87 replies to this topic

[NapisaurusRex]

And would you attempt to pro-create, knowing the risks incestual relationships bring to children?

I'm a woman, so is my sister. Lesbians don't usually successfully procreate.

[luvsmyncis]

I'm a woman, so is my sister. Lesbians don't usually successfully procreate.

Oh snap. I was thinking, "I'm lucky my brother is a donkey-faced moron." Now I'm thinking, "My sister has a pretty nice rack"

[infecthead]

There are no risks.
Genetic malformations take generations to develop. The only increased risk is if both parents carry a recessive genetic disease, which is also a risk (admittedly not as high) in the general population.
Besides which, is it the governments job to legislate that risk? Why not, then, also legislate against 40yo+ mothers?



Isn't this the same argument they use against homosexual adoption?

I understand there aren't any risks common to incestual relationships, however there are increased rates of birth defects and genetic disorders. As for legislation, I'm no good with politics so I'll leave that unanswered.

Yes they do, but inbreeding and homosexuality aren't even related. The latter is more natural, and is becoming more and more accepted in society whilst the former is not. I'm also sure many people would prefer same-sex parents rather than same-family parents

I'm a woman, so is my sister. Lesbians don't usually successfully procreate.

Fair enough

[Sweeney]

I understand there aren't any risks common to incestual relationships, however there are increased rates of birth defects and genetic disorders.

Are there? Can you provide specifics? Because that smells like bullshit.

As for legislation, I'm no good with politics so I'll leave that unanswered.

Nice to see you've applied some deep consideration to the issue.

Yes they do, but inbreeding and homosexuality aren't even related. The latter is more natural, and is becoming more and more accepted in society whilst the former is not. I'm also sure many people would prefer same-sex parents rather than same-family parents

More natural? What does that matter?
Who are you to tell one person that their emotions are less "natural" than someone else's?
Why do you think that preference exists? Because of social impetus? Or a real reason?

You've not addressed anything I've said.

[Frizzle]

There are no risks.
Genetic malformations take generations to develop. The only increased risk is if both parents carry a recessive genetic disease, which is

One would argue that if you legalise something, and make it something socially acceptable, that it would naturally increase over a period of time and therefore increase the risk of genetic mutations. We could end up with the X-men, unfortunately we're more likely to end up with the Republican party.

[Sweeney]

One would argue that if you legalise something, and make it something socially acceptable, that it would naturally increase over a period of time and therefore increase the risk of genetic mutations. We could end up with the X-men, unfortunately we're more likely to end up with the Republican party.

Do you think the incidence of incestual attraction is so high as to have a significant cumulative effect? I doubt it...
Besides, we already have the Republican party

[Frizzle]

Do you think the incidence of incestual attraction is so high as to have a significant cumulative effect? I doubt it...
Besides, we already have the Republican party

Have you never been on the internet before? Plus, look at southern US and Norwich!

[Sweeney]

Have you never been on the internet before? Plus, look at southern US and Norwich!

But they do it anyway!

[Frizzle]

But we can't encourage them Joe!

[infecthead]

Are there? Can you provide specifics? Because that smells like bullshit.

http://onlinelibrary...490123/abstract

out of 38 malformed children, 24 were seen in first cousin matings (10.5 times more frequent than in offspring of nonconsanguineous couples)

Nice to see you've applied some deep consideration to the issue.

I'd rather refrain from answering, rather than talk bullshit.

More natural? What does that matter?
Who are you to tell one person that their emotions are less "natural" than someone else's?

Say you've got a group of 10 people, 8 of which feel love towards one another whereas the other 2 feel hatred. Which do you think seems to be the more natural emotion? Homosexuality is found across the entire animal kingdom whilst the same cannot be said for inbreeding. Which do you think is more natural?

Why do you think that preference exists? Because of social impetus? Or a real reason?

Just for clarification, are you asking me as to why homosexuality is more favoured over incest?

[Drakonid]

out of 38 malformed children, 24 were seen in first cousin matings (10.5 times more frequent than in offspring of nonconsanguineous couples)

lol

[Nymh]

Homosexuality is found across the entire animal kingdom whilst the same cannot be said for inbreeding. Which do you think is more natural?

What makes you think inbreeding cannot be found across the entire animal kingdom?

The article that you cited says that the risk is estimated to go up from 2-3% in non-consanguineous parents to 5-8% in consanguineous parents. So we're talking a 3-6% increase in risk of birth defects overall.

By contrast, studies on the prevalence of birth defects associated with the age of the mother (which is not taken into consideration in your study) have linked increasing age with a much more significant increased risk of birth defects. The statistics on Down Syndrome alone go from a .08% chance at the maternal age of 25 to a 10% chance when the mother is 49. When you broaden the spectrum to look at the risk of any chromosomal abnormalities, the numbers are even greater. I couldn't find a table that went up to 49 years old, but here's one that goes up to 45: http://mydoctor.kais...maternalage.jsp As you can see, the risk is also higher for young teenage mothers.

