chem1st Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 the custom should be banned, this is not the middle ages. Why do you object? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s.hawkins Posted August 23, 2010 Author Share Posted August 23, 2010 trip, trap indeed, all the way across the bridge,. and I agree totally with you, donkey... I love my sister, and my nephews, absolutely to pieces! I adore them. Of course, given the choice, I'd far prefer they were not disabled, but I would not wish them away for the world. and they have happy, fulfilled lives, which are pain-free. I have no problem with that, nor with my friends' children who have learning or physical disabilities. So long as they achieve everything within their potential, and are encouraged to do so, what's the problem? they are loved, and give love in return, and I certainly consider my life enriched by having them in it!! were the childrens parents related? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s.hawkins Posted August 23, 2010 Author Share Posted August 23, 2010 Why do you object? due to high risk of birth defects Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 were the childrens parents related? If we go back far enough, I think practically everyone is related to everyone else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 due to high risk of birth defects Yet on another thread you think it best for a woman to have a child in her 40s, opposed to in her teens. A woman in her 40s is far more likely to give birth to a child with birth defects than 2 cousins of younger age. If the amount of birth defects caused by cousins breeding is enough for you to want it banned, then surely you'd want all women over 33 to be banned from having children too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s.hawkins Posted August 23, 2010 Author Share Posted August 23, 2010 If we go back far enough, I think practically everyone is related to everyone else... true, but whats that got to do with first cousins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s.hawkins Posted August 23, 2010 Author Share Posted August 23, 2010 Yet on another thread you think it best for a woman to have a child in her 40s, opposed to in her teens. A woman in her 40s is far more likely to give birth to a child with birth defects than 2 cousins of younger age. If the amount of birth defects caused by cousins breeding is enough for you to want it banned, then surely you'd want all women over 33 to be banned from having children too? you misquote me, the custom of two first cousins marrying, then there kids doing the same then theres then theres etc etc etc etc etc is simple cruelty to each new generation of children. given the choice of a child being born to a child of teenage years or a woman in her 40s id vote woman in her 40s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 true, but whats that got to do with first cousins? Eh? What's being related got to do with being related? *puzzled*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizzle Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 You would want to stop people having children at the healthiest time for them to do so??? Able bodied people are the people who fund the state! Of course the disabled are a burden, lifelong disability benefits and healthcare, very unlikely to work/pay tax. To you maybe but many would disagree. I am not sure what gives you the right on someones quality of life. What you may consider to be a "burden" they consider it to be their life. What about the unemployed, alcoholics & drug addicts...the list is endless. They would be on my list of what effects the health service & the economy not disabled people. This may come as a surprise to you but many disabled people do work & contribute to society. Thats a shocker eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 To you maybe but many would disagree. I am not sure what gives you the right on someones quality of life. What you may consider to be a "burden" they consider it to be their life. What about the unemployed, alcoholics & drug addicts...the list is endless. They would be on my list of what effects the health service & the economy not disabled people. This may come as a surprise to you but many disabled people do work & contribute to society. Thats a shocker eh. I agree. On to your list I'd add all those people who produce children who take no responsibility for their welfare, and worse abuse and neglect them. The cost of those children to society is enormous, and not just in financial terms. I also think its time to encourage people who have settled in the UK to find partners here. This would effectively widen the gene pool more than continuing with the custom of arranged marriages from the country their parents and grandparents left behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.