a Brother and Sisdter fall in love !!
Hello!
Susan and Batrick are Couples but not as anyother couple they're siblings and now they have four children !!
Batrick was raised in a foster family but finally found his real mother and his sister was living their and moved in with them after their mother died they continued to live together and fall in love
Good one them. I would hope that they exercised their right to abort if something comes up their reproducing, though.
Other than that: a couple finds love and are raising a family in that loving relationship. Sounds like they are excellent contributors to society and good parents.
Nothing to see here: move along.
Originally posted by Astner
Why didn't they adopt children? It seems extremely selfish to bring life into the world when the risk for disfiguring and handicaps are heightened.Some people;
Agreed. The relationship is their business but having children with such a high likelihood of defects is not right. Their children followed the statistics to the letter, two of the four are disabled.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Agreed. The relationship is their business but having children with such a high likelihood of defects is not right. Their children followed the statistics to the letter, two of the four are disabled.
Your argument is not very accurate.
"According to the recent report, children of unrelated parents have a 3 percent to 4 percent chance of being born with a serious birth defect. Children of first cousins have only a slighter higher risk--roughly a 4 percent to 7 percent chance. Thus, the ban on cousin marriages will not go very far toward the general problem of preventing birth defects."
For first degree consanguinity, the risk is 6.8% to 11.2%.
In fact, research indicates inbreeding actually improves/improved the human gene-pool when inbreeding occurs over time.
And following the statistics to the letter would not result in a 2 out of 4 chance. It would be between 0 and 0 out of 4 chance...if you round down at .5 and below. If you were to follow the statistics to the letter, you would probably state the average and then the standard deviation. I believe the 6.8%-11.2% numbers represent 1 or 2 standard deviations.
It took me about 3-5 minutes to find the following links:
http://www.larasig.com/node/2020
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508879/
But, based on yours and others' line of reasoning, you should demand cigarettes and alcohol be banned rather than cousin and sibling marriages because there are significantly greater risks of birth defects when those items are used during pregnancy. We are talking prevalence ratios as high as 1.62 (62% more likely over the population average) for clubfeet or 1.47 for microcephaly (small head (not small brain) disorder). Overall, the risks in multiple areas are at a much higher level. There are problems with this study's methodology: failure (it does not matter if it was intentional or accidental) of the mother, father, parents, or legal guardian to put onto the birth certificate if the mother smoked. So the prevalence may actually be underrepresented, here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12037261
So where do you put the bar? Do you put the 'birth defect risk' bar at 11%? If so, then we should eliminate lots of "things" and situations that have a birth defect likelihood of 11.2% or more. In other words, there are problems out there with much higher birth defect probabilities than inbreeding. If you're concerned about birth defects due to sibling marriages, you'll be even more concerned about smoking, drinking (significant, not just light drinking), and other birth defective risk factors.
Originally posted by Astner
Well then they're not having children, are they?
Your question (your implied meaning) makes no sense when taken in context with the post of mine you quoted UNLESS you assume that all 4 of their children have birth-defects: which they don't.
Again, for my point to make sense, here is your point, again:
"Why didn't they adopt children? It seems extremely selfish to bring life into the world when the risk for disfiguring and handicaps are heightened."
So, basically, you did not understand my point.
The point is, your point might be valid in an earlier time when abortions could not be done very easily and with a significant mortality risk to the mother. Since they can get abortions in a MUCH safer "modern medical science" time period, your point is literally invalid (as long as they exercised their right to abort as soon as a defect was discovered (before 5 months)).
Originally posted by Astner
Read what you're replying to.
You should definitely take your own advice as the problem is not on my end.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Your argument is not very accurate."According to the recent report, children of unrelated parents have a 3 percent to 4 percent chance of being born with a serious birth defect. Children of first cousins have only a slighter higher risk--roughly a 4 percent to 7 percent chance. Thus, the ban on cousin marriages will not go very far toward the general problem of preventing birth defects."
For first degree consanguinity, the risk is 6.8% to 11.2%.
In fact, research indicates inbreeding actually improves/improved the human gene-pool when inbreeding occurs over time.
And following the statistics to the letter would not result in a 2 out of 4 chance. It would be between 0 and 0 out of 4 chance...if you round down at .5 and below. If you were to follow the statistics to the letter, you would probably state the average and then the standard deviation. I believe the 6.8%-11.2% numbers represent 1 or 2 standard deviations.
