Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hetty_Fauxvert
any children conceived in an incestuous relationship are at an elevated risk of having both major birth defects and other subtler physical defects.

This statement is only valid if the parents (or their parents) are also the product of incest..
The only other contributing factor would be if there were specifically identifiable genetic or physiological defects that had been passed down to the parents / grandparents that could be passed to the offspring..
In other words, it has to be more than a "singular" occurance within a familial group, it has to be an accepted practice..

The taboo against incest requires more than one generation.. then and only then is it valid..

This couple's children stand about the same prospect of birth defects or other physical defect as anyone else..

10 posted on 08/28/2005 10:30:30 PM PDT by Drammach ( I AmThe Sultan of Oom Pa Pa Mow Mow.. Heed My Words..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Drammach
Yep. And this couple didn't know they were related. Prosecuting them as criminals seems extreme and unfair to me. Its not like Allen and Patricia deliberately set out to break the law.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
11 posted on 08/28/2005 10:33:09 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Drammach
This couple's children stand about the same prospect of birth defects or other physical defect as anyone else.

Disagree. A brother and sister are more likely than two strangers out of the general population to carry the same recessive genes. For instance, both my brother and I have flat feet, though neither of our parents do. We appear to have both gotten their recessive genes for flat feet, which were then expressed in both of us. Should we marry and have kids (ew, that's a digusting thought), they would almost certainly have flat feet. Now, flat feet are a small burden to bear, but there are many more harmful recessive genes that carry heavy burdens. I don't think it's fair or right for children to be put at an elevated risk of physical harm.

If you are a professional biologist and can scientifically support your statement that the children of an incestuous union would be at NO more risk than the general population of birth defects, etc., then I am willing to be corrected.

24 posted on 08/28/2005 10:59:35 PM PDT by Hetty_Fauxvert (Kelo must GO!! ..... http://sonoma-moderate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Drammach
In other words, it has to be more than a "singular" occurance within a familial group, it has to be an accepted practice.

And another thing (boy, you've really got me going here!): If you accept incestuous relationships as a "norm," then they WILL be "accepted practice," and you'll have two- and three-generation streaks of incest -- which will produce a royal genetic mess. You see the problem, I trust: if you accept the first incestuous relationship, how do you have grounds to deny the second, third, etc.? If it was okay for Mom and her brother to get married, why can't sis and I now that we are grownups? Why shouldn't it be a proud family tradition to marry your sibling?

It has to stop with the first generation. If people are nutsy-cuckoo in love with their siblings and just can't help themselves, they should get their tubes tied and have vasectomies. And it should never be dignified with the name of marriage.

27 posted on 08/28/2005 11:35:48 PM PDT by Hetty_Fauxvert (Kelo must GO!! ..... http://sonoma-moderate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson