Is it time to ban first cousin marriage

[danot]

OK. Anyway getting back to the worrying issue of genetically inherited illness, there have been, I remember, cases of people with learning difficulties being sterilised while others are on the pill.

 

Surely that is discrimination against the individual, or are there good sound ethical and moral reasons? What do you think?

I suppose the severity of their "learning difficulties" would need to be assessed before resorting to those extremes.

 

If they were found to have the mental age of a six year old child for instance then maybe sterilization would be advisable, which wouldn't be discriminative in my opinion.

 

If they simply attend a special needs school because they were unable to learn at the level required by mainstream schools, then No.. because that would be discriminative.

[Grahame]

I suppose the severity of their "learning difficulties" would need to be assessed before resorting to those extremes.

 

If they were found to have the mental age of a six year old child for instance then maybe sterilization would be advisable, which wouldn't be discriminative in my opinion.

 

If they simply attend a special needs school because they were unable to learn at the level required by mainstream schools, then No.. because that would be discriminative.

 

I was trying to propose a principle but it doesn't matter.

[boyfriday]

OK. Anyway getting back to the worrying issue of genetically inherited illness, there have been, I remember, cases of people with learning difficulties being sterilised while others are on the pill.

 

Surely that is discrimination against the individual, or are there good sound ethical and moral reasons? What do you think?

 

That's a thought provoking observation.

[Grahame]

That's a thought provoking observation.

 

On what basis do you form your opinions. Do you base them on what your friends think, are your opinions founded by those who brought you up. Do you just think "I like that", or "such and such" suits me, or do you go for the easy option?

 

Do you think about what is right and wrong, what is good and healthy, what makes for a prosperous society, or do you have another yardstick?

[boyfriday]

On what basis do you form your opinions. Do you base them on what your friends think, are your opinions founded by those who brought you up. Do you just think "I like that", or "such and such" suits me, or do you go for the easy option?

 

Do you think about what is right and wrong, what is good and healthy, what makes for a prosperous society, or do you have another yardstick?

 

..I guess a combination of all of those things.

[Suffragette1]

You're argument might have some credibility if I was suggesting older women should be sterilised-I highlighted older females to illustrate the ridiculous nature of such a notion, rather than suggest they were a problem!

 

The older mother analogy would have greater credibility if it were a socially engineered cultural practice for women to have children at a certain age, which it may be in a tiny minority of cases of this so called careerist who delays parenthood until the 11th hour, however, for the majority it is a case of happen-stance or not meeting the 'right' partner until they're older. I brought the issue of older fathers into the equation in the interests of equality as everyone is always so quick to point the finger at older mums whereas there are also risks associated with older dads.

 

I'm not in favour of controlling anyone's reproduction or with whom they should procreate. As far as I'm aware all older mums to be are offered routine screening for the most common genetic and chromosomal abnormalities. Little or scant attention is paid to the father's age, only his medical history vis a vis hereditary conditions. Whether or not certain sections of the population are offered genetic screening or questioned about the nature of their relationship, I have no idea.

 

 

There may well have been, but I'm talking of the discussions about banning, not the media coverage surrounding it.

 

It's perfectly legitimate to have a discussion about cousins, older women (and men) and people with hereditary conditions having children, as I've said already on this thread, but the issue of banning has only arisen due to the people involved in this current discussion and the culture they represent.

 

It would be easier to legislate against than it would be to impose a ban on people having children after a certain age, although there is a cut off point (quite rightly) for fertility treatment. Whether or not there has been as much media coverage surrounding this issue as there has been about delayed parenthood, I doubt very much.

 

It is legitimate, however, for the reasons given above, I'm not sure how useful an analogy it is. As I said, I would not advocate controlling reproduction, except in extreme circumstances, such as where a parent has a history of abusing and/or neglecting children and continues to have more babies. Controversial I know, but prevention is preferable to having endless kids taken into care as soon as they appear!

 

Where someone does have a known hereditary condition, as far as I'm aware they are offered genetic counselling and some local health authorities with high numbers of people from certain ethnic groups blanket screen every pregnant mum for certain conditions; I had my kids in London and was routinely screened for both Thalassemia and Sickle Cell, for example.

 

 

OK. Anyway getting back to the worrying issue of genetically inherited illness, there have been, I remember, cases of people with learning difficulties being sterilised while others are on the pill.

 

Surely that is discrimination against the individual, or are there good sound ethical and moral reasons? What do you think?

 

I think that the reason for this is mostly because of the issues of people with severe learning disabilities being unable to care for a baby or take responsibility for contraception, rather than passing on a condition.

[Grahame]

I think that the reason for this is mostly because of the issues of people with severe learning disabilities being unable to care for a baby or take responsibility for contraception, rather than passing on a condition.

 

Some issues are caused by genetics and what you say is also true, which just increases the problem.

 

I was suggesting that procedures are already in place but they generally happen after the event, although the foetus is tested anyway, so there are safeguards in place, which raises the question, if we cannot cure it, perhaps we should try to prevent it in high risk groups.

 

Just thinking aloud that's all.

[Grahame]

..I guess a combination of all of those things.

 

There is nothing wrong with being your own man and letting personal feelings fade into the background while you make objective decisions based on what does the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people.

[boyfriday]

I brought the issue of older fathers into the equation in the interests of equality as everyone is always so quick to point the finger at older mums whereas there are also risks associated with older dads.

..and you accused me of thread diverting tactics! Just for the record, I was not advocating banning, censuring or criticising older mothers or older parents generally, I was simply raising the point because the aggregate number of birth abnormalities associated with them must be (assumption) more than those associated with first cousin marriages, simply by virtue of their higher numbers, yet the latter has become a banning issue.

It is legitimate, however, for the reasons given above, I'm not sure how useful an analogy it is.

It's useful since the only legitimate objection can be the birth outcomes associated with high risk relationships and/or increasing age, the child born with disabilities will probably find little consolation in their parents being in their 40's when they were conceived compared to them being related.

As I said, I would not advocate controlling reproduction, except in extreme circumstances, such as where a parent has a history of abusing and/or neglecting children and continues to have more babies. Controversial I know, but prevention is preferable to having endless kids taken into care as soon as they appear!

We're singing from the same hymn sheet there.

Where someone does have a known hereditary condition, as far as I'm aware they are offered genetic counselling and some local health authorities with high numbers of people from certain ethnic groups blanket screen every pregnant mum for certain conditions; I had my kids in London and was routinely screened for both Thalassemia and Sickle Cell, for example.

I was in the same position re Sickle Cell, so you can imagine the position where the state forbade you from having children because of the high risk to them of contracting the disease if you were a carrier, however being aware of the risks you might decide in the best interests of potential children that it would be better not to have them.

[Suffragette1]

Some issues are caused by genetics and what you say is also true, which just increases the problem.

 

I was suggesting that procedures are already in place but they generally happen after the event, although the foetus is tested anyway, so there are safeguards in place, which raises the question, if we cannot cure it, perhaps we should try to prevent it in high risk groups.

 

Just thinking aloud that's all.

 

It's a highly ethical issue as you're in danger of straying into the murky waters of eugenics. If someone, for example, had the mental capacity of a small child and was, therefore, not in a position in to make an informed decision or care for a healthy baby in an appropriate way, never mind one which may inherit the parent's condition if it were an inherited one, then I could see an argument (and I have to say, I am uncomfortable about it and not sure that I agree) for some form of regulated contraception, for both males and females in this situation.