Thursday, February 09, 2006


We all know incest is a third degree felony and includes what the Jeffs' society is doing in the Utah/Arizona border towns. I know everyone is a little gun shy about prosecuting these kinds of things, but what happens when you engage in incest with the intent of bearing children knowing those children could have a terrible birth defect?


Anonymous Jeff said...

Felony Jail Time

2/09/2006 02:36:00 PM  
Blogger Reach Upward said...

There is a further problem. Due to incest in previous generations, a person in the FLDS community can reproduce legally within the definition of Utah 76-7-102 and still have both partners with the recessive gene. Given this fact and the apparent rate of increase of instances of the defect in the community, jail time alone will not solve the problem.

With jail time you come into one of those moral dilemmas where you have to wonder if locking up the people best suited to care for the afflicted child is the right thing to do. On the other hand, is it right to require taxpayers to subsidize the consequenses of these people's choices?

2/09/2006 03:23:00 PM  
Anonymous henry said...

Wow, like eugenics much?

Prosecuting incest and/or polygamy between consenting adults is the same as prosecuting sodomy between consenting adults. It’s moralistic pap.

Let's leave the polygs alone.

2/09/2006 05:01:00 PM  
Blogger Reach Upward said...

I didn't suggest eugenics, I merely questioned whether the taxpayers are morally obligated to cover the expenses of the afflicted child.

2/09/2006 07:00:00 PM  
Blogger Ethan said...

A couple of things.

1. They're not consenting adults, they're "consenting" teenage girls (even 12 yrs old).

2. It's true some are advocating the decriminalization of incest and incestual marriages, but they're always advocating same sex incestual relationships.

Face it, the gene pool is important to society.

2/09/2006 07:00:00 PM  
Blogger Ahnold said...

Tough call. I have a hard time as, on the one hand, if they're breaking the law, we need better and more enforcement. All the more so knowing their law breaking activities are creating children that are likely to have defets and the like. Someone with a STD who doesn't inform another, particularly HIV/AIDS, would suffer serious consequences for having sex and not informing his/her partner. Sould be no less the case here.

Yet, the libertarian side of me says, as long as they are consenting adults and capable of consenting, leave them alone.

2/10/2006 01:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Ricardo said...

Is the state morally obligated to take care of any child? Is it right for tax payers to subsidize the consequenses of any poor person who decides to make a baby? Shouldn't poor people get their shit together before they haul off and start reproducing more poor people? Like get a job with medical insurance?

2/11/2006 12:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ahnold said...

"Yet, the libertarian side of me says, as long as they are consenting adults and capable of consenting, leave them alone."

The problem with this is that even though they are consenting adults, their activities are DIRECTLY AFFECTING another human life. It's a similar argument as the abortion issue.

Another problem is even though their activities are affecting another human life, what is society supposed to do about it? How is it possible to regulate/prosecute these individuals? What should be appropriate disciplinary action in a case like this, especially when it would be extremely difficult to assign blame to any specific individual within these communities?

There's miles of red tape attached to this issue, which is why the State has always turned a blind eye to it.

2/11/2006 06:30:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home