dad and daughter have baby, plan to marry, face multiple charges

A MAN and his biological daughter who are reportedly “planning to get married” are facing incest charges after they allegedly had a baby together.

According to The Sun, Steven Pladl, 42, of Wake County, North Carolina, gave up Katie Pladl, 20, for adoption as a baby but she contacted her parents through social media when she turned 18, police said.

She went to live with her biological parents and their two children near Richmond, Virginia, in August 2016 before the couple legally separated three months later, according to local news channel WNCN.

The wife, who has not been named, told authorities that her husband would sleep on the floor of Katie’s room in the months before she moved out.

In May last year, she read in one of her children’s journals that Katie was pregnant with her father’s baby and that her husband Steven Pladl had told his other children to call Katie their stepmother, according to the arrest warrant.

When his wife confronted him, Pladl allegedly confirmed he had impregnated their adult daughter and that they planned to marry.

A week later, father and daughter moved to Wake County and in November last year a warrant was issued for their arrest.

They were located at an address last week, where officers discovered a baby boy who is understood to be the four-month-old child of the pair.

Steven and Katie Pladl were held at the Wake County Detention Center pending extradition to Virginia and charged with incest with adult, adultery, contributing to delinquency.

Court records show that Steven Pladl has been released on a $1 million bond while Katie Pladl, issued with the same bond, remains in jail.

According to the warrant, they are due to make their first court appearance on Monday.

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/american-dad-and-daughter-have-baby-plan-to-marry-face-incest-charges/news-story/9aa467e6ac6761f7f6d97c2a28398659

magica wrote:


I can't debate this with Didge anymore. Can't believe he finds this acceptable.

So by his thinking, if a father finds his daughter sexually attractive, even underage, that makes the father a paedophile, so is that acceptable.
Because although he says their consensual adults, its so wrong.


I feel sick thinking about that.

Syl wrote:

Incest, underage sex, bestiality, public indecency, similar  laws will stay.....so if you don't like them...emigrate to a more decedant society if you can find one, where you will probably fit right in.

magica wrote:Exactly Rags. What have we got to apologise for?

What, for having a different view to him. It's him who should apologise to us, calling us names when neither of us have to him.

I will not converse with him again

Raggamuffin wrote:the main reason incest is illegal is because of the genetic diseases which could occur. In the UK it's considered that first cousins are far enough apart to be less of a risk, so it's legal for them to get married. I gather that it's not legal in parts of the US.

There would be no point legalising incest and saying it's OK as long as the couple don't have children. Who would police that, and what would happen if they did? It's just easier to outlaw it altogether.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:the main reason incest is illegal is because of the genetic diseases which could occur. In the UK it's considered that first cousins are far enough apart to be less of a risk, so it's legal for them to get married. I gather that it's not legal in parts of the US.

There would be no point legalising incest and saying it's OK as long as the couple don't have children. Who would police that, and what would happen if they did? It's just easier to outlaw it altogether.

So homosexual incest would be okay then?

magica wrote:

Syl wrote:

Thank you Tommy, I must admit though it's one of the weirdest debates I have ever had on a forum.

Me too Syl, I'm out of this thread now.  You made great posts, I support you all the way x

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Do you now understand the concept of something that causes harm being wrong?

We KNOW children who are the products of incest have an incredibly high likelihood of being born with serious genetic problems. That is harm.

NOTHING else would matter.

Allowing incestuous couples to have sex is irrelevant because it isn't harming anyone.
Allowing incestuous couples to have children is harmful to the hypothetical children- it would be grossly irresponsible to allow that.

What part of something harmful or not do you not understand?

Are you saying we should criminalise incestuous couples because not doing 'might' lead to us legalising the birthing of children of incest?

The trouble is - how do you say to a related couple that it's OK but they're not to have children? How does anyone stop them having children? The best thing is to make incest illegal in the first place.

Tommy Monk wrote:Now they demand that their behaviour has the same status as normal heterosexual couples relationships, demand rights to marriage, protection from law against anyone who dares to disagree, and to be allowed to adopt children into their perverse 'relationship'...

Tommy Monk wrote:It was decriminalised for reasons in paragraph A... if at the time, it was thought to have resulted in paragraph B being reality, as well as it being taught/promoted in schools to children, as being normal/natural and as equally legitimate as heterosexuality is normal/natural, then it would never have been decriminalised at all!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:It was decriminalised for reasons in paragraph A... if at the time, it was thought to have resulted in paragraph B being reality, as well as it being taught/promoted in schools to children, as being normal/natural and as equally legitimate as heterosexuality is normal/natural, then it would never have been decriminalised at all!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:It was only intended to be decriminalised... not for it to ever be shoe-horned into/forced onto main stream society as being something that everyone else must recognise as being normal/natural/right/acceptable etc, and forced to think/behave/act like they believe it is... when in all reality, the vast majority don't believe that at all!!!

Hey Steve, would you prefer never having been born?  I mean look at you...you're a mess!! We're taking a poll, and if it turns out a certain way we are gonna end your chance at life.

Tommy Monk wrote:Homosexuality... regardless of ever being criminalised or not, has always been known by the overwhelming vast majority of people everywhere and all time, to be unnatural/abnormal/wrong...!

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It was only intended to be decriminalised... not for it to ever be shoe-horned into/forced onto main stream society as being something that everyone else must recognise as being normal/natural/right/acceptable etc, and forced to think/behave/act like they believe it is... when in all reality, the vast majority don't believe that at all!!!

When homosexuality was criminalized, it was clearly wrong.  Period...end of.  That's an absolute.

