All truly ridiculous and evil changes in the future will first be raised by scientists.Scientific American: Incest may not be best, but marriage bans should be rolled back, scientists say. And "scientists" are authorities on this why?
Seems to be the next big push. I've already seen a 10 pm drama dedicated to normalizing incest. Can't remember what fool show it was (I'm weak; I watch whatever random thing gets a signal on laundry-folding night), but the premise was because of sperm donation the couple didn't know they were related. Which isn't real incest in the first place, and the story came out "right," but not before we all "questioned" societal assumptions. Ewwww.
It gets worse. While the scientists are rolling back cultural taboos on solely genetic ground:
those laws "seem ill-advised" and "should be repealed," a geneticist and medical historian write in today's PLoS Biology. "Neither the scientific nor social assumptions that informed them are any longer defensible."They're also attacking late-onset pregnancy.
First cousins share about an eighth, or 12.5 percent, of their genes, according to a 2002 study in the Journal of Genetic Counseling. Because of that overlap, there's a 1.7 percent to 2.8 higher risk of intellectual disability and genetic disorders, including seizures and metabolic errors among children whose parents are first cousins than among the general population, says Robin Bennett, a certified genetic counselor and lead author of that research.Can there be any doubt that is exactly the sort of law Bennett would like to see? And if you married late or have a delightful end-of-fertility surprise, you're no better than an incestuous couple?
That elevated risk is "comparable to a 40-year-old woman having children and we consider that perfectly acceptable," Spencer tells ScientificAmerican.com. "I can't imagine a law saying they're not allowed to have children."
For the record, "Scientists," the incest taboo is not primarily based on genetics. (I know it will shock you that people could have reasons for things besides those available under the microscope.) It's based on a child's (all of our, really) need for non-sexual space. If everyone's a potential sexual partner, the hyper-sexualized atmosphere that results is highly damaging to children in the latency period and into adolescence.
What is the matter with you people?
