NJ - 18 year old woman planning to move to New Jersey to MARRY her Father

[MsFacetious]

I don't find myself really outraged. If adults want to be incestuous, I don't find a problem with that. Consenting adults are consenting adults. As to children who might inherit certain genetic problems - people are having children all the time knowing with a 100% certainty that the babies will have problems (like Down syndrome). And yet, they are hailed like heroes and great parents. That's hypocrisy at its best.

In this particular case, feels a lot like grooming, though.

Incest has NOTHING to do with Down syndrome.

Yes, incest can cause issues. Down syndrome is NOT ONE OF THEM.
Down syndrome occurs rather randomly because of chromosomes not dividing.
There is NO evidence that incest increases that risk at all.

As the mother of a child with Down syndrome this is something I feel needs to be clarified.

http://www.globaldownsyndrome.org/about-down-syndrome/facts-about-down-syndrome/

http://www.dsaatl.org/about_down_syndrome

 

[Lulu14]

Incest has NOTHING to do with Down syndrome.

Yes, incest can cause issues. Down syndrome is NOT ONE OF THEM.
Down syndrome occurs rather randomly because of chromosomes not dividing.
There is NO evidence that incest increases that risk at all.

As the mother of a child with Down syndrome this is something I feel needs to be clarified.

http://www.globaldownsyndrome.org/about-down-syndrome/facts-about-down-syndrome/

http://www.dsaatl.org/about_down_syndrome

If you read again, you will see I never said it was related to incest. I said it is hypocritical to applaud a mother who decides to birth a child with problems, while opposing incest because the children coming out of such unions might have genetic issues.

 

[Brightbird]

If you read again, you will see I never said it was related to incest. I said it is hypocritical to applaud a mother who decides to birth a child with problems, while opposing incest because the children coming out of such unions might have genetic issues.

You've missed the point. Inbreeding means a higher chance of passing on heritable conditions. Genetic variability is good for the species. Down syndrome is not inherited.

 

[Lulu14]

You've missed the point. Inbreeding means a higher chance of passing on heritable conditions. Genetic variability is good for the species. Down syndrome is not inherited.

No, I haven't. I was pointing out that people who are not related are having babies left and right and knowingly passing on inheritable conditions. We don't stop people with schizophrenia from having children because their offspring have an increased chance of inheriting the disorder, do we? Or tell Jewish parents they shouldn't have children because of the high risk of Tay-Sachs disease, do we? Yet, when it comes to incest, we hurry to use the genetic argument because we morally object to the relationship of the parents.

 

[sunflowerchick]

just to add: grandparents too.......

((who in this case YIKES))

Right, imagine that conversation... "Your dad is also your grandfather. I am also your sister." Not many branches on this family tree.

 

[sunflowerchick]

SBM and BBM

I don't find myself really outraged. If adults want to be incestuous, I don't find a problem with that. Consenting adults are consenting adults.

I mostly agree with this statement. I also am not really outraged at their relationship and I think as consenting adults, they can do what they want. But I do find a problem with it because of the potential impact to others. If consenting adults have behavior that isn't harming anyone else, ok but when you are talking about bringing children into it, that's an issue.

I am not even going to get into the debate over genetics. Just think about the emotional well-being of these children when they find out the nature of their parent's relationship. And someday they WILL find out.

That said, I am outraged that anyone would compare this to same-sex marriage. It has been proven time and again that same-sex couples can support and have a healthy family structure. This however, is the exact opposite.

 

[LinasK]

No, I haven't. I was pointing out that people who are not related are having babies left and right and knowingly passing on inheritable conditions. We don't stop people with schizophrenia from having children because their offspring have an increased chance of inheriting the disorder, do we? Or tell Jewish parents they shouldn't have children because of the high risk of Tay-Sachs disease, do we? Yet, when it comes to incest, we hurry to use the genetic argument because we morally object to the relationship of the parents.

Strongly disagree! Jewish parents who test positive for having the Tay-Sachs gene are genetically counseled as to their risk of having children with this genetic defect. Not all Jews carry the gene. The risk is their choice. It is not the same situation as the genetic risks of interbreeding by incest.

 

[Lulu14]

Strongly disagree! Jewish parents who test positive for having the Tay-Sachs gene are genetically counseled as to their risk of having children with this genetic defect. Not all Jews carry the gene. The risk is their choice. It is not the same situation as the genetic risks of interbreeding by incest.

How is it not the same situation? The risk is also the choice of the incestuous parents. Why is it ok for one pair to have the choice, but not for another?

 

[LinasK]

Bringing over from another thread because it's highly relevant:

BTW, for those of you who watch Dateline, this past Friday night was the story I had mentioned a couple times, about the 17 yr old foster daughter (Sabrina Zunich) who stabbed her foster mother 178 times with the couple's 13 yr old daughter seeing this and on the phone with 911. The foster daughter was having an affair with the foster father, who she said is the one that pushed her to kill his wife. The episode is on the NBC Dateline web site if you missed it.

 

[Lulu14]

SBM and BBM
I am not even going to get into the debate over genetics. Just think about the emotional well-being of these children when they find out the nature of their parent's relationship. And someday they WILL find out.

I agree, the psychological well being of children is a valid point, much more so than the genetic one.

That said, I am outraged that anyone would compare this to same-sex marriage. It has been proven time and again that same-sex couples can support and have a healthy family structure. This however, is the exact opposite.

