The genetic test already confirms they are father/daughter from my understanding. There is no point in wasting tax payer dollars for a trial, or put them through a trial if the police cannot show evidence to prove they knew they were related. Unless the two confess, the police likely have no case for the sexual assault charges. Another thing. In this economy, unless Connecticut can afford to spend tax dollars this way, is it something they should pursue?
I assume the "prove they knew" will be what the trial rests upon. That's likely why they're charged with conspiracy. (Assuming they didn't know, they wouldn't have anything to hide.)
As far as the taxdollar thing goes... eh, I'd say it could be put to better use, IF they didn't have a kid. Once a child gets involved, it's different... the kid didn't ask to be born into a messed up genetic family. That kid would have problems for life.
Don't get me wrong here, I don't advocate such a relationship, but the kid is either damages but very likely not, and what would be the cause for removing the kid from them? Line breeding is done with horses all the time with no ill effect. This comes down to people imposing their morals over others, which is wrong.
I am no genetics professor or anything, but I do believe that inbreeding greatly enhances the chance for genetic malfunctions and de novo mutations.
One could argue that a family where your father is also your grandfather is likely to cause intense negative social pressure on the child if it ever comes out. Kids are jerk, can you imagine the torment if you were actually inbred?
Maybe if the two if them weren't inbreeding, I might be inclined to have more sympathy for them.
I'm not going to disagree with that. However, it's already done. What would your solution be? I say let the kid stay with one parent, and warn them it can't happen again now that they know they are related. Do you have a better idea?
yeah, clearly there was nothing wrong with these people before they had a baby. he didn't know she was his daughter because the mother didn't tell him. she wanted to keep this jewel of the nile all to herself.
let the dad keep the baby.......because he has a history of being an awesome dad.
oddly enough, comparing them to horses was the most generous compliment.
And then imagine if your fathergrandfather was also married to a dude!
exponential increase in torment, imo
Show me a ing law prohibiting two people with a recessive allele of a disease to have children. If such law does not exist, then why are we discriminating against incestuous couples? Besides, having children with a family member does not guarantee that the children will be ed up.
Hey, if you want to your sister, go ahead. I mean, I feel bad for the kid, but there are a lot of ed up parents in the world anyways.
Everything you ever wanted to know and a pretty interesting read...
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/23704...c_disorder.pdf
In case you don't want to read 41 pages...
In a compilation based on data from a number of studies, the increased risk for a
significant birth defect in progeny of a first cousin marriage varied between 1.7 and 2.8%
above that of the non-consanguineous population (Bennett et al., 2002). An important
number of abnormalities have also been reported in the offspring of first degree incestuous
unions. A compilation from data of several studies shows that 11.7% (25/213) of the
incestuous progeny presented known autosomal recessive disorders, 16.0% (34/213)
congenital malformations, 11.7% (25/213) nonspecific severe intellectual impairment and
14.6% (31/213) mild intellectual impairment (Bennett et al., 2002).
The children might get teased by other kids is a terrible argument against anything.
It is also done all the time with ill effect. When it's just a horse/dog/cow/etc. the ill effect isn't such a big deal.
You are wrong.
Next, you will be advocating it to be illegal for some people to produce based on genetics.
I'm not advocating anything except that you are wrong when you claim there is no ill effect from inbreeding and that this is just people imposing their morals.
Ok, I will accept your point. This is, it's still a matter of probability. If I recall, these two didn't even know they were related, yet arrested. Where is the harm in what happened, unknowingly?
That's what "kin" means.
It's an argument for not ing your sister, in my opinion.
Any port in a storm.
This people are allowed to have children, while other people that can have healthier children arent allowed because they are family
http://www.thehartleyhooligans.com/p/lola.html
So, this woman had a girl that was born with a lot of problems. Doctors said that if she had another baby, the baby would have 25% chance of being as ed as the old sister. They tried again and they got another girl with the same problems. Nobody stopped them because there isn't any law stopping people that have high chances of having children with a lot of genetic problems if they aren't related. People that are against incest because of the potential problems that the baby may have should also be very worried about this. Why isn't anyone pushing for laws against this.
Necro thread! But honestly, if you have a kid with severe genetic deformities, and the doctors tell you there's a good chance your next child will have one, and you have it anyways? I'm not sure if "immoral" is the right word, but I'm definitely fine with calling it " ed up". You're bringing a person into the world with a huge disadvantage (and screw everyone who says it's really a gift or any such bs).
http://www.thehartleyhooligans.com/p/lola.html
So, this woman had a girl that was born with a lot of problems. Doctors said that if she had another baby, the baby would have 25% chance of being as ed as the old sister. They tried again and they got another girl with the same problems. Nobody stopped them because there isn't any law stopping people that have high chances of having children with a lot of genetic problems if they aren't related. People that are against incest because of the potential problems that the baby may have should also be very worried about this. Why isn't anyone pushing for laws against this.
"We never expected to hear that Lola was also affected, but at our 22-week sonogram, her head measurements showed considerable lag, and microcephaly was confirmed a month later. Obviously this was a huge shock to us, as we felt confident that it would not happen again (we knew we had a 75% or greater chance that all would be OK) and all measurements were on track until that point. We were devastated initially, but this soon passed as we realized that this was the same child that we waitednearly five years to conceive, the same child that we wanted desperately, and the same child that we loved with everything in us, regardless of the size of her head. We knew the immense joy that Claire brought to our family, and we had no doubt that Lola would enrich our lives beyond belief as well." They might be really good parents, but their reasoning for wanting a kid (like pretty much every parent) was greedy... for their own happiness. They pretty much pushed all their chips in on 4 to 1 odds that their kid wouldn't be messed up, and lost. Now they have to pay some cost, but the child is the one that has to live with it. I guess alive and messed up is better than dead, but still seems pretty messed up. It's far more a "Ugh this is wrong" feeling than one I can explain logically.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
