



Through the ages, the emotion and interpretation of love has become intertwined with human civilization and explored by the vast discipline of the arts of Humanities. Love is something that holds individuals together and to form a bond between them, but when something other than sibling love develop between two siblings, western cultures and a copious amount of vastly distinctive cultures around the world would all come to agree and frown upon the relationship. The idea of incest as a disgusting, horrible relationship for a pair of siblings to have has been pounded into the moral compass of modern western society or rather, a huge portion of first world countries today, and is considered one of the most prevalent taboo topics in America. Although the general public and the members of a huge variety of cultural diverse communities in America are all against the idea of having a relationship with an immediate family member that is in the same generation, making the act of incest illegal is an infringement on the right of the people. While my opposition argues that incest should be illegal in the United States of America due to the ramifications of inbreeding and the resulting genetic consequences and moral dilemmas, I hold that the illegality of Intragenerational consensual incest in America is unconstitutional and unethical in its own right.

The most prominent argument for making an incestual relationship between intragenerational relatives illegal would be the lasting genetic consequences should the couple decide to reproduce. As immediate family members or first degree relatives that shares over fifty percent of their genes with one another, birth defects are prevalent throughout history. Offsprings born in an incestual relationship often riskes the probability of a homozygous recessive alleles, genes that are prone to carrying major genetic disorders with them(Lazerin et al. 2013). Upon a study performed by Lazerin et al. where twenty-three thousand individuals were examined, there is a rounded sixty two percent chance that one parent carries the homozygous recessive allele. If one parent of the pair of siblings carries the allele, there is a fifty percent chance that one of the siblings also becomes a carrier, and a twenty five percent chance that both siblings become carriers of the homozygous recessive allele. Should the siblings decide to reproduce, the resulting child carrying the homozygous recessive allele would be around four percent. Should the incestual relationship continue within the family, a lasting genetic consequence could well be established by the resulting offsprings since the probabilities would multiply down the family line. Resulting offsprings from incestual relationships conclusively contracts higher probabilities of deformities and genetic disorders compared to the general population, and the government makes the act of incest illegal in the interest of preventing the sufferings of both offspring and parent.

Despite the increased probability of deformities and genetic disorders that could result from an incestual relationship, I hold that intragenerational incest between two consenting individuals should not be made illegal. The argument that incest should be illegal using the genetic consequences are based on the probability of the genetic defects that results form incest, and these probabilities should be further examined. According to a New York Times article written by Denise Grady, a bachelors of science at State University of New York with an interview with Dr. Motulsky, professor emeritus of genome science and medicine at the University of Washington, first cousins have an overwhelming likelihood of giving birth to a child that is free of deformities and genetic disorders. The statistical comparison concludes a roughly ninety three percent chance of conceiving a completely healthy offspring by an incestual relationship compared to the norm of ninty six percent chance established by the general population. Additionally, the cause of genetic deformities and disorders found in offsprings of incest could not be traced with total certainty to the act of the producing of the offsprings to the incestual relationship itself, therefore the low probability of genetic disorders resulting from incest between intragenerational siblings should not make the act of incest itself illegal.

To take a step back, with the exponential advancement in medicine and prolonged longevity of humankind that flourished in the past centuries thanks to scientific advancement, the age of easily accessible birth control should be the focus of the contemporary discussion. Based solely on the argument that incest is illegal in the United States in regards to the genetic health implications, in the world where highly effective birth control exist, the argument for the illegality of incest cannot exist as the co-existence of the two would be impossible. To expand on the lasting consequences of incest, one could take a look at Darwin’s The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication:

“Although there seems to be no strong inherited feeling in mankind against incest, it seems possible that men during primeval times may have been more excited by strange females than by those with whom they habitually lived. . . . If any such feeling formerly existed in man, this would have led to a preference for marriages beyond the nearest kin, and might have been strengthened by the

offspring of such marriages surviving in greater numbers.” (Darwin, 1889)

Darwin suggests that as humans we all have a common ancestor, which makes us, the offsprings, products of highly possible intragenerational incest. Darwin establishes the existence of a “natural aversion” within members of the same family that allows individuals to seek out partners from outside the intimate family circle. Darwin hints that this act could contribute to the longevity of the humankind in regards to genetic health. Darwinian Conservatism theorizes that the lasting consequences of incest could be offset by the natural aversion within the immediate family members in a natural law standpoint, as the odds of two siblings becoming partners would be significantly lower than a sibling seeking out a member outside the immediate family.

Although the genetic consequences of incest is of huge controversy, perhaps another dilemma of equal weight would be the morality, or rather the immorality of incest itself according to the illegality of consensual intragenerational incest. Many prevalent religions all around the world deem incest as immoral as the inherent disgust a vast majority if humans have with the idea of having an incestual relationship makes incest appaling and illegal. This statement is ironic and laughable in its own right, as the possible influence of morality and religious beliefs on the illegality of incest is immoral and absolutely unethical. In the United States Constitution, the 14th Amendment due process clause sprouts another discussion of liberty and the wide interpretations the United States Supreme Court has on the topic: “Although the Court has not assumed to define “liberty” with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective.” (Bolling v. Sharpe, 497) The act of making incest between two consensual siblings verbatim intrudes upon one of the most paramount of American values, Liberty and Freedom, as the supreme law of the land makes glaring contradictions on the illegality of incest. Afterall, who is the government to play god, and pass judgement on the notion of love?

Ultimately, the illegality of incest based on the notion of genetic deficiencies and morality still remains a contemporary issue in our rapidly evolving society. Our modern civilization could trace its roots to the rapid advancement of science in the centuries past, and one could attribute most of the basis of our technology today to Albert Einstein, the American scientist who made paramount contributions to most notably the field of mathematics and physics. Einstein himself was an offspring from an intragenerational incestual relationship, but not only was he not handicapped in his mental abilities, one could argue that he is the greatest genius in the history of mankind. Should incest be enforced as illegal by the state and immoral by the general population, would we see another Einstein? In the modern age, old beliefs are worth revisiting and most importantly, they are worth re-evaluating: the idea of incest as immoral and genetically abominable is well behind the human race at this point in our evolutionary timeline. In America, the land of the free where our people pride ourselves in scientific research and the freedom of thought and speech, putting intragenerational incest on the boundaries of illegality is the opposite of moving our America forward.