M
MeinI believe first cousins marriage inbreeding only increase the grandparent's genetic disease's chance by 3%
3% chance your children would look like they just came from the set of the hills have eyes, why would you risk that?
thats not very responsible, your children could have a life of misery and sickness. i dont even let my daughter near people who smoke or anything because of what could happen to her health, maybe your not mature enough to understand properly
Replying to #21
[me=hYpNoS]likes this post[/me]
Much agreed, I shelter my younger brother in the same manner :)
msg2009 · #213% chance your children would look like they just came from the set of the hills have eyes, why would you risk that?
No, more like a 3% increased chance that your child will carry the anemia that your grandmother had, and stuff like that. Recessive traits in your family line, potentially bad ones, would be carried by both partners. People tend to think that incest = mutant baby. In reality incest = recessive traits having higher chance to show up.
Interesting list:
http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm
Article about it:
http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/04-02archive/k040302a.html
So it estimates at 1.7-2.8% increase in the change of risk. I'm sure there are other statistics between couples that could increase the risk even more than just being first cousins. First cousins once removed cuts the additional risk in half, Second cousins are a quarter.
I personally don't think the minuscule increase in risk should stop two people that love each other from being together.
Replying to #23
it was just an exaggeration, the real point i was trying to make is you are knowingly putting your childrens health at risk, and as a father that disgusts me.
for example, drinking whilst pregnant has a small chance of harming your baby but who would agree with that?
not putting sunblock on your child, probably wont get skin cancer so i wont bother
smoking round their children because their parents did it and their ok etc
each to their own, im not going to complain, people can do what they choose but should be responsible with it and understand the possible risks
Replying to #24
Except one blistering sunburn as a child can double the chance to get skin cancer later in life. And people who have 5 or more normal sunburns as a child/adolescence also doube the risk of skin cancer. (Source www.skincancer.org )
See, it's easy to ignore things that are unknown. Skin cancer isn't a good thing. But it's not thought of that much so proper sun care is ignored. The idea of first cousins marrying disgusts many people, so it's right there in their face ready for them to get shot down. 100% increase in the chance of skin cancer is ok, but a 2% increase in the possibility of a genetic risk is bad?
It's like those Autism commercials that point out how parents freak out about their kids on all these 1 in a million chance things, yet completely ignore the fact that 1 out of every 100-150 children have an Autism disorder. The more outrageous ones tend to be focused on.
NatewlieWhen my child is old enough, I'll reproduce with him. I don't care what anyone thinks, I just want pure blooded offspring. Not some muggle piece of shit.
???
WillrandshipThis is a bad idea genetically.Since DNA randomly mixes during reproduction, a recessive defect is way more likely to show in family than in random people. Actually, this is one of the main reasons there are so many stories about sick and defective royalty in ancient times, such as Eqypt. Defects are magnified rather than dimmed. It's like comparing a muffler to an amplifier. Other than that, I have moral problems with it but it's not my choice to affect your lives.
agreed.
msg2009 · #213% chance your children would look like they just came from the set of the hills have eyes, why would you risk that? thats not very responsible, your children could have a life of misery and sickness.
lol i see your point there. i've seen that film too and it was disgusting :P they're reproducing for the hell of it. i wonder if extra terrestrial life forms do the same ???
Okay, to the people who don't know about genetics disorder.
Genetics disorder is a disease that spread using DNA. Read
This First.
Usually Woman is the carrier, that means if the mother is acarrier and the father is normal, chance the sons get the disease is 50% and the daughters become carrier is 50% too, since Y doesn't contain any counter-gen.
And from that we know the chance the child(son) gets disease from his grandparents is 25%.
All of the chance of the first cousins marriage depend on: Who is their mother-in-law and father-in-law?
Replying to #28
This man speaks the truth.
If you can find your self a community that has the ability to accept what you've done then I leave you to your own decision.[...] >:D
T
Replying to #31
now THATS what i agree to!!!
for those who said its wrong because of moral value (incest)....... well in the studies of Mitochondrial Eve, using our Mitochondrial's DNA, it can be trace back to a single woman in Africa who have live over 200,000 years ago... in other word, we are the product of incest, arent we?.
B
Replying to #33
Yeah but, that's like having sex with your 203976293870262378905627356278356238756283796th distant cousin, not your first :P
Replying to #34
lolll!!! you made my day ^___^
calvin_0 · #33for those who said its wrong because of moral value (incest)....... well in the studies of Mitochondrial Eve, using our Mitochondrial's DNA, it can be trace back to a single woman in Africa who have live over 200,000 years ago... in other word, we are the product of incest, arent we?.
No. Because we would then be traced back to TWO people.
Just because we all share a common ancestor, does not mean it is 'one person' anyway.
calvin_0 · #33for those who said its wrong because of moral value (incest)....... well in the studies of Mitochondrial Eve, using our Mitochondrial's DNA, it can be trace back to a single woman in Africa who have live over 200,000 years ago... in other word, we are the product of incest, arent we?.
look at it this way...... wouldn't we have all looked the same if that were the case?
Replying to #37
Get out of here with your logic!
Replying to #38
lol that was just a joke but seriously
Buppazugan · #34Yeah but, that's like having sex with your 203976293870262378905627356278356238756283796th distant cousin, not your first :P
you said it man!!
t@n! · #37look at it this way...... wouldn't we have all looked the same if that were the case?
Human beings in general are insanely close to each other genetically. More so than what would be expected if human populations weren't derived from a very small source. There are theories of a near-extinction level event happening in the past which wiped out the majority of the human populations and lead to a much smaller genetic pool for humans to spawn from.
Hair color, eye color, skin color... these are minor traits. It's like a cat giving birth to a litter of kitten, each one a different color. Yet they pretty much genetically identical and have the same mother and father.
There is scientific evidence of a possible "Adam and Eve" origin of the human species, even if this origin is not a mystical/magical creationism, but a natural disaster caused thinning of the species.
