Two of the [incestuous] couple’s children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.
But the Ethics Council dismissed that argument, on the basis that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children.
There's the issue according to that "Ethics Council." How do you address that? That Council is saying:
“Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”
The council commits many errors in both logic and ethics.
The problem of incest producing serious genetic and other problems is deemed a "social taboo" rather than proven harm.
They say "sexual self-determination" is more important than protecting offspring from huge risks, including getting the wrong idea that such self-determination is more important than avoiding inbreeding generation after generation after generation, which inbreeding leads to absolutely nothing good for humanity, only degradation, damage, harm, suffering.
The higher the development of the brain, the more important it is to avoid offspring the result of incest. It is clearly demonstrated by research. It is not an unknown. It is not speculation or unsubstantiated belief.
What of the seeming hypocrisy "that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children"?
The issue is a variant of forced eugenics. Eugenics is the improvement of the breed; however, the ban on incest can be seen as the prevention of the degradation of the species.
What collective rules do we want to live by? What is the guide. Should there be a coercive state?
These are serious questions for humanity.
Do we head for secular anarchy, as the Council appears to want, or do we head toward something else?
Secular anarchy is actually ruleless. Appeals to anarchists to conform to any level of care concerning others would be met with the Councils ultimate so-called ethical standard: "self-determination." It's Aleister Crowley's motto: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." If one wants to murder others, then that's that person's law; and no one else has any right above that. Of course, someone else's law might be to kill the murderers. Someone else's law might be to banned together under rules and form a state for the protection of the innocent from Crowley Satanic-types. So we come full circle.
In contrast, there is no coercion in authentic Christianity. The state is the state of mind and heart following the dictates (rules) laid down by Jesus as given us in the Gospels. It is not the secular anarchy proposed by the logical conclusion of the false premises of the German "Ethics Council."
It is for this reason that I choose Christianity over any secular state. It is for this reason that I'm outside secular states even though I comment on their policies and practices and do say what they ought to do (turn to Christianity). It is for this reason that I do not vote for secular office holders, as voting for such always runs contrary to Christianity (the lesser of evils is never Christian) and will never result in the right system, as the right system already exists: authentic Christianity (the ethics of Jesus).