German Incest Couple Calls For Change In Law

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Good thing they don't enforce this law in Edmonton.

That thought passed through my mind!

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

I would ask you, what about mandatory genetic testing of the fetus early in a pregnancy to check for abnormalities? If there are genetic abnormalities, mandatory abortion. If not, then they can go ahead.

I guess that is an option....but not one I personally agree with. Lets say for a second there are no apparent defects. That child is still going to live his or her life knowing his parents are siblings....can you imagine the mental scarring that kid is going to have......yikes.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

I guess that is an option....but not one I personally agree with. Lets say for a second there are no apparent defects. That child is still going to live his or her life knowing his parents are siblings....can you imagine the mental scarring that kid is going to have......yikes.

Point taken.

[FireFly]

For some reason I seem to recall from one of my bio classes that incestuous relationships result in birth defects in only a marginally greater number of cases than perfect strangers. I'll try to look that up to verify it, but basically it boils down to this: If one person has the disease and it's recessive, it's almost as likely that a stranger will have the same disease as it is their sibling. Almost.

Besides, if we're going on rates of birth defects as reasons for people not to have relationships, women over 35 should not be allowed to have children. Chances of chromosomal disorders rises drastically when the birth mother is 35 or older.

[FireFly]

Here we have it...

http://www.slate.com/id/2064227/

From 3-4% to 4-7% chance of serious birth defects.

Edit* My bad, that's cousins. Pretty good article though.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I'm not prepared to say anything about whether or not this kind of relationship should be illegal--I'm a live and let live kind of guy, for the most part.

I will say one thing, though. "Ew."

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Here we have it...

http://www.slate.com/id/2064227/

From 3-4% to 4-7% chance of serious birth defects.

Edit* My bad, that's cousins. Pretty good article though.

Cousins share roughly 1/8 of genes with each other. Brother and sister share 1/2. So extrapolating that figure of 4-7% would increase that chance four times over to a 16-28% risk of serious birth defects, assuming its a linear relationship like Mendalien genetics. That's a pretty significant increase in my opinion. And as far as genetic testing goes, the current cost of running so many specialized tests (200+ and growing) would be very, very high. And even if you find an abnormality, would that automatically mean abortion?

As for the increased risk of defects related to age, the main concerns are chromosomal abnormalities, which are much different than specific genes amplified by incest. Trisomy 21 (Down's) being the poster boy for this. And you are talking a roughly 1/400 chance at age 25 versus a 1/20 chance at age 45, which is actually a relatively low risk in my books. So I don't think they are equivocal.

I personally think incestuous relationships that spawn kids should be prohibited due to a medical burden point of view and developemental aspect. Should it be a law though? Using my logic, cigarettes should be illegal....
________
Methadone rehab forum

[Cal-Gal]

Most of the logic that is being applied in this thread was the same logic that was applied in the Government of Alberta's decision to routinely sterilize people who were likely to pass on genetic abnormalities to their children: ie) handicapped people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_...Act_of_Alberta

How can we justify preventing incestuous couples from reproducing because they are more likely to have children with defects, yet so many are appalled by preventing handicapped persons from reproducing.

Perhaps it is an oranges and apples debate to some...but I don't see the difference.

[Flames09]

20/20 did a story on myths and one of the myths listed by them was on incest couples having "######ed" babies they conducted a study that showed no difference from other "normal" couples.

[Shazam]

Wow, a lot of guys here that want to do their sisters

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

That's a weak argument.

As "gross" as it might be, the guy certainly shouldn't be jailed for this, they are adults they are allowed to make their own decisions.

I'm sure the social stigma they've gone through has been brutal enough that if it wasn't "real love" they would have broken up long long ago.

I say, "whatever" let them live their lives, going to jail is pretty ridiculous for something like this....who is he hurting?

Nature as in "genetic defects", not what's "natural". Incestuous relationships leads to the same thing that happens when you breed with a small gene pool like Royal Families did.

[Flames09]

When someone says the word 'Incest' I immediatley think of Edmonton, I dont know why....

[ernie]

The way the article is written this seems pretty clear cut to me. Before they started the incestuous relationship they knew they were brother and sister. I don't think it much matters they didn't know each other for 16 or so years. In my world that is just, well, wrong to pursue someone you know beforehand is your sibling.

