I've already linked to studies showing that the rate of genetic defects in the offspring of first-family relationships shoots up. I don't see how you divorce that by framing it as well, they have existing genetic predisposition. Well, yeah. Because they are picking the one worst possible person to have a child with in terms of the overall genetic health.
But as I said previously, if you take the children out of the equation, I have no problem with it.
I don't think anyone has a problem with your views, but please get your science right. I think some of the people arguing with you may be seen as "pro-incest" but I know most of us are just trying to make sure you understand the information you're using for your arguments. To me it seems like you don't have a strong scientific background and you're using poorly understood studies to back up your own personal views. Like I said in my first post in this thread, I don't really care about the status of incest laws one way or another. I just want to make sure people's opinions are informed.
First off (and this isn't necessarily to you), there's a link to a Wikipedia article about Patrick Stübing. That's one
anecdotal example of an incestuous relationship that caused developmental issues for their children. If I posted a Wikipedia article about a guy who had a non-incestuous relationship which caused the same developmental issues for his children, would anybody care? Of course not since it's just one anecdotal example that doesn't prove anything.
Second, as several people have tried to explain- there's nothing magical about being related to someone else. Many royal families have practiced incest for several generations. Most pure-bred animals have a long history of inbreeding as well which almost definitely has been producing a large percentage of dog-show and horse-race winners.
It is 100% true that an incestuous relationship is more likely to produce defects in children. I will agree with that. However, it is (directly) not because the participants are related. This may seem contradictory but this is an important distinction. It's like the statement "homosexual males are more likely to contract HIV than non-homosexual males." Yes, it's 100% true, but it's not because they're homosexual. Their homosexuality doesn't just magically give them HIV. For incestuous relationships, defects in children are because any problems in one partner's genetic code are likely to also be in the other partner's genetic code rather than one partner's healthy genes compensating for the partner's dysfunctional genes.
The reason I bring all of this up is because of these quotes:
Are you trying to tell me that the risk of genetic defect of a child between a brother and sister would be no different than that brother choosing a different person to have a child with? Unless he chooses his mother, no other person will hold as many genes in common as his sister. So, YES it is directly coming from them being related. In the case of first cousins, the genes are diluted by several factors, so the risk is much less.
I've already linked to studies showing that the rate of genetic defects in the offspring of first-family relationships shoots up. I don't see how you divorce that by framing it as well, they have existing genetic predisposition. Well, yeah. Because they are picking the one worst possible person to have a child with in terms of the overall genetic health.
But as I said previously, if you take the children out of the equation, I have no problem with it.
For the first quote, it seems as if you think that just the virtue of having genes in common with your mate will produce unhealthy children.
The second quote makes it seem as if you think that a relative is the absolute worst person you can mate with genetically.
Both of these arguments are false.
Why am I making a big deal about all of this? Well, because logically trying to ban incest is complicated. If it's for the children, then should someone with an autosomal dominant trait that's almost 100% guaranteed to be passed down to children be allowed to mate? What about two known carriers of a disease? What about incestuous couples that can prove via genetic counseling that their likelihood of producing children with defects is near zero? Hell, two random African American people are much more likely to have a child with Sickle Cell Disease. Should that be a concern too? I believe these are the questions that the German Ethics Council asked itself. It's not logically consistent to say "well yeah, we'll allow kids to be put in this small percentage of danger for X reasons while we'll let this other couple produce kids who are almost guaranteed to have a disease."
Semi-related to this thread, but kinda its own tangent- What's more disgusting- a relationship between two step siblings that grew up together since birth or a relationship between two siblings separated at birth that happened to find out they were related after they got married and had kids? While I think the majority would find the second more disgusting, I don't think the vote would be 100%.