These uncircumcised Germans. How they remind me of my dogs

cococandy: It doesn't affect me.
It may affect their unborn kids.(And pls don't try to debate that)
Since the kids can speak for themselves and the damage may already have been done and can't be undone when they are born, it's left for thz already living people to speak fro them since they are not yet here to speak for themselves.

If they can show medical proof that they are not capable of bearing kids from such acts, they can go ahead. Until then,it won't be right to give them 'rights' that affect someone else negatively.

Any 'right' that affects someone else isn't a right.
I might as well demand the right to possess whatever I lay eyes on even if they already belong to someone else and not minding the previous owner will be hurt if I do take it at will.

Should my right be granted?

#iknowyouarebeingsarcastic

That's for the benefit of those who can't see the sarcasm in your post.

You cannot ban people's human rights or circumvent their human right based on the "possibility" (your "may affect" of it affecting others.

You cannot deny them their rights to bear kids, privacy or have a family life based on something that is not a certainty.

Key word 'possibility'
Makes it legit to ban them.

I've the right to use drugs afterall it's my body and what I do with it doesn't matter.
But after taking the drugs,the result MAY affect others negatively.(Possible but uncertain)
So do I still have the right to use drugs?



Stop trolling

Sagamite:

You cannot ban people's human rights or circumvent their human right based on the "possibility" (your "may affect" of it affecting others.

You cannot deny them their rights to bear kids, privacy or have a family life based on something that is not a certainty.

Babygal4eva:
I never considered myself a feminist till I joined Nairaland and then suddenly my opinions are considered feministic. If that is the case then yea I'm a feminist and proud

Same here

Hmm! What can I say. This is a dangerous move. Not cos of incest and morals or anything, but because of the the probably medical conditions of the children born from inbreeding.

kay29000: Hmm! What can I say. This is a dangerous move. Not cos of incest and morals or anything, but because of the the probably medical conditions of the children born from inbreeding.

I agree but the title of this thread is misleading.

The German government is against in.cest.

As if you don't know nairalanders and sensationalism.
I'm surprised Op didn't say 'German govt makes move to legalize incest'
One out of the more mischievious brood would have done just that.

carefreewannabe:

I agree but the title of this thread is misleading.

The German government is against in.cest.

cococandy: Key word 'possibility'
Makes it legit to ban them.

I've the right to use drugs afterall it's my body and what I do with it doesn't matter.
But after taking the drugs,the result MAY affect others negatively.(Possible but uncertain)
So do I still have the right to use drugs?



Stop trolling

What's your opinion on abortion, should it be banned and made illegal as well?

cococandy: As if you don't know nairalanders and sensationalism.
I'm surprised Op didn't say 'German govt makes move to legalize incest'
One out of the more mischievious brood would have done just that.

You are right.

Sometimes it's sensationalism, sometimes it's the inability to read and understand, sometimes it's both.

Which thread am I one?

crackhaus:
What's your opinion on abortion, should it be banned and made illegal as well?

cococandy:
Which thread am I one?

Simple question, no be fight.

Do you or do you not support the opinion that abortion should be banned and made illegal?

Answering you would beg the question why?
Which in turn will take us elsewhere.
I've a looooooong reason as explanation for whatever side of the fence I decide to answer from.(And I've got good points for each side)


So you creating a new thread would be quite helpful. If you don't mind

crackhaus:
Simple question, no be fight.

Do you or do you not support the opinion that abortion should be banned and made illegal?

carefreewannabe:

The risk is by more than 40%, almost 50%.

And MY answer is YES in this context.

Let me take it one by one so it does not get too voluminous.

First of all, your over 40% figure might be wrong. I have read of 10% - 30%.

Difference researchers come up with different theories. The higher rates are when both parents both carry a dysfunctional gene. Which is not the case for everyone.


Lets play around and assume your figures even make sense, and so?

There are people with hereditary genetic disorders which have higher than 40% possibility of passing it to their kids. Are we to say we would also remove their rights to love and procreate?

If not, is that not another double standard and inconsistency in law application (hence discrimination)?

Furthermore, it is even reported that the chance of a defect in a child by first cousins is the same as that of women over 40 having a child. Should we ban women over 40 from having kids because they may harm the kids, Ms Feminist?

Are we going to allow women over 40 cost us society more money to raise their kids because they are so irresponsible not to marry and give birth early?

cococandy: Key word 'possibility'
Makes it legit to ban them.

