Brother and sister accused of incest in Effingham

[GandD 5,966]

I thought you lived in Kentucky. Where they define chastity as being able to outrun your brothers

Says the Georgian.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

It must be Ambien time again. Look two posts up above yours. The chances of a child of incest between siblings having some type of birth defect is 50%.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/512023-brother-and-sister-accused-of-incest-in-effingham/?p=7214962

I glanced over that and it's BS. Sorry

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I thought you lived in Kentucky. Where they define chastity as being able to outrun your brothers

Of course not and tying it somehow to pedophilia is inane

You just like to say things don't you. How about participating in the conversation? If you don't agree, feel free to explain why.

As it stands I am not feeling too convinced by your rationale here - making a random, unsupported statement is what is inane.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You just like to say things don't you. How about participating in the conversation? If you don't agree, feel free to explain why.

As it stands I am not feeling too convinced by your rationale here - making a random, unsupported statement is what is inane.

THINGS

[Teddy B 17,251]

I glanced over that and it's BS. Sorry

What do you base your conclusion on? Do you have scientific evidence that disproves those stats?

You just like to say things don't you. How about participating in the conversation? If you don't agree, feel free to explain why.

As it stands I am not feeling too convinced by your rationale here - making a random, unsupported statement is what is inane.

[GandD 5,966]

Yeah but with the offspring consideration, how far would you go? Would you say people with aids aren't allowed to mate because their child will likely be born with the disease? What about people with degenerative hereditary disorders?

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

I glanced over that and it's BS. Sorry

You know that labs purposely inbreed to produce animals with depressed immune systems. Ever read what happens to dogs that are purposely inbred for a certain trait? Or wolf-packs that are isolated and do not have gene diversity and so inbreeding occurs? Not very pretty.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Yeah but with the offspring consideration, how far would you go? Would you say people with aids aren't allowed to mate because their child will likely be born with the disease? What about people with degenerative hereditary disorders?

I'm not looking to go any further than where we are now. It's the folks that are interested in going backwards that have me concerned. Anyone that is predisposed to passing along any type of disease or birth defect to their offspring should think long and hard about having a baby. Thankfully for immediate relatives that decision has already been made.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Teddy B

[GandD 5,966]

You know that labs purposely inbreed to produce animals with depressed immune systems. Ever read what happens to dogs that are purposely inbred for a certain trait? Or wolf-packs that are isolated and do not have gene diversity and so inbreeding occurs? Not very pretty.

Or the royal bloodlines of europe.

[Teddy B 17,251]

You know that labs purposely inbreed to produce animals with depressed immune systems. Ever read what happens to dogs that are purposely inbred for a certain trait? Or wolf-packs that are isolated and do not have gene diversity and so inbreeding occurs? Not very pretty.

We have the CABA Wolfpack here. That could splain a lot of things.

[GandD 5,966]

I'm not looking to go any further than where we are now. It's the folks that are interested in going backwards that have me concerned. Anyone that is predisposed to passing along any type of disease or birth defect to their offspring should think long and hard about having a baby. Thankfully for immediate relatives that decision has already been made.

Its all wrong for sure. I'm just questioning making it "illegal"

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Yeah but with the offspring consideration, how far would you go? Would you say people with aids aren't allowed to mate because their child will likely be born with the disease? What about people with degenerative hereditary disorders?

That is a good question.. Similar to mothers that abuse their body (drink and do drugs) while pregnant - i think that is a crime in some places. There is a line there somewhere but I'm not sure exactly where.

Or the royal bloodlines of europe.

I read somewhere they believe that's why some of them were insane..

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

What do you base your conclusion on? Do you have scientific evidence that disproves those stats?

I base it on my extensive courses in Genetics in college. Is there a slight increase in risk after several generations, yes is there a 50% risk of some random birth defect after one generation.. LOL BS.

Here is a good article on the subject. A little Techie but worth the read. That is why I did not jump on the genetic thing. Increased risk yes. 50% no way

Lets say one parent carries the gene for colon cancer. Any child he has is going to have an increased risk. Should the govt tell him he can't breed ?

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask243

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

I base it on my extensive courses in Genetics in college. Is there a slight increase in risk after several generations, yes is there a 50% risk of some random birth defect after one generation.. LOL BS.

Here is a good article on the subject. A little Techie but worth the read. That is why I did not jump on the genetic thing. Increased risk yes. 50% no way

Lets say one parent carries the gene for colon cancer. Any child he has is going to have an increased risk. Should the govt tell him he can't breed ?

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask243

From your link:

But there is definitely good biology behind the laws that prohibit brothers and sisters from having children. The risk for passing down a genetic disease is much higher for siblings than first cousins.

...

Imagine a really rare disorder like complete achromatopsia, or total color blindness. Somewhere between 1 in 20,000 and 1 in 50,000 people have this disease. This translates to around 1 in 100 people being carriers.

If we use the same example where dad is a carrier for the disease gene, then the chances for two siblings having a child with the disease are the same, 1 in 16. But the risk for one of these kids and an unrelated parent falls to 1 in 800. So the siblings have a 50-fold higher risk!

Edited August 29, 2014 by OnMyWayID

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

From your own link:

But there is definitely good biology behind the laws that prohibit brothers and sisters from having children. The risk for passing down a genetic disease is much higher for siblings than first cousins.

...

Imagine a really rare disorder like complete achromatopsia, or total color blindness. Somewhere between 1 in 20,000 and 1 in 50,000 people have this disease. This translates to around 1 in 100 people being carriers.

If we use the same example where dad is a carrier for the disease gene, then the chances for two siblings having a child with the disease are the same, 1 in 16. But the risk for one of these kids and an unrelated parent falls to 1 in 800. So the siblings have a 50-fold higher risk!

50 fold and 50% are two very different animals. In the above example, both parents would have to be carriers, which would usually mean 2 or 3rd generation intermarrying, then the risk is 1 in 16. which puts the risk around 6% and that is only after several generations.

I am not arguing there is an increased risk. What I am saying is that the 50% chance of a birth defect is junk science.