Kasz216 said:
Does it veer anymore near eugentics then banning incest because of fear of inferior genes? Plus it's a lopsided law since it ignores the fact that there are a lot of people with negative recessive genes who marry each other that doesn't qualify as incest. The real "logical" version of a law that prevents incest on genetic means would be... "Before reporoducing (or I guess having sex in general) you must be tested for genetic diseases, and if you have these you can not have sex with anyone else who has one of those recessive genes."
You see it happen all the time with non-related families, people who keep having kids they know are gentically likely to have mental disorders. You can't just tell them to NOT have kids. Then again, you may be for such a thing, what with the afore mentioned authortarian liberal stance and in such a thing does cost the state. (Much like the healthcare arguement for the personal mandate.) |
This kind of law wouldn't pass in any democratic country because of violation of your rights.... altough you would have the option to do it yourself if you are smart enough to care.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