I've the right to use drugs afterall it's my body and what I do with it doesn't matter.
But after taking the drugs,the result MAY affect others negatively.(Possible but uncertain)
So do I still have the right to use drugs?



Stop trolling

So you will ban women over 40 from having kids?

crackhaus:
What's your opinion on abortion, should it be banned and made illegal as well?

OOOOOOOOOOH!

Well asked!

cococandy: Answering you would beg the question why?
Which in turn will take us elsewhere.
I've a looooooong reason as explanation for whatever side of the fence I decide to answer from.(And I've got good points for each side)


So you creating a new thread would be quite helpful. If you don't mind

Abortion is harm to the child.

When una fuku-faka, fuku-faka without condemn and then kill a poor, innocent, defenseless baby.

All women, who are not raaped should be force to have the child.

Cococandy...

Im still waiting for your answer to my q

I love my sister.. She loves me
We are both adult.. No mental illness

Why can't we be together

Why can't we live n let live...

How does it disturb you Or anyone else

carefreewannabe:
Yes, they are selectively applying it when it serves a higher purpose. They are very smart, the Germans. They don't follow laws blindly.

Since you have said this, then bitte schön!

Gut, gut!

Admitting that has proved my point.

They are hypocrites and they discriminate.

Thanks. Mwuah.

cococandy: Answering you would beg the question why?
Which in turn will take us elsewhere.
I've a looooooong reason as explanation for whatever side of the fence I decide to answer from.(And I've got good points for each side)


So you creating a new thread would be quite helpful. If you don't mind

Keep dodging, you know exactly where I'm going with my question...another proof of your tendencies to tailor your opinions according to where it suits you.

You're all of a sudden eager to obey the 'do not derail a thread' rule.

As you deem fit.

crackhaus:
Keep dodging, you know exactly where I'm going with my question...another proof of your tendencies to tailor your opinions according to where it suits you.

You're all of a sudden eager to obey the 'do not derail a thread' rule.

It doesn't disturb me.
Read my earlier posts.
If you and your sister can get sterilized,
I'll be mighty glad to greet you Mr and Mrs pickabeau at every meeting.

Makes it easier for her even and for those who knew her before. No change of family name etc.

pickabeau1: Cococandy...

Im still waiting for your answer to my q

I love my sister.. She loves me
We are both adult.. No mental illness

Why can't we be together

Why can't we live n let live...

How does it disturb you Or anyone else

Sagamite:

OOOOOOOOOOH!

Well asked!

She will not be happy with me for that

Sagamite:

Let me take it one by one so it does not get too voluminous.

First of all, your over 40% figure might be wrong. I have read of 10% - 30%.Difference researchers come up with different theories. The higher rates are when both parents both carry a dysfunctional gene. Which is not the case for everyone.

It's very difficult to conduct research on this issue as these people are not many and hide but I have never heard of the possibility being as "low" as 10% but you are one of the few people I trust who doesn't call assumptions "FAAAACT".

Lets play around and assume your figures even make sense, snd so?

There are people with hereditary genetic disorders which have higher possibility of passing it to their kids than 40%. Are we to say we would also remove their rights to love and procreate?

This is a very good question.

I thought of it and it gave me a lot of headache.

To be honest, I don't want to have to make such a decision. I can't even answer this question.
What do you think?

And if we say, no, should we also allow in.cest for this reason?

I have a younger brother and I consider our relationship "pure and innocent" and to me it feels right and natural.

If not, is that not another double standard?

It definitely is but it doesn't change my view on in.cest.
I think it would be wrong to justify in.cest like this.

I consider sibling relations "innocent" and I want it to remain like that. This is my personal point of view.

Furthermore, it is even reported that the chance of a defect amongst first cousins that have sex is the same as that of women over 40. Should we ban women over 40 from having kids because they may harm the kids, Ms Feminist?

S.ex between cousins is not a punishable offense.
We are talking about siblings here and in developed countries women over 40 have many possibilities to reduce the risk.
Due to the nature of my work, I know many mothers at this age.

Are we going to allow women over 40 cost us society more money to raise their kids because they are so irresponsible not to marry and give birth early?

I thought we removed cost from the argument.
I thought I agreed with you on this.