I just find it a little fallible that incestuous couples are demonized for the perceived increased risk of birth defects that they are placing on their children when the risks of other things like maternal age, obesity, alcohol/tobacco use, diet, pre-existing medical conditions, etc. are no less prevalent (and are usually not included in studies of parental consanguinity). While alcohol/tobacco use of pregnant women does have negative connotations in modern (American) society, the rest don't. What makes incest worse than these things or more deserving of legislature to prevent it?

[Boggart]

My goodness.

According to my research (magic school bus ftw), the risk of genetic disorders in incestuous children are not significantly higher, unless both parents (or I guess siblings. hee hee) are carriers for a recessive allele. I don't think it's as simple "higher" and "lower", for example, cystic fibrosis carrier rate is 1/25 for the general North American whilst it can be as high as 1/4 if one of your parents are carriers. It really depends on the people.

For example, I studied a disorder that seemed to only affect a certain Hutterite population. Long story short, the entire population could be traced back to 8 individuals. I.e. they were all basically related. The point is, in-breeding in one generation isn't bad. But after 10 generations of breeding in the same gene pool is really dangerous. These Hutterite children were extremely disfigured and 1/3 were carriers and 1/36 or so were affected o.o It was quite horrifying

That being said, my best friend's grand parents were first cousins

http://www.biochemge...iew.php?id=2437

But if you really look at communities (Amish, Hutterite, Mennonite, etc.) with a small gene pool, the number of genetic disorders are not only higher, but very "specalised" by population. I.e. some diseases are (almost) never found in a certain population, but there are sometimes diseases that are ONLY found in Hutterites, or Mennonites in small communities but never in cities.

So no, I really wouldn't recommend in-breeding. Just... because it's icky.

[Nymh]

When I made my post this morning, I was thinking, "Where's Boggy? WE NEED HIM"

[Boggart]

When I made my post this morning, I was thinking, "Where's Boggy? WE NEED HIM"

FINALLY SOMETHING I KNOW ABOUT

It really isn't as simple as a "yes" or "no". Genetically it's not too relevant. It's more so societal than anything.

If my sister and I had babies, our kids would totally have the disorder of *gasp* lactose intolerance.

Plus being a incest-love child. I think one outweighs the other.

[luvsmyncis]

If my sister and I had babies, our kids would totally have the disorder of *gasp* lactose intolerance.

*gasp* and Asian.

[Boggart]

*gasp* and Asian.

That's a very unfortunate mutations affecting billions of people

[Frizzle]

Plus the majority of drivers on the road.

[Boggart]

Plus the majority of drivers on the road.

And people in classes with a curve

[Sweeney]

Are there? Can you provide specifics? Because that smells like bullshit.

http://onlinelibrary...490123/abstract

out of 38 malformed children, 24 were seen in first cousin matings (10.5 times more frequent than in offspring of nonconsanguineous couples)

You've misrepresented that quote completely. All 38 of those children were the malformed children of cosanguinous couples, and, as Nymh noted above, the "10.5 times more frequent" statistic is likewise misleading.
The actual rates aren't given in that abstract, and I can't access the article (neither can you, I'd wager), so using it to prop up your nonsense is fatuous.

Nice to see you've applied some deep consideration to the issue.

I'd rather refrain from answering, rather than talk bullshit.

Too late, it seems.

More natural? What does that matter?
Who are you to tell one person that their emotions are less "natural" than someone else's?

Say you've got a group of 10 people, 8 of which feel love towards one another whereas the other 2 feel hatred. Which do you think seems to be the more natural emotion? Homosexuality is found across the entire animal kingdom whilst the same cannot be said for inbreeding. Which do you think is more natural?

What the fuck are you talking about? I asked you why "natural" was a relevant index of measurement.
The natural world is a brutal place - I don't think you want to measure a society's "goodness" by how naturally they behave.

Why do you think that preference exists? Because of social impetus? Or a real reason?

Just for clarification, are you asking me as to why homosexuality is more favoured over incest?

No, I'm asking you where you think that favour derives from.

[infecthead]

Alright I guess I was wrong about incestual couples and the risks associated with it. There is a small percentage increase as I stated, however obviously irrelevant as it's still only a small number and other risks (like Nymh stated; age, weight, drugs/alcohol) often play a much larger role when it comes to birth defects. I blame this on my ignorance, however this has certainly being quite an enlightening conversation.

[Waser Lave]

Either way, it's still pretty icky.

[NapisaurusRex]

Homosexuality is found across the entire animal kingdom whilst the same cannot be said for inbreeding. Which do you think is more natural?

Wait, what? Animals just like sex. They don't care who it's with. If you take a couple of cats that are related and remove all the other cats, when the female goes in heat, they will procreate. That's life.

[Drakonid]

Wait, what? Animals just like sex. They don't care who it's with. If you take a couple of cats that are related and remove all the other cats, when the female goes in heat, they will procreate. That's life.

I thought only a bunch of animals actually had sex for pleasure...

[Boggart]

I thought only a bunch of animals actually had sex for pleasure...

Animals have sex not necessarily for breeding just as a sign of dominance.

Although I'm not entirely sure about animals that breed with the same sex exclusively. They might just be wronged in the brain.