A 1 in 20 chance of having a child with a birth defect is a "silly" concern to you?shintakie10 said:
We obviously have different hopes for any future children we might have!
First-cousin Marriage?
- Thread starter Realitycrash
- Start date
Recommended Videos
We obviously have different hopes for any future children we might have!
And its a 1 in 40 chance normally. That doesn't mean we should all stop havin children because theres a ridiculously low chance of havin a birth defect if you do.The Gnome King said:
Dear god that's gross. Second cousin I can understand, but never, ever first cousin. Too closely related for it to be good.
I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around how a person could casually mathematically DOUBLE their child's chances of having a birth defect from 1 in 40 to 1 in 20 and this not cause them any worry... I guess we just have different priorities/feelings on this.shintakie10 said:
Personally, in this world of 6 billion people procreating with a family member sounds like genetic suicide. Down the line; might come back to bite ya. Why take a chance?
It's like... let's say smoking while you are pregnant doubles the chances of having a birth defect.
Would you smoke?
The statistical probability of causin a birth defect due to smokin while pregnant is astronomically higher than that of a incestuous relationship causin one. Pick your arguments better.The Gnome King said:
I am casually dismissin it because the number is still statistically low. Examples of another thing I dismiss. 1 out of 67 people who get in their car will die in a car accident. I'm willin to bet that number is far more than double that of takin a bus, or bikin, or even walkin to where I need to go. Does that stop me from drivin to Burger King to save myself 10 minutes of walkin? Nope. Not at all.
Statistically speakin the fact that I'm eatin Burger King as much as I do means I have a much higher chance of health problems down the road. Does that mean I'll stop eatin fast food? Fuck no...it tastes delicious.
A 4% chance to birth a child with defects is absolutely not somethin that should be cause for it to be illegal and is definitely not somethin that should cause so many people to get all wigged out about.
Actually:shintakie10 said:
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20110711/smoking-in-pregnancy-raises-birth-defect-risk
The statistical probability of a birth defect from smoking is LOWER than it is for an incestuous relationship. Do your research. And it didn't matter in this respect, I said WOULD YOU if the situation was the same. Just answer - would you smoke, if your doctor said it raised your chances from 1 in 40 to 1 in 20?
You... assess risk vs. reward differently than I do. For me, the reward of "breeding" with my cousin is far, far lower than any "reward" I would get from doing it.
Maybe your mileage varies.
I don't know about everyone else, but I find these numbers much more interesting whenever they're inverted to show those who lack genetic defects, and put into a much larger scale.BiscuitTrouser said:
Using these numbers, 980 out of 1000 are born completely fine in "normal couples", whereas 960 out of 1000 are born completely fine in first cousin marriages.
The fact that we ban people from expressing mutual attraction due to the fact that, should they desire to have offspring (which is not necessarily guaranteed), they have a 2% greater chance of giving birth to a child with genetic defects of any sort, amuses me. We do not ban alcoholic beverages or tabacco products, yet these produce potential harm upon others. This double standard of allowing potential harm in some cases, while denying things based off of potential harm in other cases, seems quite odd to me.
Also, for anyone that has any interest in it, an XKCD comic [http://www.xkcd.com/1003/] inspired a rather interesting debate about incest in the forums for it [http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=79431]. Many interesting points to be had, although many posts are quite long.
You might believe we have no choice over who we fall in love with; I believe we DO have a choice. I wouldn't choose to fall in love with my first cousin - how about that?Loop Stricken said:
Again, YMMV.
I don't even know why I'm still talking about this...
All you cousin lovers - go for it; if the articles by genetics experts and the statistics don't bother ya, great. If the risk doesn't scare ya, great.If you can provide your offspring healthcare without involving the government; even better.
This topic isn't really... that interesting. I don't know anyone who wants to breed with their cousin, personally.
I'm out. ;D
The thing that all the crazy people think about the behavior children raised by two gay parents would actually be valid in the case of children born and/or raised by incestuous cousins. I think that people forget that the whole not inbreeding thing was progressive.
If you couldn't show restraint with your family, how can you expect your children to act any different?
If you couldn't show restraint with your family, how can you expect your children to act any different?
You're correct. However, most MSM have had multiple partners, and even if they are in a single monogamous relationship, there is still a risk that one of the partners acquired it earlier. I'm not saying anything against homosexuals by the way, there was a big movement in the 80s for awareness that's being replicated now (thank god), but for a decade MSM were the only group in the country that were driving the incidence of STI's. HAART and disinhibition, etc. I was at the USAIDS conference in Chicago and there we're plenty of monogamous homosexual people who were living with HIV/AIDS.The Gnome King said:
OT: There is a difference, sure, but I would argue that the chances-to-incedcent-consequence ratio of damage of a person getting an STI or colorectal cancer from trauma is far greater.
