Is it time to ban first cousin marriage

[Grahame]

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.

 

It's not easy and I am also uncomfortable about it. Perhaps it is best not to go down that road.

[Suffragette1]

..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.

 

Perhaps a more useful analogy in that case would be the risks associated with some assisted conception methods, such as GIFT, as this is engineered, whereas delayed parenthood more often than not isn't.

 

The latter may not have been a banning issue, per se, however, there is so much disapproval from certain quarters that society's attitudes can at times be tantamount to such.

 

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 above.

 

We're singing from the same hymn sheet there.

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.

 

And it would be wrong to ban carriers of any condition from having children. However, for Sickle Cell, as with CF (I believe), both parents have to be a carrier as as my husband is pure white, any offspring of ours would not be affected! I assume that had I tested positive and if my partner had been black, he too would have offered a test and in the event of a positive result, screening and counselling would have been offered.

[Suffragette1]

It's not easy and I am also uncomfortable about it. Perhaps it is best not to go down that road.

 

You brought it up!!!

 

Thankfully, these situations are very few and far between and I assume that such people would be under some kind of social worker and between any living parents, siblings and care workers, a decision would be reached.

[Karis]

What do you think the "nanny" state should do Karis?

 

This thread IS about banning first cousin marriage...

 

I think it's obvious.

 

Same for animals.

[boyfriday]

Perhaps a more useful analogy in that case would be the risks associated with some assisted conception methods, such as GIFT, as this is engineered, whereas delayed parenthood more often than not isn't.

Such an analogy whilst being more appropriate, would have lacked the sensational nature that the post I was responding to demanded

The latter may not have been a banning issue, per se, however, there is so much disapproval from certain quarters that society's attitudes can at times be tantamount to such.

I don't think there's much that can be done about disapproval, I disapprove of cousin marriages myself, but I wouldn't approve of legislation being introduced to ban it.

 

 

And it would be wrong to ban carriers of any condition from having children. However, for Sickle Cell, as with CF (I believe), both parents have to be a carrier as as my husband is pure white, any offspring of ours would not be affected! I assume that had I tested positive and if my partner had been black, he too would have offered a test and in the event of a positive result, screening and counselling would have been offered.

 

Sorry, I was really thinking about passing on the trait rather than producing children who were sufferers, but you raise a good point-I doubt mixed race people are routinely tested for the gene and this could produce some big surprises as the trait passes onto generations who notionally appear white and therefore deemed not to be potential carriers..one of my nephews is fair with blue eyes!

[Suffragette1]

This thread IS about banning first cousin marriage...

 

I think it's obvious.

 

Same for animals.

 

I'm interested in your experiences, what kind of conditions, as a result of consanguineous unions have you encountered? I only saw half of the Dispatches documentary and I suspect that it gave a rather alarmist and distorted view of the problem.

 

I'm no geneticist, however, I would imagine that consanguineous procreation only reaches a critical point after several generations where it has been practised, due to the continual narrowing and shrinking of the gene pool.

 

I cannot see how any kind of ban could be enforced. Aside from DNA testing all married couples to be, to see if they're in any way related, which is hardly practical or cost effective. In the States where in some states it was mandatory to have a blood test to obtain a marriage licence, I think that it was mostly to test for syphilis. Many of the state blood test laws came about during the 1930s, before penicillin and antibiotics when syphilis was considered a significant public health hazard. I think that one or two do still test.

[danot]

This thread IS about banning first cousin marriage...

 

I think it's obvious.

 

Same for animals.

Let's hope not!

 

As a child, I once had the misfortune to witness a pedigree breeder drowning a newborn pup because it had 'imperfections' which didn't meet the required standard.

[Suffragette1]

Such an analogy whilst being more appropriate, would have lacked the sensational nature that the post I was responding to demanded

I don't think there's much that can be done about disapproval, I disapprove of cousin marriages myself, but I wouldn't approve of legislation being introduced to ban it.

 

The thought of me marrying a cousin makes me feel sick, to be honest. It does feel like incest to me, however, it was routinely done with dynastic families, the aristos and royalty, hence the number of hooray type inbreds! Even royalty wised up to it not being very healthy for the long term gene pool.

 

Sorry, I was really thinking about passing on the trait rather than producing children who were sufferers, but you raise a good point-I doubt mixed race people are routinely tested for the gene and this could produce some big surprises as the trait passes onto generations who notionally appear white and therefore deemed not to be potential carriers..one of my nephews is fair with blue eyes!

They would be routinely tested if they were in an area where there was a high prevalence due to the local demographic. I wasn't tested because of my mixed race background, every woman had the test regardless of her ethnicity.

[Grahame]

I have just been watching a nature program on BBC2, it is still on, and even the female gorillas change groups to avoid the problems we are talking about.

[Plain Talker]

I have just been watching a nature program on BBC2, it is still on, and even the female gorillas change groups to avoid the problems we are talking about.

 

oh, so, now Pakistanis and other groups who intermarry closely are lower than gorillas, are they, grahame? (that's the only inference I can take from the last part of your comment.)_