Now to you Mr, should the law that makes s*ex between siblings a punishable offense be changed?
Should two consenting, adult siblings have the right to have s*ex?
Should they be allowed to procreate?








Well done Mr Sagamite. Very good move. I am VERY impressed. If you remove the ugly I will submit to you.




Please answer my questions.

cococandy: It doesn't disturb me.
Read my earlier posts.
If you and your sister can get sterilized,
I'll be mighty glad to greet you Mr and Mrs pickabeau at every meeting.

Makes it easier for her even and for those who knew her before. No change of family name etc.

No...I don't want to be sterilized
Our love must culminate in children like everyone else

Why deny us rights available to others

Some parents have genetic issues n may have kids with other congenital diseases n are not sterilised

Why d double standard

Sagamite:

Since you have said this, then bitte schön!

Gut, gut!

Admitting that has proved my point.

They are hypocrites and they discriminate.

Thanks. Mwuah.

Let me pretend I haven't seen this one after the previous one.

pickabeau1: Cococandy...

Im still waiting for your answer to my q

I love my sister.. She loves me
We are both adult.. No mental illness

Why can't we be together

Why can't we live n let live...

How does it disturb you Or anyone else

Did u jst say dat or wia u jst thinking it

carefreewannabe:

It's very difficult to conduct research on this issue as these people are not many and hide but I have never heard of the possibility being as "low" as 10% but you are one of the few people I trust who doesn't call assumptions "FAAAACT".



This is a very good question.

I thought of it and it gave me a lot of headache.

To be honest, I don't want to have to make such a decision. I can't even answer this question.
What do you think?

And if we say, no, should we also allow in.cest for this reason?

I have a younger brother and I consider our relationship "pure and innocent" and to me it feels right and natural.



It definitely is but it doesn't change my view on in.cest.
I think it would be wrong to justify in.cest like this.

I consider sibling relations "innocent" and I want it to remain like that. This is my personal point of view.




S.ex between cousins is not a punishable offense.
We are talking about siblings here and in developed countries women over 40 have many possibilities to reduce the risk.
Due to the nature of my work, I know many mothers at this age.



I thought we removed cost from the argument.
I thought I agreed with you on this.


Now to you Mr, should the law that makes s*ex between siblings a punishable offense be changed?
Should two consenting, adult siblings have the right to have s*ex?
Should they be allowed to procreate?



Well done Mr Sagamite. Very good move. I am VERY impressed. If you remove the ugly I will submit to you.




Please answer my questions.

No need to go on, babes.

You have already agreed to the core of my sarcasm.

Sagamite:

No need to go on, babes.

You have already agreed to the core of my sarcasm.

I am very disappointed now.

cococandy: As you deem fit.

Haaaaaaa! Just like I guessed, coco is not happy...

Candy girl, pray tell me...how come you support abortion which causes harm (in the form murder) to an innocent unborn child, but in the same vein you frown on sexxual relations between siblings because according to you, it isn't fair to the kids who might be born deformed?

Do the kids whose lives are being cut off by abortion not also deserve a voice for their plight? Is it fair to them?

But if they are ra'ped,
then having an abortion is no longer a crime?
Or if the child has the chance of being born abnormal having an abortion is no longer a crime?

Or if the pregnancy is a risk to the mother and foetus having an abortion is no longer a crime?

Or if one's wife got abducted and was molested during the time she was held against her will,got pregnant and was maybe released after a month in captivity. The husband and wife decide to get rid of the ensuing pregnancy they didn't commit a crime?

Maybe like crackhuas you think you can try shake me up with the abortion question but there's a reason why I'm not interested in going all over this abortion ish AGAIN just now.

And that's because
There can only be SELECTIVE abortion laws.
So abortion in some cases is a crime while in other cases it is not.
Do you now see why it is not in the same league with incest?

Sagamite:

Abortion is harm to the child.

When una fuku-faka, fuku-faka without condemn and then kill a poor, innocent, defenseless baby.

All women, who are not raaped should be force to have the child.

Read my response to sagamite.

crackhaus:
Haaaaaaa! Just like I guessed, coco is not happy...

Candy girl, pray tell me...how come you support abortion which causes harm (in the form murder) to an innocent unborn child, but in the same vein you frown on sexxual relations between siblings because according to you, it isn't fair to the kids who might be born deformed?

Do the kids whose lives are being cut off by abortion not also deserve a voice for their plight? Is it fair to them?