battle against neutering marriage to concentrate on these things instead? Strategically speaking, what do you think would happen if we did that?
ReplyDeleteReally, sometimes you do have to look at where the political traction is, and where it isn't. If not, you are going to be in a situation like trying to fix your fusebox while your oven is boiling over and starting on fire.
My contention is that the only way to win the battle against neutering marriage is to stress that marriage always has and should continue to mean the right to conceive children. Siblings and same-sex couples should not have that right, which means they should not be allowed to marry. Merely keeping marriage man-woman does not stop it from being neutered, if we don't preserve the right of marriage to conceive children with the marriage's own genes. If any marriages are not allowed to attempt to conceive children with their own genes as a matter of principle, that will destroy marriage.
ReplyDeleteI think it is ridiculous that people are afraid to say that incest should not be allowed. Are you seriously contending that you gain political traction by calling incest laws fascist and totalitarian? That's crazy, there are only like ten people in the world who think incest should be legal.
Allow me to edit this so you can see better what John means...
ReplyDeletethat marriage always has and should continue to mean the exclusive right to concieve children.
John has proposed in the past punishing not just incest (which it is arguable should be done), but girls who are raped or have a moment of indiscression -- while the man often excapes punishment.
John is wanting to regulate procreation with marriage. His talk of rights is the same gluming onto a positive term that neutered marriage proponents say by removing government expectation of marriage equality (one man and one woman) as their right.
OK, marriage is, technically, exclusively the right to conceive children, but more importantly, it certainly must include right to conceive children. I don't hear On Lawn even going that far. Here's another chance: On Lawn, do you think every marriage should have the right to attempt to conceive offspring together using their own genes?
ReplyDeleteI've never said that we have to change the way we deal with out-of-wedlock indiscretions. We've worked out a pretty good system for that. We have developed ways that don't punish the mother or child and hold men responsible for children, and no one goes to jail for conceiving out of marriage unless they shirk their responsibilities after the fact. But that doesn't mean there is now a right to conception outside of marriage. That's still wrong. On Lawn who can't handle nuance, he thinks that we either have to declare something a right, or else dedicate the police to eradicating it and punishing everyone. No in between for On Lawn, either give it the green light and thumbs up, or put it in jail. That's just not the way the world works.
And I've never proposed punishing rape victims or moments of indiscretion, On Lawn must have misinterpreted something I said, to be charitable.
My point is that all marriages should be allowed to procreate together, and couples who are not allowed to procreate together should not be allowed to marry. Siblings should be a clear cut, uncontroversial example of this. They certainly are couples that should not be allowed to procreate, that should be punished if they attempt it. Same-sex couples, as well as human-animal couples, and other genetic engineering should also be punished. On Lawn refuses to accept that there are couples that should not be allowed to procreate. He wants to allow labs to do anything they want, he wants to allow people to procreate with anyone they want. Or, maybe he is just loathe to say that he doesn't, because it would violate his Libertarian anti-government principles or something. I wish he would explain why he can't support a ban on same-sex conception and incest.
OK, marriage is, technically, exclusively the right to conceive children [...]
ReplyDeleteI know, I've talked with you long enough to know exactly what you are sweeping under the carpet here.
We've worked out a pretty good system for that.
So what is this good plan you ace sweeping under the carpet? The only plan I've seen from you unabashidely recommended jail time for expectant mothers and you were inable to handle the job of tracking down the fathers with the same precision. Nor could you recomend any reasonable action for them if they were tracked down.
Now to play fact police...
John has a nasty habit of goading people into his games with completely wrong re-tellings of their positions. Its part of an exercise which I have described as being forced into one pigeon hole or another. So here his is description of my opinion.
That's still wrong. On Lawn who can't handle nuance, he thinks that we either have to declare something a right, or else dedicate the police to eradicating it and punishing everyone. No in between for On Lawn, either give it the green light and thumbs up, or put it in jail.
Regular readers will immediately recognize this as one and the same as John Howard's position that we either allow something or we don't .. it is either illegal or it is not.