Now, all I'm saying about this incest situation--which, I, as well as many others, find abhorrent--is that many of the same arguments are applicable here.  It's between two, consenting adults, and it's none of our business.

The only valid state interest is that the union might produce a child that is somehow disabled, mentally or physically.  But again, it's only potential: potential child, and a potential disability.  Why are we protecting an organism that does not yet exist, and may never exist?  Do we have the right to take from two valid, whole, extant human beings, on the possibility that an infant may be created, and it may be disabled?  Seems like punishment before the crime.

Incidentally, this (potential) child that the state would protect, what does he say?  As long as we are arguing for his protection, he might as well have a say in the matter.  Would he prefer death--or non-existence if you wish--over a chance at life, whatever the outcome, and the cost?

Or, perhaps we should ask Stephen Hawking, who can actually respond:

Hey Steve, would you prefer never having been born?  I mean look at you...you're a mess!!  We're taking a poll, and if it turns out a certain way we are gonna end your chance at life.

It's a bit rude, no?  But that's where we are at when we presume to judge.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

When homosexuality was criminalized, it was clearly wrong.  Period...end of.  That's an absolute.

Now, all I'm saying about this incest situation--which, I, as well as many others, find abhorrent--is that many of the same arguments are applicable here.  It's between two, consenting adults, and it's none of our business.

The only valid state interest is that the union might produce a child that is somehow disabled, mentally or physically.  But again, it's only potential: potential child, and a potential disability.  Why are we protecting an organism that does not yet exist, and may never exist?  Do we have the right to take from two valid, whole, extant human beings, on the possibility that an infant may be created, and it may be disabled?  Seems like punishment before the crime.

Incidentally, this (potential) child that the state would protect, what does he say?  As long as we are arguing for his protection, he might as well have a say in the matter.  Would he prefer death--or non-existence if you wish--over a chance at life, whatever the outcome, and the cost?

Or, perhaps we should ask Stephen Hawking, who can actually respond:



It's a bit rude, no?  But that's where we are at when we presume to judge.

Stephen Hawkins has motor neurone disease. No one know exactly how people contact it, but only a small % is thought to be hereditary.

Tommy Monk wrote:Homosexuality... regardless of ever being criminalised or not, has always been known by the overwhelming vast majority of people everywhere and all time, to be unnatural/abnormal/wrong...!

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... all you have shown is the mission creep from original reasons for decriminalisation of homosexuality (my paragraph A), to situation now where all of paragraph B exists...


My point still stands, that had it been known years ago, when homosexuality was decriminalised due to arguments in paragraph A, that it would lead to situation of B, then it would never have been decriminalised at all...!


It was only intended to be decriminalised... not for it to ever be shoe-horned into/forced onto main stream society as being something that everyone else must recognise as being normal/natural/right/acceptable etc, and forced to think/behave/act like they believe it is... when in all reality, the vast majority don't believe that at all!!!


Decriminalisation is one thing... it is letting fukked up people do fukked up things, in private, between themselves, and therefore then only affecting themselves, while then being free from prosecution, was never decriminalised for it to be launched into mainstream society as something that everyone else should be forced to recognise as in any way normal/natural/right etc, or for everyone else to be forced to recognise as having the same status as what they fundamentally know IS normal/natural/right...!

Syl wrote:You mentioned Stephen Hawkins, he wasnt born with an inherited disease, he wasnt diagnosed till he was an adult.
In fact most mnd sufferers are not diagnosed till they are 50 plus.

If you eliminate all people who may develop a desease throughout their lives.......not many would be left.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:You mentioned Stephen Hawkins, he wasnt born with an inherited disease, he wasnt diagnosed till he was an adult.
In fact most mnd sufferers are not diagnosed till they are 50 plus.

If you eliminate all people who may develop a desease throughout their lives.......not many would be left.

I only mention Hawking because he's alive and can answer.  We were talking about asking an hypothetical unborn, disabled child, and for some that's hard to envision.  So I suggest we go to a live disabled person and ask him.

It has nothing to do with how they become disabled.  It's just the question: would you prefer never having been born, over living life disabled?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I only mention Hawking because he's alive and can answer.  We were talking about asking an hypothetical unborn, disabled child, and for some that's hard to envision.  So I suggest we go to a live disabled person and ask him.

It has nothing to do with how they become disabled.  It's just the question: would you prefer never having been born, over living life disabled?

Im sure it would depend on the seriousness of the disability.

Syl wrote:But rather than put the onus on the hypothetical unborn child...why not ask the hypothetical parents to be, why would you bring a child into the world knowing it will have a far higher percent of being born with a serious genetic illness, thanks to you breeding with your father/daughter/mother/brother.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Im sure it would depend on the seriousness of the disability.

Yes, that's true.  But with our hypothetical child, we don't even know if there would be a disability.  I was predicating the hypothetical on the worst-case scenario, since that extreme appears to be where the state interest lies.

Syl wrote:But rather than put the onus on the hypothetical unborn child...why not ask the hypothetical parents to be, why would you bring a child into the world knowing it will have a far higher percent of being born with a serious genetic illness, thanks to you breeding with your father/daughter/mother/brother.

Because the child has a different interest than the parents.  Remember?  That's the point.  The child has almost more of an interest than the parents...he should have an even greater say.  After all, he's going to have to actually live the life that state claims to be doing its best by.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Homosexuality... regardless of ever being criminalised or not, has always been known by the overwhelming vast majority of people everywhere and all time, to be unnatural/abnormal/wrong...!

Well it probably is unnatural to the majority because the majority of people are straight.

Just as straight sex would be unnatural to a gay person.