As for the whole third party idea, you can't argue that. The kid would never have been born in the first place if the parents had never gotten together.
The NPR interview just argues my point for me. It's a village. Most of the population is inbred. It took generations. Not equivalent to one cousin marrying another. It has to happen for generations to take effect.As an aside; I actually support genetic testing for anyone who plans on having a child.
Also, in my eight(+) years of college I've taken a couple genetics courses.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6509683
and
http://www.biolreprod.org/content/early/2010/05/24/biolreprod.110.084798.full.pdf
The first relates to humans, the second to possible damage done to sperm DNA done in other species... and yes you can't use animals in human studies, but if YOU have taken genetics courses you know much crossover is done this way because all living beings, well, have DNA. We can make certain guesses based on this.
The second is a biological paper, NOT an epidemiological one. You cannot, and the authors do not, attempt to draw any conclusion on Humans at all. They mention human beings once as an aside, and quickly state that there was sampling bias in that study. I would also question their use of Generalized Linear Models. I can see them wanting the ability to do an F-test on the increment of R-squared for modeling purposes (god knows I've been waiting for the stats boys to come up with an logistic equivalent for years), but I still think that the probabilities you get out of a Generalized Logit model may have been more appropriate considering they want to study potential genetic defect using cross-sectional data. They probably did it both ways, so I dunno what about their data made them do it this way, especially when you consider that the different species were essentially proxies for different exposure groups. It would have made it a lot easier to read I didn't have keep flipping to the tables...
As an aside, I advocate genetic testing too...for those who can afford it
Yeah. You can't do that with Humans though. Kinda my point.
It's not just that it takes a while, its just that it has to be done for generations, a concerted family effort. If a few people break the chain, which is likely outside of insular communities, then the damage is averted, genetic diversity is restored.
Peace, indeed.
My bottom line is that we aren't in a place to question other people's choices on who they want to marry. Sure it's sub-optimal, but children are born with birth defects everywhere, regardless of who their parents are. Are we going to deny two people who want to get married that? Just because there's a chance that if they do, their kids might end up doing it for generations and somewhere down the line a child will be born with a birth defect? I don't think there is any point to discussing this in a biological context. In the modern societies we live in, there is little chance that your children would marry their cousins, let alone your children's children marrying their cousins (all of whose parents also married your children). Hell, the chance that they will even be married is slimming.
I don't disagree with you that it's not a smart idea. I just don't think we're in any position to question two people's choices.
Captcha: Lame Duck
I can see the line of thinking there; I have a feeling we probably agree more than disagree on many things; I just take a cautious take on genetic diversity here. In my opinion, it's like smoking while pregnant - sure, you might have a healthy kid but... why do it at all? Why drink alcohol while pregnant? Why not get genetic testing if you can afford it?Silvianoshei said:
These all sound like reasonable things to do in light of creating a new life that will potentially inhabit the world for 80+ years, yes?
In terms of questioning people's choices, I think we all do it. Would you have a problem with, say, a brother marrying a sister and having children? Where do you draw the line of "OK, THIS much risk is TOO much, but X amount of risk is acceptable...?"
As I said, I'm not terribly interested in the first cousin argument anymore; I wouldn't do it and I personally find it distasteful. I'd probably stop short of wanting it outlawed. *shrug* - having said that, we probably have to look at practical reasons now why all kinds of incest aren't allowed. Why not uncles and nieces, if they're both adults? What about fathers and their daughter, if they're both over 18? Brothers and sisters? Genetic twins?
Where do you draw that line of how much risk is acceptable to a life?
(If you want to take this to PM, feel free, since we're getting way off topic on first cousins now. I'll let the OP make the call
)
And left I forget, this was actually brought up as a moral question once in an ethics class, long ago. The professor posited this to us:Silvianoshei said:
A brother and a sister, both adults, want to have a consensual sexual relationship and they agree to use reliable contraception at all times; with abortion resulting if they did conceive a child. Should society question this relationship at all? Is it moral?
Again I need to stop this is going way off topic...
I don't like it.
I think it is really wrong and i don't think people should do such a thing.
I wouldn't forbid people from doing it, it's their choice, but i don't have to like it.
And if you think about it:
Hasn't humanity fucked up it's genetic pool good enough?
Then again, i am not forbiding anybody from anything.
I think it is really wrong and i don't think people should do such a thing.
I wouldn't forbid people from doing it, it's their choice, but i don't have to like it.
And if you think about it:
Hasn't humanity fucked up it's genetic pool good enough?
Then again, i am not forbiding anybody from anything.