John, you seem to not realize that I've dealt with you for years. Your goading with lies about my position won't work. Trying to find even more egregious lies to say about my position is not going to change it. Its the dishonesty which you show towards me and this site which makes me perfectly happy to see you whine and complain and distance yourself from us.
What is Neutering?: Technically, neutering refers to the removal of the reproductive organs on both male and female animals.
ReplyDeleteSo you see R.K., I'm fighting against neutered marriage, I'm fighting to preserve reproductive rights for all people by fighting to keep marriage and conception rights from being separated. A man and woman can still be in a neutered marriage if they are forced or coerced into not using their own reproductive organs, or their own gametes, to have children. If they are swayed or forbidden from reproducing together, their marriage has been neutered.
The issue of whether unmarried conception is a right or not is, practically speaking today, just a matter of semantics, an academic argument. It is allowed, whether it is a right or not, and my argument doesn't depend on saying that it shouldn't be allowed. It is fine that it is allowed, because we have paternity tests and child support laws to protect children now. Even if I were to agree that unmarried conception is a right and should be a right, rather than stand firm in my position that it is merely tolerated in spite of it not being a right, it wouldn't matter to my argument that we shouldn't neuter marriage. I would still be making the same argument that all marriages should have the right to conceive with their own gametes, and same-sex couples and siblings should not be allowed to marry or procreate.
Right, things are either legal or illegal, there is no grey area in the law between legal and illegal. But there is always a grey area in the enforcement of laws, out of both practical necessity and also compassion and wisdom. You are the one who thinks that if it is illegal it has to be punished, not me. I'm fine with a grey area where illegal things are tolerated to various degrees. It just has to be that way.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what I might have said about punishing pregnant unmarried women. If I did say that, I was probably talking about what Biblical law calls for. I certainly am not advocating that we institute and enforce Sharia law or Talmudic law or Puritan law here in the US right now or even in the future, and it is not at all necessary to hold the position that we ought to enforce Biblical law in order to apply my argument to the marriage debate (as I just said in my comment above, which I was composing as you were posting your comment above). It's a cheap evasion to object to my point about marriage including conception rights to contend that it is equivalent to a call for Sharia law. I should not have to refute the Bible's inherent correctness to have tolerant civil positions on issues.
And since On Lawn has never explained his position on whether incest and same-sex conception should be allowed, and never said that they shouldn't be allowed, I am not lying. All he has to do is say "incest and same-sex procreation should not be allowed" but he can't. What else can we conclude except that he thinks they should be allowed, that people should be able to openly attempt them and not be punished?
ReplyDeleteWow I read all three of those comments and no plan (you did say you had one) was presented.
ReplyDeleteThats all I'm in this for, you can say you aren't going to do this or that all you want. So what are you going to with women and fathers and children when they have a child outside of marriage? What is your plan...
The plan for that is the status quo. I have said over and over that I wouldn't change anything about that, even if I could. This is a pluralistic society that has a representative government that has already come up with the best way to deal with extra-marital procreation: child support, paternity testing, and discouragement of extra-marital sex.
ReplyDeleteMaking same-sex conception illegal, and affirming that incest is illegal, does not impact extra-marital conception at all, except that it hopefully will reinforce the idea that marriage is the right place for procreation, and doing it without marriage is bad for children and society, and the mother and father and their families too.
Did that help correct your misunderstanding?
ReplyDeleteKeep twisting John...
ReplyDeleteCan anyone else here explain this blog's position on whether adult incest should be legal, and whether siblings should be allowed to marry?
ReplyDeleteKeep twisting John...
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'll bite.
ReplyDeleteThere are different bloggers here with their own perspectives, so I don't know that we can say what the "blog's positions" are on those topics. The blog's purposes are clearly stated front and top.
As for me personally, I have stated many times that it is valid for states to have various restrictions on marriage licensing. I would include incest in those restrictions, at least between relatives closer than first cousins, as valid restrictions. Dealing with private behavior involving consenting adults is more of a problem. See more of my thoughts about that subject here: http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2007/04/18/the_religious_right_sex_is_for_marriage.thtml
I will say that if we accept that that someone having a homosexual orientation necessitates that states neuter their marriage licensing, I don't see how we can legitimately deny marriage licenses to couples experiencing what is known as genetic sexual attraction.
