• @Cryophilia
    link
    48 months ago

    The birth defects are on par with a woman over 30 giving birth. Want to ban that too?

    • @jpreston2005
      link
      -18 months ago

      that’s not true, and false equivalencies only serve to make you seem more ridiculous. You’re gross, and your kink is historically shamed because it destroys us a viable species. I feel sorry for the people in your life.

        • @jpreston2005
          link
          08 months ago

          look at you moving goalposts. go back to disappointing your family.

          • @Cryophilia
            link
            08 months ago

            I just misremembered. But my point still stands. You want to ban women over 34 having children?

            • @jpreston2005
              link
              18 months ago

              no, I don’t. you seem pretty intent on trying to make me tho. banning first cousin marriages doesn’t lead to us banning all pregnancies began after the mother is 34. you’re using a logical fallacy of the slippery slope and it doesn’t apply.

              • @Cryophilia
                link
                07 months ago

                It’s not a slippery slope, it’s the exact same thing. The same excuse you use for banning incest equally applies to women over 34 giving birth. Banning that would not be a slippery slope, it would be an equivalence.

                • @jpreston2005
                  link
                  17 months ago

                  no it wouldn’t and that’s your logical fallacy. banning consanguineous marriage does not mean banning all women over the age of 34 from giving birth. You’re wrong.

                  • @Cryophilia
                    link
                    07 months ago

                    Why do you want to ban consanguineous marriage?