If the elevated risk of genetic defects in children is good enough a reason to legally ban some people from having children together, then why are there so few of these bans? The little people, the deaf and those with family history of schizophrenia may perfectly legally have children if they so choose, even with other little, deaf or schizophrenic people, regardless of the risks. Just as long as the other half is not their brother or sister. I'd say the "good reasons" have less to do with genetic risks and more with the ick factor. And I don't think that's right. Sure, incest is gross, but it doesn't make you mentally incompetent or unable to assess risks and make decisions.
One Sperm Donor, 150 sons and daughters
- 09/09/2011 09:13:14 PM
868 Views
Back in the 80's we used to call it "Being a Rock Star". *NM*
- 10/09/2011 12:27:35 AM
177 Views
"We?" *NM*
- 10/09/2011 01:36:16 AM
272 Views
It's this cool new term I just came up with. It means "myself and other people."
- 10/09/2011 01:50:26 AM
438 Views
Yet, if they didn't know they were siblings then they wouldn't be bound by the incest taboo.
- 10/09/2011 03:16:45 AM
446 Views
Yes, but the taboo has a rationale behind it.
- 10/09/2011 08:13:01 AM
644 Views
Are people with actually diagnosed genetic defects "allowed" to have children? *NM*
- 10/09/2011 12:41:56 PM
234 Views
yeah they are allowed
- 10/09/2011 10:22:24 PM
528 Views
Of course they are allowed, but why?
- 11/09/2011 01:38:57 AM
561 Views
I see where you are going with this, but
- 11/09/2011 08:07:45 PM
512 Views
I was just making the point that the incest taboo is a societal construct. Thus...
- 12/09/2011 05:37:26 AM
490 Views