Alright, so, legit question

[Punk Hazard]

It's not incest as they don't share any genetic markers with each other.

OT: If person A and Person B use their data to create a life but need to incubate it in Person C then the child(D) and Person C have no genetic relation, therefore it's the same, and should perceived as such, as if you met on the street.

That's what I was thinking.

 

[Mari Makinami]

true.
Also, it's only weird to somany because they were raised against it & cannot understand something so different. i would not partake personally, but i would not knock someone for doing it

Indeed. I, for the same reason, don't know why incest is so bashed in modern world. I understand that it's consequances were unpleasant and all when there was little to no knowledge about contraception, but nowadays... This point of view is so archaic.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Indeed. I, for the same reason, don't know why incest is so bashed in modern world. I understand that it's consequances were unpleasant and all when there was little to no knowledge about contraception, but nowadays... This point of view is so archaic.

You must be registered for see images

Obligatorytextsothisisn'tspam

 

[DroGGz0r]

It's not incest.
And if it's acceptable or not, that's debatable, depending on the moral standards one might have (or not, haha Lol )

 

[Transcendence]

Biologically this wouldn't be incest since the egg/sperm was donated and already fertilized and just placed into the surrogate mother. So the person who was born from said surrogate doesn't have her genes at all. But from a social standpoint, you're still "doing the deed" with the person who gave birth to you. It's all up to interpretation.

 

[Amaterasu]

Indeed. I, for the same reason, don't know why incest is so bashed in modern world. I understand that it's consequances were unpleasant and all when there was little to no knowledge about contraception, but nowadays... This point of view is so archaic.

Whak ?

You must be registered for see images

 

[Edenia]

I can't say if it's acceptable or not cause that is entirely up to the one who does the deed knowing it's the person who carried him even though that person did not create bonds nor is the real mother. I would say it's just something that comes as "disturbing" somehow.

 

[YowYan]

How repulsive lmao. Kudos to you for your creativity though

 

[Mari Makinami]

Whak ?

You must be registered for see images

I didn't quite follow your joke here

 

[ComplexCity]

Uhh yeah, they have the same DNA right?

Edit: Not technically, but it'd be weird

 

[Angelic.]

you have weird freinds

 

[DoubleKamui]

Technically, it's not incest. There is no genetical similarity between the child and the surrogate mother. The only relationship between the child and the surrogate mother is the latter gave birth to the former. As soon as the child is born into this world, he/she is given back to its intended parents, who made up her genetical identity.

Is it acceptable though? I'd say yes, as long as there is no deeper relationship between the child and the surrogate mother from the start (like if the biological parents also allow the surrogate mother to raise their child for some time for whatever reasons).

 

[BlacLord™]

There doesn't have to be a genetic link for a relationship to be incestuous. Incest is just relations between two people who share some close connection; genetic links are just one such example.

It can be considered as incest because you would be having *** with the one who sustained your life... I would say being inside their womb, being physically connected via umbilical cord etc. as being pretty damn close.

 

[Conspirator.]

It's obviously not incest, since the 2 are not genetically related. I don't see anything morally wrong with it? on the proviso that the surrogate mother didn't raise the child. The age gap would make it somewhat strange though.

 

[Punk Hazard]

There doesn't have to be a genetic link for a relationship to be incestuous. Incest is just relations between two people who share some close connection; genetic links are just one such example.

It can be considered as incest because you would be having *** with the one who sustained your life... I would say being inside their womb, being physically connected via umbilical cord etc. as being pretty damn close.

By that logic, everyone who's had *** with someone they love or a really good friend has committed incest. Bad definition.

 

[Cruciatus]

You should never go back inside of the vessel you came out of.

 

[elitenoob94]

Why would anyone consider incest? I mean the next day you screwed your mom or sister and defiantly not have an awkward moment or conversation, highly unlikely to not happen. It's weird. I don't care if my mom is Anne Hathaway or my sister is Natalie Portman, that's just wrong, really in all honesty, to be quite frank.

 

[Y3LL0WM4GT]

You must be registered for see images

 

[NaNaNaaaaa]

*walks in thread*

*leaves thread*

Ditto