Prime Minister refused to ban 1st cousin marriage

[happydappy2]

Even though there is clear evidence of serious birth defects to babies born from 1st cousin marriages. It is deeply worrying that the bride and groom will have the same Grand Parents.....this is unsafe for women in a patriarchal family system.

Who takes on the bulk of the work caring for the disabled child-the woman...

Why is the British gov't promoting incest?

https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1974371215629578344

I hope this is not true...but does anyone know any more about it?

Where is the bill can you link it?

I think it's a private members bill so there's a process. Saying he's 'blocked' it is a bit of an exaggeration but he doesn't seem to be giving it gov support to go forward as he did with Assissted dying.

It does seem like a pretty good idea to ban it. It didn’t used to be an issue because it was fairly rare (it has happened in my extended family). However, now we know some parts of the community use it repeatedly leading to the rise of severe rare conditions it’s sensible to prevent it.

Are you referring to the Private Members Bill which is awaiting its second reading? Private Members Bills rarely make it into law as the HIV have more pressing priorities, but they give non Ministerial MPs from all parties a chance to raise issues they are championing,

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3907

You are being deliberately inflammatory in your use of wording; whether you agree with it or not, currently, first cousin marriage is legal in the UK, and not incestuous.

looking at those MPs that support the Bill it’s easy to see that this is deeper than concerns for the health of children born to first cousin marriages. The Born in Bradford study has some interesting data based on real life cases.

I agree. It's a harmful cultural practice like FGM and forced marriage, it needs the law changing.

Between a rock and a hard place again.
Most of the population wants a ban but not most of the Labour party.

I don't mean to be inflammatory-I'm amazed that this situation is currently legal, due to the ethical reasons of harms to the child produced from that relationship. It's not fair on the child or the Mother who no doubt will be doing the bulk of child care. It's also not sensible due to the cost to the tax payer of caring for these children. Combined with the fact that young girls might not have a choice in whom they are marrying this just seems so very backwards.

There is something I find unsettling about basing a ban on the risk of birth defects, chromosomal abnormalities, or other genetic conditions. There are other things that increase the risk of these but that we’d never consider banning - increased paternal age, increased maternal age, the presence of these conditions in the parents or wider family.

There are alternatives to banning first cousin marriages, around things like education and genetic testing.

Banning them may well lead to religious marriage ceremonies without parallel civil ceremonies. This would be detrimental to women who then found that they didn't have the legal protections of marriage.

This is a reasonable, short article on the issue.

Are you aware that 1st cousin marriage has always been legal in the UK?

The real issue, which must be addressed, is where it continues generation after generation. Which is difficult to act on. And which should have been discussed , but has been swept under the carpet due to Cultural sensitivities '

There is no good reason not to ban it and lots of benefits of doing so

again the government look weak. I can’t believe how many easy wins they are ignoring

How can they ban first cousin marriages when the royals have always been quite a fan of it?

It’s not so much one-off cousin marriage, but repeated cousin marriage. Every species suffers from in-breeding, humans are no exception. The NHS report on cousin marriage is outrageous. They should be concerned with health, not lauding its economic benefits.

There's a large portion of the population that would oppose this. I can't see it changing anything anyway. They would continue their cultural norms regardless.

Once in a while, unless you're very unlucky, seems relatively (no pun intended) without risk but happening generation after generation will see birth defects increase. A short term alternative might be to screen parents for recessive traits and have a treatment plan if they are found. I think this is a thing done in some Jewish communities? Doesn't help though for birth defects that can't yet be screened for, or new ones that might show up, or people who won't, for whatever reason, don't cooperate.

Aside from some Muslims are there other communities where this may be a problem? Orthodox Jews? Travellers? Plymouth brethren? The Royal family?

I think it comes from not so developed countries with high mortality rates, doesn't belong in developed western countries. It's clearly unkind to bring babies into the world with a very high risk of having defects due to something avoidable.

You’re being incredibly inflammatory. For a one-off cousin marriage, the increased generic risk to the child is the same as to a child born of a mother who is over 35.

Triggernometry interviewed Matthew Syed about a range of issues including first cousin marriage but crosses over into some discussion of the usual understanding of incest:

Specific section here:

'Education' etc was what was said about FGM. In the end it had to be made illegal just as the age for marriage has been raised to 18 because of the problem of forced marriages, young girls being sent abroad.
Legislation would make cousin marriages illegal in Mosques just as under age marriages are. There could be prosecutions.
The other point is cousin marriages are central to the clan system which is beginning to infiltrate British politics.

And allegedly contributed to the extent and longevity of the Muslim grooming gangs (as opposed to any white grooming gangs which have a very different spread and profile and are rightly socially ostracised by their communities once discovered)

Starmer is a wet lettuce who doesn't want to commit to anything. Any time he does commit to something, he then backtracks and stutters about how his position has changed. It's happened multiple times now. The man has no convictions whatsoever. And despite the overwhelming medical evidence that this practice is disastrous and leads to huge numbers of birth defects he won't want to risk alienating the sectors of our society that consider this a desirable practice for passing on family wealth.

It’s not one off though - it’s a generational practice.

Stop trying to shut these conversations down by claiming ‘inflammatory’.

Can you link to any data that backs your claim about the relative risks with older mothers? I’ve seen this claim a couple of time but no verification or further context.

Yes the NHS offers screening to Jewish people because of the increased risk of certain genetic conditions. I think this is a rational and reasonable response, and a good use of NHS funds and I hope it is easy to access. Along similar lines (although obviously not just offered when considering pregnancy) my friend was screened for Huntington’s because her mother had it.

I don’t see how any purely health based argument based on the risks to the child of genetic conditions could only apply to first cousin marriages - there’s no rational reason why that thinking wouldn’t extend to others. Thats why I find the health argument unsettling.

If you want to make a social argument, that’s different.

Good point. Women bearing children into their fifties are lauded in the media. Ditto men fathering babies into their old age. At an age when they should be helping out with their grandchildren.