Fetus isn't a person or a human ...

It isn't class as murder either so you're wrong saying that, whatever your view is.

To me it is a human in a part of it``s development and history. It``s not seen as murder? Legally it``s not but law doesn``t completely defines. We were the ones that made it. 
It``s not also classed as murder but not everywhere i think.

Weird? Yes. Wrong? No. I mean the risk of inbreeding problems isn't that bad, is it? I thought it was an issue of recessive genes that could make problems, but not inherently

Not that i would encourage any of this, but it doesn't seem to be doing any harm to anyone

@ Seece - Being as this is all morality stuff, as opposed to legal stuff, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I believe that abortion is morally correct (up to a certain time period of course) because it does not do harm to anything that is human, or conscious or anything. However, babies from incestuous relationships, or from mothers who drink/smoke/shoot up whilst pregnant are being harmed by these actions, even if they are not human at the time the action is being done, they are human when the harm takes place.

Of course, a child born to a woman and her father will not be all that badly off - a single generation of inbreeding isn't too bad, but if they have multiple kids, and then they end up having kids etc, it will end poorly.

There are a few options lawmakers have

1) Incestuous conception is fine

2) Incestuous conception is never allowed

3) Incestuous conception is allowed if

- There is significant variety in the two's genes, as proved by having their genome analysed

- The interlinks between members of your family tree are below some arbitrary amount

Either version of 3 would be amongst the most complicated laws in existance, so IMO they are bad ideas, 1 will lead to some pretty fucked up kids in a hundred years time. 2 seems the best option.

@ DelioPT

If we are going to call things human merely because they have the capability to develop into humans, then sperm and eggs must be considered human. Males produce trillions of sperm over their lifetime. Lets be optimisitic and say a male has 15 children over his lifetime, he has still murdered trillions - 15 people. You personally have murdered billions, if not trillions of people, depending on your age. Females are slightly better, murdering about (700-number of babies they have) people in their lifetime. So clearly, if we are murdering trillions, what's one more?

So obviously the line in the sand cannot be drawn there. Where then? How about the moment the sperm and the egg join? Sounds nice, but nothing has actually happened. Before, it was a bunch of microscopic cells, now it is a bunch of microscopic cells. So not there either. The only place to decide that the bundle of cells now counts as a person is when it develops sentience - when it is capable of thought. This is why it is wrong to kill humans (and animals imo), because they have sentience.

Aborting a featus, or catching sperm in a rubber, does not at any stage cause any harm to anythign that is capable of feeling sad that it is experiencing harm. Bringing a child into a world where it will suffer due to its inbreeding, causes harm to that child. In my mind, that is a much more serious offense than aborting a bundle of cells.

I think it's kinda reidiculous to say that 2 people who have never met eachother are family though. Without the necessary bodning they're no different than two strangers.

Morality is also defined by humans. And lots of things are not seen as murder (like what soldiers do).

There``s more to human life than sentience or reason. That``s science``s way to define humans because that``s what it can do. It``s like looking at a cube from one side and saying that``s all there is to it.
Human life may start as something as simple as a bundle of cells but that is just part of what we are, it is our way of developing; it``s the beginning of our evolution. In the end it``s something that defines us as human beings. It may not be an exclusive way to develop, but it``s still our way.
Personally, this is the religious me talking, but given that, i``m not willing to let something, that can only have a partial view of life, define what are the boundaries of my life in particular or life in general.

Yes, they are strangers too each other, but they aren``t strangers like you and me, with zero bonds whatsoever. They knew that they were family. Before meeting they talked like father and daughter. My question is, although they had no real bonds like a father and daughter do, they knew they weren``t meetins strangers, aswell.

Yes, morality is defined by humans - when it``s not the case where the fundaments come from God - as is law. The thing is, morality, specially ethics, are meant to be universal - that is, to every single person, forever - and it lives by the purpose of helping mankind be the best that it can (individually and collectively).
Law is just a big contract that no one signs but everyone lives by it. In essence it only serves peace, so, it``s more volatile than any morality, ethics or religion, as it "gives in" to achieve peace amongst it``s people and sometimes at the cost of values.

Killing someone is a tough thing to analyse. You have to look at the context. Were you thinking about something in particular?

i know the diffrence between incest and sexual abuse. My point was, in most of incest cases, sexual abuse DOES happen, only the victim stays quiet about it.  As for this case specificlly, there are probably no reasons why it should be illegal EXCEPT the fact they put thier inbred child in great danger

I agree with what you said, but sexual abuse is in itself a crime. And I feel such pity for that child. I mean, he actually is LITERALLY inbred. Kids will be so mean to him/her. And that's the bnest case scenario. Wirst case scenario is that he/she has birth defects.