There is the argument that (heterosexual) incest could result in conceiving children with a higher incidence of disabilities, but this argument can't be used if marriage and sex is not about procreation, as some in the marriage neutering crowd assert. And what about "reproductive rights"? Should someone have the right to hire someone to kill their child, but they themselves don't have the right to conceive children if doing so will result in a higher incidence of disability? We are also admonished against using arguments from religion. You can read more about these concepts by clicking the "incest" tag, as this has already been discussed somewhat here.
Believe it or not, there are advocates (or at least defenders) of adult incest who try to counter every argument offered against it. And remember, the "ick" factor used to be used as a reason to outlaw homosexual behavior.
If nothing else, society has an interest in encouraging marriages that bring different families together. Incestuous marriages isolate family lines and keep them distinct. Children born to a full-blooded brother and sister, for example, have only two grandparents instead of four, meaning less of a support network, but again, there are counterarguments – children not born of incest may not have any living grandparents.
I don't see a need to legalize incest for the sake of justice or fairness. If someone really has a strong desire to engage in it, and they keep it private and no babies are made, then I don't see how law enforcement personnel would find out about it anyway.
I definitely would oppose removing incest restrictions on marriage licensing.
Thanks PW. Nice post on your namesake blog, btw.
ReplyDeleteI am glad to see you don't think we need to legalize incest. Finally some sanity around here.
I will say that if we accept that that someone having a homosexual orientation necessitates that states neuter their marriage licensing, I don't see how we can legitimately deny marriage licenses to couples experiencing what is known as genetic sexual attraction.
We could easily say (indeed we currently do say) that people are allowed to procreate with someone of their same sex, but not with incestuous relations. Or, we could say it the other way around, we could allow incest but prohibit same-sex procreation. We don't have to reach the same decision about all relationships, we don't have to let people marry anyone just because we let everyone marry someone. We can have a specific list of certain relationships that may not marry.
There is the argument that (heterosexual) incest could result in conceiving children with a higher incidence of disabilities, but this argument can't be used if marriage and sex is not about procreation, as some in the marriage neutering crowd assert.
Right, but we don't assert that, right? They are wrong, right?
And what about "reproductive rights"? Should someone have the right to hire someone to kill their child, but they themselves don't have the right to conceive children if doing so will result in a higher incidence of disability?
Everyone should have equal marriage and reproductive rights. What should be prohibited are relationships that no one may reproduce with. It's not just about birth defects (many prohibited relationships are not related by blood), and it's certainly not about individuals who by themselves have a high risk. Also, many couples with recessive traits for diseases like Tay-Sachs should be legally allowed to marry, though they should be counselled and perhaps dissuaded from taking the risk, for it is very hard on people to raise children that get sick and die prematurely. But it should still not be illegal to do so. We don't want to get into mandatory screenings and genetic risk assessments and punishment for having children with genetic problems, or set arbitrary age limits. We should, though, prohibit incest and same-sex procreation and marriage.
What should be prohibited are relationships that no one may reproduce with. [emphasis mine]
ReplyDeleteYes, Playful's opinion was sane.
I see you still clings to very fascist ideology.
Oh, God, not the relationships - marrying and procreating by those relationships. Obviously you can't prohibit being related, but you can prohibit a brother and sister marrying and procreating.
ReplyDeleteyou can prohibit a brother and sister marrying and procreating.
ReplyDeleteCan you? You have to do both.
What do you mean?
ReplyDelete"Prohibit" just means have a law against it, like we have laws against murder. It doesn't mean eradicate completely so that no brother and sister ever procreate together, the way the Department of Future Crime eradicated murder in Minority Report. You can still murder. You might even get away with it. It being illegal means that you shouldn't, first of all, and that you will get punished afterwards if you get caught. And yes, I think an adult brother and sister shouldn't have sex, and should be punished if they are caught. I think you are absolutely nuts, more than the leftmost feminist college professor, if you think incest should not be a crime and should not be punished. We'd have to teach elementary students that they could have children with their sister when they grow up.