Incest and Delayed Motherhood

LadyT said:
I'm not talking about distant relatives though. I'm referring to closely related individuals.
Click to expand...

The biological answer is that the genetic risks of producing a child with inherited defects increases dramatically if first cousins procreate together. The likelihood that cousins both carry a recessive gene is much higher, and if that gene is expressed in their child/children then mental retardation and other genetic defects are not uncommon.

Remember all the jokes about isolated pockets of people inbreeding and the consequences? Well they're based in reality. I'm going to sit on my hands now so as not to name any specific places, WV. Oops. :rolleyes:
 
Thorn said:
The biological answer is that the genetic risks of producing a child with inherited defects increases dramatically if first cousins procreate together. The likelihood that cousins both carry a recessive gene is much higher, and if that gene is expressed in their child/children then mental retardation and other genetic defects are not uncommon.
Remember all the jokes about isolated pockets of people inbreeding and the consequences? Well they're based in reality. I'm going to sit on my hands now so as not to name any specific places, WV. Oops. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Which is the general rule of why its frowned upon. Do you then take that same logic and apply to every situation and discourage people to have children when the likelihood of genetic defects increase so dramatically?
 
LadyT said:
Which is the general rule of why its frowned upon. Do you then take that same logic and apply to every situation and discourage people to have children when the likelihood of genetic defects increase so dramatically?
Click to expand...

If the risks are known to be abnormally high, then I think that genetic counselling for couples would be in order. I just can't see deliberately bringing a child into the world if the chances of its not being able to live any kind of fulfilling life are so great. I'm referring here to really serious defects such as cystic fibrosis or severe retardation that would prevent a child from having a healthy, satisfying life. There are also some weird degenerative defects that prevent children even from living through their teens. These are rare, but certainly concern for the potential (as yet even unconceived) child should eclipse any at that point selfish need to procreate.
 
Last edited:
LadyT said:
In the context that I don't see anything wrong with a 48 y/o woman marrying, but I view cousins that marry as pretty vile. It turns out that my justification toward cousins marrying can be statistically applied to older women that have children. Which brings up the most important question of all: should I have this preconceived notion of cousins marrying or should I add near 50 women bearing kids to list of no-nos?
Click to expand...

People thought for a long time that first cousin marriages would bring in defects. This gradually formed into a humongous taboo over time, and that's why you feel the way you do. Of course, science has now discovered that the fear behind that huge taboo is meaningless, but it doesn't get rid of the taboo.
 
Thorn said:
The biological answer is that the genetic risks of producing a child with inherited defects increases dramatically if first cousins procreate together. The likelihood that cousins both carry a recessive gene is much higher, and if that gene is expressed in their child/children then mental retardation and other genetic defects are not uncommon.

Remember all the jokes about isolated pockets of people inbreeding and the consequences? Well they're based in reality. I'm going to sit on my hands now so as not to name any specific places, WV. Oops. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This only really shows up if first cousins breed together for generation and generations, like the spawn the developed around me. A one-time "pairing" only increases the likliehood of defects by a trivial amount. If the 1% or so increase can scare you out of having children, then it wouldn't make sense to have children with anyone else either.
 
Just look at the European royalty. It is no exaggeration to say that by WWI, every European monarch could trace their ancestry back to Queen Victoria.
 
Epicurus said:
Just look at the European royalty. It is no exaggeration to say that by WWI, every European monarch could trace their ancestry back to Queen Victoria.
Click to expand...

Your point is well taken, but I think your example may be flawed. Queen Victoria lived nearly to the start of the 20th C., didn't she? Don't you mean somebody earlier?
 
Watermark said:
This only really shows up if first cousins breed together for generation and generations, like the spawn the developed around me. A one-time "pairing" only increases the likliehood of defects by a trivial amount. If the 1% or so increase can scare you out of having children, then it wouldn't make sense to have children with anyone else either.
Click to expand...

Not so if the cousins share a harmful recessive gene. All that's needed for expression is two copies of that gene, which likelihood is extremely high among second order relatives, such as first cousins.
 
I meant Victoria but I should have chosen someone earlier to convey the point better.

Here is a C/P from the BBC about WWI and the monarchs of Europe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/cousins_at_war_02.shtml

The monarchs of Europe were all closely related. Queen Victoria was sometimes called the Grandmamma of Europe, and there was hardly a Continental court that did not boast at least one of her relations. During World War One there were no less than seven of the old Queen's direct descendants, and two more of her Coburg relations, on European thrones. Before it happened, can anyone blame this family of kings, or their subjects, for assuming that a war between these crowned cousins was all but impossible?

One can appreciate why Kaiser Wilhelm II, at the outbreak of war in 1914, exclaimed that 'Nicky' had 'played him false'. For the rulers of the world's three greatest nations - King George V of Great Britain and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia on the one hand, and the German Kaiser on the other - were not simply cousins, they were first cousins. If their grandmother Queen Victoria had still been alive, said the Kaiser, she would never have allowed them to go to war with each other.

Instead, World War One proved once and for all that the family ties between the reigning houses of Europe were more or less irrelevant. Their kinship simply snapped, like cotton threads, as the storm of war broke over their heads
 
Thorn said:
Not so if the cousins share a harmful recessive gene. All that's needed for expression is two copies of that gene, which likelihood is extremely high among second order relatives, such as first cousins.
Click to expand...

Which is just very unlikely just isn't much more likely in first-generation cousin marriages than non-cousin marriages. If they are extremely worried about it they can get PGD.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
Which is just very unlikely. If they are extremely worried about it they can get PGD.
Click to expand...

Puuuhlease. It is not very unlikely at all. My mother has a genetic condition from receiving two recessive genes, and her parents are from different ends of the country.
 
Thorn said:
If the risks are known to be abnormally high, then I think that genetic counselling for couples would be in order. I just can't see deliberately bringing a child into the world if the chances of its not being able to live any kind of fulfilling life are so great. I'm referring here to really serious defects such as cystic fibrosis or severe retardation that would prevent a child from having a healthy, satisfying life. There are also some weird degenerative defects that prevent children even from living through their teens. These are rare, but certainly concern for the potential (as yet even unconceived) child should eclipse any at that point selfish need to procreate.
Click to expand...

agreed.
 
If a 4% chance of defects is enough to prevent you from giving birth, then certainly a 3% one, like in a normal childbearing, should scare you away also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top