It took me about 3-5 minutes to find the following links:
Originally posted by dadudemon
But, based on yours and others' line of reasoning, you should demand cigarettes and alcohol be banned rather than cousin and sibling marriages because there are significantly greater risks of birth defects when those items are used during pregnancy. We are talking prevalence ratios as high as 1.62 (62% more likely over the population average) for clubfeet or 1.47 for microcephaly (small head (not small brain) disorder). Overall, the risks in multiple areas are at a much higher level. There are problems with this study's methodology: failure (it does not matter if it was intentional or accidental) of the mother, father, parents, or legal guardian to put onto the birth certificate if the mother smoked. So the prevalence may actually be underrepresented, here.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So where do you put the bar? Do you put the 'birth defect risk' bar at 11%? If so, then we should eliminate lots of "things" and situations that have a birth defect likelihood of 11.2% or more. In other words, there are problems out there with much higher birth defect probabilities than inbreeding. If you're concerned about birth defects due to sibling marriages, you'll be even more concerned about smoking, drinking (significant, not just light drinking), and other birth defective risk factors.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Your question (your implied meaning) makes no sense when taken in context with the post of mine you quoted UNLESS you assume that all 4 of their children have birth-defects: which they don't.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So, basically, you did not understand my point.The point is, your point might be valid in an earlier time when abortions could not be done very easily and with a significant mortality risk to the mother. Since they can get abortions in a MUCH safer "modern medical science" time period, your point is literally invalid (as long as they exercised their right to abort as soon as a defect was discovered (before 5 months)).
Originally posted by dadudemon
You should definitely take your own advice as the problem is not on my end.
Originally posted by Astner
First and foremost, you'll have to learn to differentiate between what's accurate and what's consistent with modern science.
Not only is that inaccurate, it is a red herring on your part.
But I appreciate you trying to detract where you have gone wrong.
Originally posted by Astner
Secondly none of your sources supports that inbreeding is beneficial under any conditions, period.
Maybe that's because I did not cite that particular point I covered...which, by the way, that particular point was irrelevant to the vast majority of the content in my post. 🙂
But, I am sure that if you really cared about that point, you could have verified it was either correct or false with less than 30 seconds of Google searching. (I just tried it myself to see how long it took...found the study and the name of the head researcher popped up on the first page of results). Be my guest: use the internet.
Originally posted by Astner
Thirdly, even if it was a risk increase of 0.1% that's still enough to keep it illegal, in my opinion.
Oh, boy, you just opened up a can of worms. This, my friend, is a known as "slippery slope".
Care to venture any guesses on what potential risk factors there are for birth defects? 🙂
You might as well skip to the end of this particular point of our conversation and say, "I am a strong believer in eugenics."
Originally posted by Astner
The difference of course being that alcohol and cigarettes are integrated into society. To ban something isn't the same as keeping something illegal.
Couple of things wrong with what you're trying to do, here:
1. Incest is integrated into many societies all over the world. It is a part of human history and we would probably not exist, as a species, if were not for inbreeding.
2. So, because cigarettes and alcohol are integrated into society, you are okay with them being around despite the fact that you said this, earlier:
"even if it was a risk increase of 0.1% that's still enough to keep it illegal, in my opinion."
Hmmm. Something here is not adding up, Astner. You either support your .1% idea or you don't. You can't have both sides.
Originally posted by Astner
See the argument above.
1. No thanks.
2. Which argument? The one directly above or the one even further above that that directly contradicts your directly above? 😉
Originally posted by Astner
I didn't imply anything. Refute what I literally wrote, not what you think I wrote.
Oh, so you were not commenting on incest births, at all, huh?
So there was no implied meaning that you were commenting directly on the topic of incest births...at all? Right? Let me know if you were not directly OR indirectly commenting on incest births increasing the likelihood of birth defects. If you were, your above point is irrelevant. If you were not, your above point is still irrelevant because the results of your statement still directly apply to the topic.
In other words, you can ask me to comment on only the words you directly wrote, but that's not going to work because your words directly apply to the topic at hand regardless if you intended them to or not: you must think the implications of your statements through if you want a very very narrow and specific interpretation.
Originally posted by Astner
No, I understand your point it's just that you didn't understand mine.
Incorrect: I understood your point but you did not understand mine nor do you yet understand the implications of your points. So here's what happened:
1. You did not understand my post.
2. You did not understand the implications of your post.
Originally posted by Astner
I never said that they couldn't have unprotected sex, I said that they shouldn't be allowed to have biological children with one another.
See, regardless of your claims of me not understanding your point, I literally understood it in the most direct way possible and I directly commented on it. You tried to play a dodge game, but it didn't work.
So, again, here are the results of your position (and why it fails):
"This isn't 1750: they can always abort as soon as they find out there is a problem."
You obviously want them to abort (aborting does not necessarily mean classic "abortion"😉 all resultant births when that is not reasonable nor is it medically sound.
Originally posted by Astner
No, you didn't understand the point then and you still don't.
I did understand it and I still do.
1. You did not understand my post.
2. You did not understand the implications of your post.
Originally posted by Astner
Reread what I wrote.
