How to argue against incest from natural law?


#1

What are some good arguments from natural law against incest?


#2

[quote="WesleyF, post:1, topic:324755"]
What are some good arguments from natural law against incest?

[/quote]

Incest promotes a lack of genetic diversity that makes an organism (and eventually species) less equipped to survive in the natural environment.

Special medical complications also arise from incest.


#3

When you say "natural law" do you mean in a legal sense (such as the Declaration of Independence is an instrument of natural law) or a biological sense?

From a biological standpoint, incest discourages biodiversity. That's bad.

For example - in the Great Potato Famine, Ireland was producing (and relying on) only one species of potato, with very little cultivation of other crops. When a blight came along that affected that species, all crops were threatened. Had they been producing a wider variety of potatoes and other crops, the damage would probably not have been so severe (we need not go into the reasons they were not doing this, because that would get us into Brit-bashing).

Humanity has suffered many plagues - in all of them, some people were more susceptible than others. That's due to our biodiversity. Without it, we would have weathered some plagues better, but one of them would have wiped out all of Europe.


#4

[quote="SuperLuigi, post:2, topic:324755"]
Incest promotes a lack of genetic diversity that makes an organism (and eventually species) less equipped to survive in the natural environment.

Special medical complications also arise from incest.

[/quote]

The counter argument to that is they will ensure they won't have sex that leads to children (either through contraception or abortion). And they can also have other kinds of "sex" that don't lead to conception that are not worth mentioning here.


#5

[quote="DavidFilmer, post:3, topic:324755"]
When you say "natural law" do you mean in a legal sense (such as the Declaration of Independence is an instrument of natural law) or a biological sense?

[/quote]

Natural law as in law inscribed in man's nature, so I suppose that would be biological sense?!

[quote="DavidFilmer, post:3, topic:324755"]

From a biological standpoint, incest discourages biodiversity. That's bad.

For example - in the Great Potato Famine, Ireland was producing (and relying on) only one species of potato, with very little cultivation of other crops. When a blight came along that affected that species, all crops were threatened. Had they been producing a wider variety of potatoes and other crops, the damage would probably not have been so severe (we need not go into the reasons they were not doing this, because that would get us into Brit-bashing).

Humanity has suffered many plagues - in all of them, some people were more susceptible than others. That's due to our biodiversity. Without it, we would have weathered some plagues better, but one of them would have wiped out all of Europe.

[/quote]

As I mentioned in my post above, they will ensure they don't have sex that leads to children.


#6

[quote="WesleyF, post:5, topic:324755"]
Natural law as in law inscribed in man's nature, so I suppose that would be biological sense?!

[/quote]

That's not what the term "natural law" commonly means. It means in a legal sense. When the Declaration of Independence says that

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

This is what is commonly referred to as "natural law." It is law (in the legal sense) that is informed by humanity's relationship to our Creator. It has nothing to do with biology or genetics.

As I mentioned in my post above, they will ensure they don't have sex that leads to children.

Well, then, from a biological point of view, such sex itself is not part of "natural law." The purpose of sex (from a biological point of view) is procreation. There does not exist in nature any such thing as sex without the procreative aspect, except when that aspect is interfered with by human will and technology. In nature, only humans practice artificial birth control and abortion (and only very recently in the history of our species). It is difficult to imagine how these practices can be considered "natural" to our species.


#7

[quote="DavidFilmer, post:6, topic:324755"]

Well, then, from a biological point of view, such sex itself is not part of "natural law." The purpose of sex (from a biological point of view) is procreation. There does not exist in nature any such thing as sex without the procreative aspect, except when that aspect is interfered with by human will and technology. In nature, only humans practice artificial birth control and abortion (and only very recently in the history of our species). It is difficult to imagine how these practices can be considered "natural" to our species.

[/quote]

Good point.


#8

WesleyF;10684939]The counter argument to that is they will ensure they won’t have sex that leads to children (either through contraception or abortion).

Personal assurances don’t mean hogwash, and I would say it’s not uncommon for contraception to get removed during intercourse.

Furthermore, abortion is a synthetic, unnatural action. Doesn’t fit into “natural law” arguments. Neither does contraception.

they can also have other kinds of “sex” that don’t lead to conception that are not worth mentioning here.

So what? The idea behind sexual reproduction is reproduction, not pleasure insofar as reproduction is concerned.

And not just any reproduction, reproduction that is beneficial to the species at large, which incest does not offer.


#9

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.