Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by onyango makagutu on February 1, 2013 at 5:56am

I agree of course :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M.M. on January 31, 2013 at 2:39pm

That backs up my theory that alcohol was invented by two ugly cousins.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on January 30, 2013 at 8:53pm

The pharaohs of Egypt  And the Royals of Hawaii required brothers and sisters to produce another pair of siblings who could likewise reproduce and continue the royal line.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ed on January 30, 2013 at 9:12pm

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask243

"On the other hand, siblings are very closely related. So they are much more likely to be carriers of the same diseases. And their kids are more likely to get two broken copies of those genes and end up with the disease. But how much more likely?

It turns out that two siblings are 50% related. This means that for any given gene there is a 1 in 4 chance that they have the same copy as each other.

Carriers of recessive genes can pass them on to their children.

Say their dad (but not their mom) is a carrier for a harmful disease such as cystic fibrosis (CF). So dad has one broken copy of CFTR, the CF gene. This means that the brother and sister have a 25% chance of both also being carriers.

If the brother and sister are both carriers and have a child together, then each oftheir children would have a 1 in 4 chance of ending up with CF by getting a disease copy of CFTR from each parent. So the odds of this brother and sister having a child with the disease is (1/4)(1/4) or 1 in 16.

Now imagine that dad is a carrier but that his kids go on to have children with unrelated people. What are the odds that these grandkids will have CF? Around 1 in 240.

We can calculate this number because we know how likely it is for any random person in the U.S. to be a carrier of CF--around 1 in 30. We also know that because dad is a carrier, each of his children has a 1 in 2 chance of getting the disease version of the CFTR gene. So the odds that both parents would be carriers is (1/2)(1/30) or 1 in 60.

The chances that both of these parents would then pass on the disease version of CFTR is the same 1 in 4 that we talked about in our previous example. So the chances are (1/4)(1/60) or 1 in 240.

So the difference between our two examples is 1 in 16 vs. 1 in 240. The siblings are 15 times more likely to have a child with CF than if they had had kids with an unrelated person. The risk becomes more pronounced with more rare diseases."

It's OK to have a relationship but maybe irresponsible genetically to produce offspring.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matt.clerke on January 31, 2013 at 5:10pm

I agree, thanks for the detailed genetics report.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pope OoO (Out of Order) on January 31, 2013 at 10:25pm

This gets deep, fast, but we'll probably have to face it when the technology gets cheap enough to show what the actual risks are in parent's genes. I'll bet it'll be reasonable someday to *encourage* abortion in some cases. (Of course that will also apply to non-incest pregnancy.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gallup's Mirror on January 30, 2013 at 9:37pm

The Bible says incest is fine. God saved Lot, destroyed Sodom, and killed Lot's wife, but did nothing to his daughters for tricking Dad into impregnating them. Jesus is a descendent of Lot's incestuous family.

See? There's nothing to object about. God is completely cool with incest, provided one of the participants is totally wasted at the time.

And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. -Genesis 19:30-36

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Teri G on January 31, 2013 at 2:22am

You know, I've always had a problem with this story. Typical bible logic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on January 31, 2013 at 2:35am

But note that the theme that seems to run through the bible, is maintained here as well: the woman is the instigator, the man, blameless!

Of course we're also left with a multitude of unanswered questions:

• Why did Lot insist on going to a town, then after a bit there, suddenly decide to live in a cave?
• Why would this successful rancher, who had so much livestock that he and his Uncle Abe could no longer even coexist on the same grazing lands, suddenly pack it in to become a possessionless cave-dweller.
• In fact, with herds that size, why was he living in a city in the first place? Because it's a necessary gimmick in order to make the story work - logic takes a back seat in this book.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Teri G on January 31, 2013 at 4:18am

Logic doesn't take a bag seat, it doesn't even get into the car! People don't read the bible, and if they do they don't ask questions. It irritates the living daylights out of me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Teri G on January 31, 2013 at 7:35am

Back* not bag.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kairan Nierde on January 31, 2013 at 2:04am

It's very unhealthy psychologically. Humans need to have a range of different types of relationships...platonic, famillial, and romantic...each type helps meet the needs of a person.

On a societal level, isn't it better for people to leave the home and encounter different ways of thinking, living, etc. leading to innovation and cultural development? Incest would seem to promote insular communities.

I agree that it should be treated as a psychological problem, but legal intervention may be necessary if consent cannot be proven and the relationship is harmful. 

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page