No thanks: I had to quote your post back to you, remember?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Not only is that inaccurate, it is a red herring on your part.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But I appreciate you trying to detract where you have gone wrong.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Maybe that's because I did not cite that particular point I covered...which, by the way, that particular point was irrelevant to the vast majority of the content in my post. 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemon
But, I am sure that if you really cared about that point, you could have verified it was either correct or false with less than 30 seconds of Google searching. (I just tried it myself to see how long it took...found the study and the name of the head researcher popped up on the first page of results). Be my guest: use the internet.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, boy, you just opened up a can of worms. This, my friend, is a known as "slippery slope".
Originally posted by dadudemon
Care to venture any guesses on what potential risk factors there are for birth defects? 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemon
You might as well skip to the end of this particular point of our conversation and say, "I am a strong believer in eugenics."
Originally posted by dadudemon
Couple of things wrong with what you're trying to do, here:1. Incest is integrated into many societies all over the world. It is a part of human history and we would probably not exist, as a species, if were not for inbreeding.
2. So, because cigarettes and alcohol are integrated into society, you are okay with them being around despite the fact that you said this, earlier:
"even if it was a risk increase of 0.1% that's still enough to keep it illegal, in my opinion."
Hmmm. Something here is not adding up, Astner. You either support your .1% idea or you don't. You can't have both sides.
Originally posted by dadudemon
1. No thanks.2. Which argument? The one directly above or the one even further above that that directly contradicts your directly above? 😉
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, so you were not commenting on incest births, at all, huh?So there was no implied meaning that you were commenting directly on the topic of incest births...at all? Right? Let me know if you were not directly OR indirectly commenting on incest births increasing the likelihood of birth defects. If you were, you above point is irrelevant. If you were not, your above point is still irrelevant because the results of your statement still directly apply to the topic.
Originally posted by dadudemon
In other words, you can ask my to comment on only the words you directly wrote, but that's not going to work because you words directly apply to the topic at hand regardless if you intended them to or not: you must think the implications of your statements through if you want a very very narrow and specific interpretation.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Incorrect: I understood your point but you did not understand mine nor do you yet understand the implications of your points. So here's what happened:1. You did not understand my post.
2. You did not understand the implications of your post.
Originally posted by dadudemon
See, regardless of your claims of me not understanding your point, I literally understood it in the most direct way possible and I directly commented on it. You tried to play a dodge game, but it didn't work.So, again, here are the results of your position (and why it fails):
"This isn't 1750: they can always abort as soon as they find out there is a problem."
You obviously want them to abort (aborting does not necessarily mean classic "abortion"😉 all resultant births when that is not reasonable nor is it medically sound.
Originally posted by Astner
Why didn't they adopt children? It seems extremely selfish to bring life into the world when the risk for disfiguring and handicaps are heightened.Some people;
A woman who decides to have an abortion is not having children.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I did understand it and I still do.
Let's make this simple. Explain to me what you think I meant.
Originally posted by Astner
No, it's not a red hearing
It is.
Originally posted by Astner
as I addressed the point below.
You didn't.
Originally posted by Astner
I'm not trying to detract from anything.
You tried and failed: that's very simple.
Originally posted by Astner
Most likely because you either didn't have such a source or because it was of questionable validity.
None of the above. Try again.
Originally posted by Astner
Assuming that it's true -- which once more, you've yet to provide evidence for -- we're not talking about inbreeding over time. So it's irrelevant to the argument in the first place.
That aside of mine that you addressed directly referred to it being overtime. You are now trying to move the bar on something you cannot move: it was my point, not yours.
Here's what most likely happened: you found a study or two that does coincide with what I said and you realized your antagonistic approach to that particular topic was ill-advised (because now you know you were wrong). So you are trying to move the bar by putting a "clause" into your commentary on that topic by stating "we're not talking about inbreeding over time". Sorry, Astner, I most certainly was talking about inbreeding over time on that particular point that you contended and I addressed.
Originally posted by Astner
No, it's not a slippery slope,
It is a slippery slope because anything that increases the risk by .1% now has to be excluded from breeding, by your book.
You made a silly statement that had silly implications: move on.
Originally posted by Astner
it's an opinion piece.
The set of "opinion pieces" is not mutually exclusive to the set of "slippery slope logical fallacies": nice try?
Originally posted by Astner
Also, look up what a slippery slope is because you clearly don't understand what said logical fallacy means.
Again, you should not be giving out this advice (I highly recommend you not give out advice because every time you have, you have been the one guilty of the item you were advising on). This is advice you need to take. You make sweeping statements that have silly implications, it is a slippery slope.
If you need assistance with knowing why setting a cuttoff at .1% tolerance of increased brith defect risk above the population average (and it varies from region to region, too...so that's going to be a tough number to sell) then the slippery slope comes in because of the implications of such a number: you goal is inbreeding. But it doesn't stop at inbreeding. It can include silly things like "no kids after 35" or "no kids if you are going to be around second hand smoke, ever". The wedge, for your slippery slope fallacy, is the .1% number you decided to make a point about inbreeding. The actual "slippery slope" portion is the inevitable slide down to the absurd exclusions.
