Incest

Remove all ads!

NOG,

My point exactly. They have not only proven themselves unwise, but incorrigibly so.

And yes, probably as a result of such considerations, three of their children have been given into custody of the Jugendamt, means given to foster parents by the authorities.

And even after the appeal that's likely to remain so, as the appeal only adresses the question of the constitutionality of § 173 StGB.

 

@Shaman: I disagree. The rate and type of birth defects with older parents doesn't even come close in severity to the rate and type of birth defects in cases of incest.

 

Depends on what age. Having a pregnancy at 40 may be one thing, at 50 - another. Also, we're looking at chances. When is it enough?

Granted, the second would be rare to begin with, but I hope you see the point.

 

I see the point, but compare the odds of birth defects between a 40 year old incestuous union and a typical 40 year old couple. I'm not going to touch the 50 year old example because, as you mentioned, pregnancy is highly unlikely to happen at all.

 

What consenting adults do in their own home is their own business.

I seem to recall that first cousins have double the chance of passing on a genetic deformity over couples that are not related. Sibling chances are double that of first cousins. This is nowhere near the 50% chance often quoted.

Not that I want to give anyone any encouragement....

 

I do believe the doctor in the clip said 30% chance, not the 50% that has crept its way into this discussion.

Secondly, no, I don't advocate thm having children, but I can't see the issue in a relationship that doesn't produce children.

Thirdly, to Dendri. I said that your statement was loaded, and I stand by that comment. What I mean by it, is that for example, having an extra finger is a defect, as could be being born severely mentally handicapped. Both are 'defects', yet which one is more serious? Grouping them both under the term 'defect' is misleading, because 'defect' could mean anything. That's why the sentence was loaded.

 

The 50% came from the fact that 2 of the 4 children in question have 'genetic defects'. That's 50% of the actual children of the couple. I consider this a more reliable source for the number, as the odds of general siblings passing birth defects to their children is a factor of how genetically different the siblings are.

To put it another way:
Each parent gives half their DNA to each child, right? Let's assume we can split the DNA of each parent cleanly in two, into parts A and B. If child 1 has parts A from both parents, and child 2 had parts B from both parents, then the children are no more genetically similar than the parents were. If on the other hand, they both get parts A from both parents, then they are genetic twins, even if they aren't born together.

Of course the probability of either of these situations is incredibly low, and the actual recombination involves every single chromosome, not a clean 50/50 division, so things get a bit more complicated, and the average odds of defect end up being around 30%. Those aren't the odds of THIS couple, however. They may be higher, they may be lower (how do you get 30% from four children?).

Of course, add to that the question of is minor epilepsy considered a serious defect.

@T2Bruno:

So if two consenting adults agree to let one kill the other and eat his/her flesh, we should let them?

 

That, I believe, is the single most idiotic argument I've ever seen on the boards. Surely, you can do better than going to such absurd extremes.

 

If two siblings are in love, and use contraception, and therefore do not reproduce, does the State have the right to intervene?

 

I would argue that it does not.

 

The state does not, but we all have the right as human beings to regard them as sick freaks who need to move to Utah.

 

Point is that the two siblings in our case did reproduce.

 

But that's not the question I asked, is it?

 

I was replying in reference to Drew.

I said already that had they been limiting their thing to their bedroom they would have most probably been left alone. Alas, they did not.

 

First of all on birth defects - the exact percent chance of inheriting a birth defect depends entirely upon how many defects you have the chance of inheriting. It could be 50%, 30%, or any other number, but 25% would be the minimum. Allow me to explain.

When we speak about genetic diseases, most of them are inherited in standard Mendelian fashion (I'm not counting things like trisomy - that's one of the exceptions). I'll use the following abbreviations:

A = normal version of gene
a = gene that leads to defect

Someone is normal if their gene pair is AA, Aa, or aA. They are only abnormal if they are aa. Since the parents do not have any defects, but their children do, I have to assume that both parents are either Aa or aA. That is, afterall, the only way normal people have a child with a genetic anomaly. So the chance of inheriting any SPECIFIC genetic defect, assuming that each parent carries the gene but neither displays the condition, is 25%.

But these are siblings, which changes everything. Everyone has a few "bad" genes - genes that if you had two copies of the "bad" gene would have given you a birth defect, but because of your heterozygous condition, you are completely normal. The person you decide to marry also has a few "bad" genes, and the same thing applies to him/her. However, the chance that you and the person you marry both have the same "bad" gene is exceedingly low. It doesn't matter if I have 10 of these "bad" genes and my wife has 10 of these "bad" genes as long as those genes aren't for the same genetic defect. As long as they are not, none of our children will be born with a genetic defect.

In the case of siblings, since they share 50% of the same DNA, the chance of each of them having the same "bad" genes is much, much greater. To use my example of before, of each having 10 "bad" genes, statistics indicate that they would have 5 of those "bad" genes in common.

So to go back to the percentages again - if they each only have one "bad" gene in common the chance of them having a child with the genetic defect is 25%. However, given that two of the children have been born with different defects, it suggests that they have at least two "bad" genes in common. It may be more, but the math gets really complicated if I go for more than two, so I'm sticking with the assumption that there are only two possible defects their children could inherit. Given those conditions, there are 16 different ways that the two gene sets could combine.

9 in 16 would have no defect what so ever.

Specifically:

4 of the nine would be carrier for one of, but not both of the possible defects.

4 would be carriers of both defects, but would not display either condition

Perhaps most amazingly 1 would be a carrier of neither defect.

Logically, that also means that 7 of 16 will display one of the defects. The specific breakdown there is 6 would display one of, but not both of the defects, while 1 would display both defects.

So the result summary is:

9 of 16 (56%) normal
6 of 16 (38%) have one of the defects (specifically 3 of each type)
1 of 16 (6%) will have both defects.

 

Again, no, it wasnt. I doubt the defects would even have been mentioned were they something minor surgery could take care of. Incest is a taboo - and those engaging in it are for all intends and purposes pariahs, regardless of what stance the state takes - because the consequences for the children born of incestuous relations tend to be more debilitating than extra fingers or toes.

Also, what is your point? Even if the children got lucky and had nothing more to show for their parents' folly than twelve fingers, it is certainly not an opportunity to bandy words and argue what genetic defects must be considered less serious. They are avoidable to begin with. To take these chances and have the children pay the price - in whatever form - is utterly despicable.

 

Sure, I have seen pictures about those guys in US that had a whole harem of them (mormons?) and that is a bit too much. All I'm saying is that like with multiple-partners, short-term or long-term, some leeway should be allowed. Either-or hammering isn't democracy -or even good judgement.

 

Democracy doesn't equal laissez-faire. Utter indifference, or to tolerate and allow for everything, is a profound and fatal misunderstanding of what an individualistic society calls for.

There are things that are taboo, still, and for good reason. Not many things. Essential things only. Incest is such a thing. In such things no leeway should be allowed.