RE: Incest?
October 25, 2010 at 2:02 pm
(This post was last modified: October 25, 2010 at 2:08 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(October 25, 2010 at 1:56 pm)Skipper Wrote:(October 25, 2010 at 1:49 pm)Chuck Wrote:(October 25, 2010 at 1:24 pm)Skipper Wrote: I feel that based on the higher chance of any offspring (wanted or not) being born with serious disabilities that Incest is wrong and would want the law as it is currently in Britain that allows cousins to marry to be changed.
That would cast doubt on the genetic respectability of the British Royal Family. How would you like call your sovereign someone whose bloodline has been trashed for generations in a way that would not have been tolerated in the family of a commoner?
I don't care about the "genetic respectability of the British Royal Family", I'm not a massive royalist anyway so they don't come into it as far as im concerned. They may be descended from an insestual bloodline and have mostly gotten away with it in terms of their health, but it remains that a child born into a family where the two parents are related is more likely to have something wrong with them.
Some recent studies seems to show incest between normal human first cousins are much less likely to result in genetic problems in the offspring then previously thought because many of genetic problems that could result from incest requires the two parents to have even greater genetic similarities than is common between normal first cousins. This likely applies to most probable 1st cousin marriages amongst commoners.
But if the first cousins involved are genetically more related than usual, as might be the case if their respective linages already previous incests between them, then the risk is much elevated. This second case applies to the European royalty.