Now I remember a couple in the states that met each other in college, fell in love, had a few kids and after years of marraige found out they were brother and sister. A bit different in that case.

[octothorp]

Wow, some tough issues. I have no problem with any relationship among consenting adults, but I think it's extremely rare that incestuous relationships begin among consenting adults; it would seem that this is such a rare exception. As far as the birth defect issue, I don't think that you can tell a couple that it's okay for them to be romantically involved but illegal for them to have children.
My understanding of the science (and somebody can correct me on this if I'm wrong) is that the genetic defects are more likely in incestuous couples because there's a greater probability that bad recessive genes are passed on by both parents.
I'd say that there should be mandatory genetic testing for any blood-relative couple when they get married, and consultations with a doctor so that the couple knows exactly what genetic defects they can expect, and what the financial costs and hardships of such conditions would be. Review other options, such as adoption. Will they have a child, knowing that there's a 50% chance of a serious, expensive, and potentially fatal condition?
If, at some point, embryos can be modified in vitro to remove genetic conditions (that's still illegal or impossible, isn't it? It's so hard to keep track these days), then that would be a good option for a couple like this. Not on a unemployed locksmith's salary, though.

[ZDogg]

How about NO. I've seen enough ######ed Hutterites wandering the Wal Mart to know inbreeding isn't a good idea.
Good thing their mother is dead and doesnt have to see this...

[Vulcan]

I'd guess that the fear of inbreeding was a reason the Israelis kept such detailed records. In a small gene pool this would be doubly important and is also a reason for discouraging infidelity as how could you keep track of all the relationships and who is kosher to do, if the kid doesnt know for sure who it's father is. Why does Nicole Smith come to my mind?

[Vulcan]

Further to my above post, this is probably a good reason why civilizations have used arranged marriages. They didn't want love interfering with good genetic planning. Seems to me that avoiding incest was at the basis of many of our laws. Not just the 'ew' factor.

[Winsor_Pilates]

wow, 36 posts and still no "well if they allow gays to marry, this is gonna be next"
I'm shocked

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

wow, 36 posts and still no "well if they allow gays to marry, this is gonna be next"
I'm shocked

Probably another reason civilizations have discouraged gay relationships is that it's a waste of genes in a limited pool.
Now a days with our huge populations and mixing of peoples, we no longer have to worry much about this.

[tanguay'sstillgood]

Wow, people. No way this should be legal (the children, I mean). If they want to do everything else, it is none of our business, as gross as it seems to most of us. Once they start having kids, they are increasing the risk of bringing disabled kids into the world, which should not be allowed. Here are some numbers for you:
-1 in 25 caucasions are cystic fibrosis carriers (i.e. have one copy of the recessive disease gene, so don't express it, but pass it on to 1/2 of their kids).
-a person carrying the disease allele has a 1 in 25 chance of meeting somebody else with it, in a random situation. There is then a 1 in 4 chance that their kids will get the disease. If I do my stats right (and I might not here), there is a 1/4 x 1/25=1/100 (1%) chance that a carrier will produce an affected child, given random mating.
-If a carrier mates with a sibling (assume the sibling does NOT have C.F., because if they did, it would be known), there is a 2/3 chance that the sibling carries the disease allele. The odds for this couple to have an affected baby are now 2/3, or 66%.
-for a random individual, there is a 1/25 chance of being a carrier. non-incestuous matings have an overall 1/100 x 1/25 = 1/2500 (0.04%) chance of having a C.F. baby. Brother/sister pairs have a 2/3 x 1/25 = 2/75 (2.7%) chance of having a baby with C.F.
This increases the chance of a C.F. baby by 67.5 times in brother sister couples! There is science behind these laws, they arent just myths. Finally, I will point out that the C.F. disorder is relatively common in caucasians. For disorders that are less frequent, incest increases the odds by far more than the 67.5X it does in C.F. Reason being, if, say, 1/100 are carriers (vs 1/25), there is less chance of two carriers meeting at random, so the odds are increased 267.7X in incestuous couples compared to random couples (in this example).
Sorry this is long winded, but I wanted it to make sense to the people without genetics backgrounds and also prove a point about why the laws are there. If anything here doesnt make sense, go ahead and ask.

Edit: I just picked up an old textbook and read that the proportion of abnormal children from brother/sister matings is between 1/4 and 1/2."