A very common slippery slope argument is stating the abortion will lead to infanticide. You do not have to state that the implications of your .1% number eventually lead to absurd bans such as "no mothers that have ever smoked can have kids" because the .1% is most likely there.
Originally posted by Astner
Any risk over 0% is an unnecessary risk.
Now you're making it worse. Guess we gotta keep all moms indoors, and feed them non-allergenic goo, strap them to a bed, and only allow electrical plate exercise. Gotta git rid of that .001% chance that something bad could happen. Unnecessary risk, man!
Originally posted by Astner
Stay on topic.
I am: that's the absurd implications of your argument. Basically, eungenics. Any risk factors a mother has cannot be even a single tenth of a percent above the population average: might as well call it eugenics.
Originally posted by Astner
[list=1][*]The argument centers around modern times in Germany, where it's currently illegal.
[*]Alcohol and cigarettes aren't illegal.[/list=1]
Are you starting to comprehend my position?
1. Where was this "argument centers around modern times in Germany" established? Because I have clearly been arguing a general application and not a "state specific" application. It makes no sense to center it around one particular country when you and another brought up the genetic problems of inbreeding. We should look at multiple studies: not just the social and lawful constructs of Germany.
2. If you actually understood my point, you would not be telling me that alcohol and cigarettes are illegal. Instead, you would be saying that, "Yes, I do see the slipper slope implications of my argument can lead to statements like 'if inbreeding is going to be illegalized (or upheld to be illegal) due to the increase in birth defects, then so should alcohol and smoking: those are just risks we cannot take.'
Originally posted by Astner
[list=1][*]Concession accepted.
[*]It doesn't.[/list=1]
1. You first have to be right in order to get a concession. Since you were not only wrong but literally did not understand my point (and then accused me of not understand your point), you cannot obtain a concession, yet, from me. 🙂
2. I know it doesn't: that's the point of the smilie face.
Originally posted by Astner
Learn to differentiate between implications and what's directly stated.
Unnecessary: I am doing quite stellar with it. You should definitely learn, though.
This still applies: "you must think the implications of your statements through if you want a very very narrow and specific interpretation."
Originally posted by Astner
What part is it that is so difficult for you comprehend? We're discussing my moral reasonings for why incestuous couples shouldn't be allowed to have biological children.
Apparently, no part was difficult for me to understand because I directly addressed that. I pointed out the slippery slope-ness of said implications, as well.
This is by far and away not the only conversation you and I have had where you simply did not "get it". At this point, there's nothing I can do to help you understand any better besides say this:
Dude, you made a very stupid statement. Rethink your position because the implications of that statement are just that: stupid.
Originally posted by Astner
You repeatedly prove that you don't understand my point by misinterpreting my position and repeatedly get off topic.
That's not true: I repeatedly have proven that I fully understood your position and pointed out where you did not understand mine. We have gone off topic because you did. I only responded to what you have. The one area I was off topic, originally, was with another poster towards which you quoted and commented.
Originally posted by Astner
So let's reexamine the post you were replying to:
No, let's not, because you'll just drag this out more and show why you still do not get it. But let's continue....
Originally posted by Astner
I'm specifically pointing out that they shouldn't have children.
That was established as being "understood" by me, with my very first comment towards you. I rejected the notion that they should not have children (because you reasons were the birth defects) by pointing you to another solution to the birth defects problem: abortions. Your idea seems to completely exclude abortion as a viable solution. Mine does not: it brings your attention to the use of safe abortions. It is no longer 1750: abortions can be done quite safely. No need to prevent them from having children, period.
But you did not understand any of that. For some reason, all of that escapes you. I still do not know if you're just trolling out of boredom or you really do not think abortion is a solution to your complaint.
Originally posted by Astner
Not saying anything about sex, yet you bring up abortion.
I do not believe I said anything about the "s*x" either: just the results of s*x (I'm at work, gotta censor).
And we are talking about having children inside of incest relationships: why do you think I brought up abortion?
Originally posted by Astner
A woman who decides to have an abortion is [b]not having children.[/B]
Oh, I see where your problem is:
A woman who decides to abort a single fetus that is malformed or has some type of genetic defect is not precluding herself from having any kids, forever. It just prevents her from having that single "defective" child. She can "try again", you know.
Originally posted by Astner
Then why do you repeatedly act as if you didn't.
1. You did not understand my post.
2. You did not understand the implications of your post.
Originally posted by Astner
Let's make this simple. Explain to me what you think I meant.
Let's make it simpler: why do you think that incest couples should be excluded from having children when they can abort the "bad ones" if they want?