Siblings indicted on incest charges

[ells9824]

Prosecutors are calling it a disgusting crime that's now affected two Tri-state children.

A Kenton County grand jury has indicted an adult brother and sister on incest charges after she gave birth to two children.

..........The results showed there was a 99.99% probability that James Deaver was the father to his sister's child.

What's disturbing to authorities is that both siblings were charged with the same crime after having a child together in Campbell County in 1998.

Linda Deaver is still being held in jail.

She faces one to five years if convicted.

Her brother is out on bond and faces double the time since he was classified a sex offender after the 1998 conviction.

http://tinyurl.com/yvd3bg

[swivel]

I'm confused. Shouldn't these people get a medal for not breeding outside the family?

[Rotten Apple]

"In Kentucky it is a criminal offense to have sexual intercourse with anyone within a certain set number of relations," said Rob Sanders, a Kenton County Commonwealth attorney, "and they basically start out with brother and sister."

Wait. What? Really? I thought Kentucky was open-minded on these kinds of things.

They look like they could be twins. Maybe they aren't incestuous as much as they are narcissistic. It's like they were doing themselves. A step up from masturbating.

Were they raising the children?

[swivel]

What would be the Libertarian take? I suppose we allow any two consenting adults have sex with one another, but make the abortion of children sired by siblings mandatory? Or do we have to wait for the kid to be born before we fine the parents? Or do we have to show that the kid has actual genetic abnormalities before enforcing the law? Or do we give a free pass to all of them, since the rate of disorder is not 100%, just as we consign the 300,000 children a year to suffering because it isn't EVERY kid?

Wow. How much simpler is all of that than putting into place a societal law that is also written in our DNA: You can't have sex with members of your immediate family.

All animals know this. Chimps raised apart, and re-united, will not have sex with one another. Most animals can smell the difference between their relatives, even humans. The psychological study which demonstrated this had dozens of mothers smell clothing, and they were each able to identify their children's garments.

Another case of an objective moral truth that belongs in our criminal code, and needs to be enforced. Despite the protestations of our anarchic friends, the Libertarians, who would see the above couple as the "victims", and not the child.

[gprime]

What would be the Libertarian take? I suppose we allow any two consenting adults have sex with one another, but make the abortion of children sired by siblings mandatory? Or do we have to wait for the kid to be born before we fine the parents? Or do we have to show that the kid has actual genetic abnormalities before enforcing the law? Or do we give a free pass to all of them, since the rate of disorder is not 100%, just as we consign the 300,000 children a year to suffering because it isn't EVERY kid?

Wow. How much simpler is all of that than putting into place a societal law that is also written in our DNA: You can't have sex with members of your immediate family.

All animals know this. Chimps raised apart, and re-united, will not have sex with one another. Most animals can smell the difference between their relatives, even humans. The psychological study which demonstrated this had dozens of mothers smell clothing, and they were each able to identify their children's garments.

Another case of an objective moral truth that belongs in our criminal code, and needs to be enforced. Despite the protestations of our anarchic friends, the Libertarians, who would see the above couple as the "victims", and not the child.

Well, I'm a neo-Objectivist with Libertarian sympathies, so I think I can answer that. I would respect their rights to do as they wish, since they are not infringing upon the rights of any other individual. Sure their actions are sick, and I think they would do well to seek mental help. But that doesn't mean they aren't entitled to do what they so desire.

[ells9824]

Well, I'm a neo-Objectivist with Libertarian sympathies, so I think I can answer that. I would respect their rights to do as they wish, since they are not infringing upon the rights of any other individual. Sure their actions are sick, and I think they would do well to seek mental help. But that doesn't mean they aren't entitled to do what they so desire.

I would tend to not agree with this just because there is a reason incest is not allowed. Back in the day they realized you simply can't breed with someone that closely related or bad things occur genetically. If they want to have sex that bad, one of them needs to be sterilized and then they can fuck like bunnies.

[Rotten Apple]

Well, I'm a neo-Objectivist with Libertarian sympathies, so I think I can answer that. I would respect their rights to do as they wish, since they are not infringing upon the rights of any other individual. Sure their actions are sick, and I think they would do well to seek mental help. But that doesn't mean they aren't entitled to do what they so desire.

What about the children? They had children.

[kakihara]

There is nothing more natural than the love between a brother and sister...and father...and mother...and uncle...and first cousin...and rover the loyal family dog...

[ZombieBabe]

Candy is dandy, but incest is best.

Incestors are better than ancestors.

Brother and sister from WVA are having sex one day. Sister looks at the brother and says "Y'know! You fuck just like daddy!" Brother says "I know! Mom said the same thing!"

[AB@DD]

Why was he listed as a sex offender after they had the first child together and she was not?