To think first-degree cousins should not marry?

[Onestonetogo]

Message withdrawn

Also Amani, historically speaking, intermarraige kept land within the family and stopped it being divided into ever smaller plots since land was divided bewteen all the children and not passed to the eldest as was the custom in europe.

My family are very well-educated as it happens - but culture is a powerful force that can influence even the most educated people to make seemingly unwise choices.

My DS has SN caused by a chromasome issues(duplication/translocation etc) we are always being asked if we are related or have a particular cultural heritage.

We have to state that we are 'non-consanguineous'. (sp?)

I know a woman who married her uncle. They have beautiful, "normal" children.

In some culture, marrying a close family member is honourable.

I think the op is both ignorant and ill informed.

I wonder what the next stone will be thrown at? You are onestonetogo, right?

Message withdrawn

I am going to bow out of this.

Because your opinions, onestonetogo, is so close to the cleansing program of a historical figure featuring, distastefully, at a primary school world book day today, that this must be a windup.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

"I am in that I'm not a geneticist but I have read books on DNA, which makes me a little bit more informed than a lot of people." I've read books on maths. Doesn't make me a mathematician. I've studied some pretty basic genetics - doesn't mean I should consider myself well-informed. Ever heard the phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?

By all means ask the question of whether it is wise for close relatives to reproduce with each other, and whether there are complex cultural and educational issues surrounding this. It's an interesting question, and worth discussing.

But you haven't just asked a question, you've jumped in with talk of banning, and have not come up with a logical answer as to why your argument shouldn't cover banning all people who have known genetic disorders, never mind those who may generate new genetic disorders. That's why people are irritated at your argument - you have made up your mind based on "reading some books on DNA", plus some anecdotal local evidence.

You haven't addressed the issue of similar risk groups. If the risk for offspring of cousins is the same as for women over 40, then logically either both should be legal or both should be illegal (and no, prenatal testing cannot adequately deal with either risk).

You cannot legislate agianst all risks - you have to chose those that go over a certain threshold.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

No, of course I don't bloody believe acquiring knowledge is a dangerous thing! I wouldn't have bothered getting a PhD and now be doing an OU degree if that was the case, would I? And ironically, I am an expert on the era immediately pre-dating mass literacy in England.

The phrase emphasises the word "little" - reading a bit can give you an impression you know/understand more than you do, and so start to take positions where your knowledge and understanding is more limited than you realise. It's an easy trap tp fall into, but there is, I think, an art to knowing what you don't know. I've read a few books on DNA too - still would not claim that I know anything like enough to start suggesting public policy changes.

You've taken your stance, found evidence to support it, dismissed arguments which don't support your pov. I said in my earlier post that it was a perfectly valid question - but you have posed it with your ethically and practically very dubious answer from which you refuse to be swayed. That doesn't spark a lively debate so much as make people bang their heads against the brick wall of your intransigence.

Do you think all babies with Down syndrome should be terminated, then? What about spina bifida?

onestone let's turn this around.

If the situation was that everyone went for genetic testing before marriage/children as a matter of course, would you then be 100% happy for cousins to marry?

Or are you a bit squeamish about it for other reasons?

By Onestonetogo Fri 06-Mar-09 10:52:50 Add a message | Report post | Contact poster

marz, legally in the UK you can marry your first cousin on either side. Genetically as well, it doesn't make a difference whose side it is.
When first cousins conceive, their baby inherits (of course) half of the mother's DNA nad half of the father's DNA. Cousins share 1/8th of their DNA, thus these identical genes become part of the baby's DNA.

Not strictly true.

Certain Mitochondrial disordes such as those descirbed by mm22bys are passed down the maternal line because the father does not pass any of his mitochondrial DNA to his offspring.

Oh and if you want to get into this sort of genetics - best stop reading books on "DNA" and start reading books on evolutionary genetics or population genetics. Although they are obviously dependant on DNA the study is quite distinct from molecular genetics which relates more to teh study of DNA.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Slightlymadscotland, you are partly right.

The genetics of mitochondrial disease is unknown in at least 80% of cases. This is because the "defect" can be found either in the mitochondria itself, which is inherited from the mother, in which case 100% of the trait WILL occur in other siblings (DS1 is at this point symptom-free).

Or it can come from DNA contained in the nucleus - in which case if the gene trait is recessive 25% of siblings will be effected, if the gene trait is dominant there is a 50% chance of the trait recurring.

Or it could be a combination of the two, or it could be random.

It is such a new "science", each case is different, and unless you know which gene is defective it is not screenable.

Habbibu, it's the parents' decision as to have a baby with Down Syndrome or not; these days it does not have a huge effect on society or the NHS since there are very few Down S babies

I still think (although have not checked my facts) that the incidence of Downs is higher than the incidence of genetic disorder as a result of inbreeding IN THE UK.

And yes there can be a cost to the NHS of Downs as they often have associated heart conditions.

And in the same way you support the parents decision to have a downs baby you should support a couple who love each other and despite the fact they are cousins want a child. Perhaps there should be more awareness of teh potential problems...in the same way there has been education programmes for things like Downs syndrome in older women, folic acid use to decrease the incidence of spina bifida etc.

onestone it wasn't about selecting healthy embryos - that's a different and possibly rather scary extrapolation. It was about people finding out whether they had genetic profiles which meant that they were unlikely or more likely to have children with hereditary disorders, then the parents could decide whether or not to take that risk, as they do with some disorders at the moment.

Your comment about "it's not me who's sleeping with my cousin" is a bit off and to me does show that for you there is a "yuck" factor.

mm2bbys - I certainly didn't mean all mitochondrial disorders were maternally inherited...just that mitochondrial inheritance (which causes many mitochondrial disorders) is exclusively materbal.

"The selfish gene" would have been my main recommedation....which I wouldn't say is about "DNA" in the contect of books I would say are about "DNA" (but then I am more of a molecular geneticist - so hardcore DNA rather than evolutionary geneticist).

Message withdrawn