Well, the Pharaohs were really keeping it in the family, so who are we to say that they family structure was any less healthy than anyone else's in those times and circumstances? Many people argue that same sex couples are immoral and tear down the structure of society, and that the children of such parents are subjected to emotional harm as a result.

One could easily argue that the status of incestuous relationships nowadays is identical to that of homosexual or inter-racial partnerships of the 1950s.

 

[Brightbird]

No, I haven't. I was pointing out that people who are not related are having babies left and right and knowingly passing on inheritable conditions. We don't stop people with schizophrenia from having children because their offspring have an increased chance of inheriting the disorder, do we? Or tell Jewish parents they shouldn't have children because of the high risk of Tay-Sachs disease, do we? Yet, when it comes to incest, we hurry to use the genetic argument because we morally object to the relationship of the parents.

At the population level there is a big difference. Successive generations of inbreeding compound the problems as they lose genetic diversity. An inbred population is less likely to survive than one that's not inbred. The moral taboo arose to maintain social order and keep genetic diversity in the human species. People knowingly or unknowingly passing on heritable conditions doesn't affect the randomness of it, unless they start inbreeding. Even having a child between two parents with a recessive gene is ok for the population, unless it's non-random. Besides all that, what do you think genetic testing and counselling is for?

 

[lovinlife83]

One could easily argue that the status of incestuous relationships nowadays is identical to that of homosexual or inter-racial partnerships of the 1950s.

Nope, not even remotely close - IMO there is no valid argument for incest

 

[daisytrail]

OMG! This thread has gone so hither and thither that I think I'm gonna have the vapors, y'all! Wouldn't it be nice to just stick to the subject of incest? It surely has enough built in drama. Here's my thoughts:

I agree with CPS that other family relationships can be defined as incest: bio parents, adoptive parents, step parents.

While I do think genetic variability being of benefit to the human species is a strong argument in opposition to incest, I don't think it outweighs the psychological trauma of parents using their children for sex. Both matter when it comes to reasons for incest to be illegal -- whether or not the child has become an adult.

Bringing gay marriage into the discussion just seems silly to me.

Saying something is wrong just because it is wrong may be a firm statement, but it is not viable as a persuasive argument.

No, I do not think consenting adults have a right to do anything they want sexually. They can do lots of things and I don't care, but not incest with with their children (bio, step, or adopted) because it creates an extremely damaging family dynamic.

I understand upthread that someone may be contemplating a goat wedding. I beg for an invitation and I hope the goat wears a purple wedding veil and converse sneakers. I promise to bring a gag gift. :gift:

 

[lovinlife83]

Children born to first-degree relatives have a developmental disability about half the time, said Beaudet.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...sting-reveals-incest-poses-dilemma-for/42183/

That is my reasoning for saying it's wrong. Now if two legal aged consenting relatives want to get married, I would be okay with it as long as sterilization (like a full hysterectomy) occurred beforehand.

 

[forthelost]

This is fake. Designed for maximum outrage, but there's no way this is true.

 

[katydid23]

I don't find myself really outraged. If adults want to be incestuous, I don't find a problem with that. Consenting adults are consenting adults. As to children who might inherit certain genetic problems - people are having children all the time knowing with a 100% certainty that the babies will have problems (like Down syndrome). And yet, they are hailed like heroes and great parents. That's hypocrisy at its best.

In this particular case, feels a lot like grooming, though.

Do you consider a 16 yr old girl, searching for her estranged father, as a consenting adult? Could she not be seen as a pretty vulnerable,underage person at that time?

 

[katydid23]

This is fake. Designed for maximum outrage, but there's no way this is true.

There are many here that have zero outrage. They think it is fine. :waitasec:

 

[katydid23]

I don't find myself really outraged. If adults want to be incestuous, I don't find a problem with that. Consenting adults are consenting adults. As to children who might inherit certain genetic problems - people are having children all the time knowing with a 100% certainty that the babies will have problems (like Down syndrome). And yet, they are hailed like heroes and great parents. That's hypocrisy at its best.

In this particular case, feels a lot like grooming, though.

Maybe if you visited some support groups for VICTMS of child abuse, you might have a change of heart. Many of these cases involve incest and the children are true victims. After being routinely raped by my uncle for a few years, as a young child, it has taken decades to try and heal from the shame and ugliness. I don't think that you really understand what you are saying.

 

[SStarr33]

Children born to first-degree relatives have a developmental disability about half the time, said Beaudet.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...sting-reveals-incest-poses-dilemma-for/42183/

That is my reasoning for saying it's wrong. Now if two legal aged consenting relatives want to get married, I would be okay with it as long as sterilization (like a full hysterectomy) occurred beforehand.

So should every person who has a genetic disease that can be passed to offspring be sterilized?

 

[lovinlife83]

No. I'm saying that if we want to take something that is currently illegal and make it legal, I would feel better about it if I were guaranteed they would be unable to produce multiple children while knowing they have a 50% chance at several severe problems (many times multiple birth defects combined).
When two unrelated people get married and have kids, severe birth defects and early death can still happen - but they didn't go out of their way to create it. bTW- I absolutely love working with differently abled individuals and hope to someday go back to school for special education.
Also, two consenting adults doing whatever they want behind closed doors and not harming anyone else is none of my business. They could still go on to adopt or have a donor/surrogate mother.