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?

Exactly. Jane Austen was born in 1779, Darwin 1809, Queen Victoria 1819. We can't compare that to today.

Please stop with the false statistics that suggest the risks of consanguinous marriage is the same as that of older parents having children. It is incorrect, as is your assessment of risk being additive (although it is cumulative).

1. The risk of genetic anomalies in babies born to mothers over the age of 40 is 230.4 births in 10,000 births, or 2.3% (reference https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/ncardrs-congenital-anomaly-statistics-annual-data/ncardrs-congenital-anomaly-statistics-report-2020/maternal-age)
2. The risks of genetic anomalies in consanguinous marriage is approximately 6%, whether 1st or 2nd cousins, and this is likely due to endogamy within a relatively small community.
3. The genetic anomalies in consanguinous marriage can be particularly devastating, due to a higher rate of autosomal recessive disorders, and often too rare to screen for with advanced genetic counselling.
4. Banning consanguinous marriage is about much more than knowingly increasing the risks of genetic anomalies, but about how these marriages negatively impact women (see previous posters).

The concern can be addressed with genetic testing and counselling because many families are also not doing it over and over again.

If it is worth a ban, then we definitely should also ban women over 35 having babies as families tend to do that over and over as well. While we are at it, we should also chemically castrate men over 40 as well because old sperm is risky.

There's going to be a consultation on this.
The UN agency describes marriage before the age of 18 as a "fundamental violation of human rights".

It's not about isolated cousin marriages, it's about cousin marriages throughout several generations, then risks increase greatly. Many (most?) human societies and many animal species have developed strategies to avoid inbreeding. And if inbreeding weren't an obvious problem we wouldn't have "jokes" of the "normal for Norfolk" kind.

Evidence please

I think you could make the social argument for a ban, whether or not it would be effective is a real question though.

On genetic grounds? That is a can of worms and no one has explained how you can use that as a reason in this case but not, say, to ban marriages of older parents, or people with certain kinds of disabilities.

I would have liked to think that on FWR people are able to see that hand waving away unintended consequences of new laws does not actually mean they won't happen.

I tend to agree with the pp that said that this kind of thing is actually mainly a cultural issue that is a problem because of high ongoing levels of immigration where communities can't be well integrated over time.

However there is a contingent of progressives who can't seem to accept in even a soft way that there could be important significant cultural differernces between the UK and any other nation. They cannot admit that cousin marriage is a cultural problem not so much because they love cousin marriage. The problem for them is if they admit it is possible with regard to one element of culture, then it's also possible there could be other problematic cultural beliefs. So they need to maintain the stance that everything is just fine.

@PrincessSophieFrederike

At least in Einstein's case it was his second marriage. His children were all born to his first wife whom he left for the second. The first wife is now thought by many to have been responsible for at least some of the work credited to Einstein.

Sorry luv, but you’ve quoted only one subset of birth defects/congenital anomalies.

You need the other table that summarises all birth defects of live births:

”Data table 11 shows that the birth prevalence of babies with any congenital anomaly was significantly higher in babies born to mothers aged 35 to 39 years (252.6 per 10,000 total births, 95% CI 243.5-262.0) and to those 40 years and over (400.7 per 10,000 total births, 95% CI 377.8-424.6), as highlighted by the non-overlapping confidence intervals. Babies born to mothers under 20 years had a statistically significant higher rate of congenital anomalies (236.8 per 10,000 total births, 95% CI 212.8-262.6) compared to those born to mothers aged between 30 and 34 years (196.9 per 10,000 total births, 95% CI 190.8-203.2). The birth prevalence of all anomalies was similar in babies born to mothers aged between 30 and 34 years at delivery and in babies born to mothers aged between 25 and 29 years (202.7 per 10,000 total births, 95% CI 195.8-209.9).

When you also include the birth defects that result in miscarriages and stillbirths, you get the overall risk ratios I mentioned

If you’re a close family and knew your cousins well when growing up, then there will be a high ick factor, as you’ll think of them pretty much like you do siblings.

if you’re not close to your cousins then it becomes more of a theoretical discussion. I can understand some of the rationale for banning first cousin marriage, but we have to be absolutely clear about what harm it is we’re trying to prevent:
•reducing genetic disorders from repeated cousin marriages? - you don’t have to be married to have children, in many cases a religious marriage would still be culturally acceptable.
•reducing harms from young girls being forced into marriages - forced marriages would still happen, whether abroad or here. Families would just get a bit more creative with their planning.

From many posts on this thread, it sounds like what people really want is for sexual relationships between first cousins to be re-classed as incest. That would automatically make marriage impossible.

It is a relatively modern thing to get the ick over first cousin marriages - one branch of my family tree comes from a rural village and when you look at the census records for 1841 and 1842, I could place virtually every household somewhere on my family tree. I get that social habit change, but as I said above, if we’re going to change things we should be very clear about what it is we want changed and why.

Seriously? What laws do you think were active for all subjects of the British Crown who lived in the British Empire?
English laws that we imposed or ?

Do they not even teach about the Empire in school anymore?

Base rate is 3%
If you’re 35+ risk is 6%

Can you provide the source for these numbers because the Living in Bradford report doesn’t say that at all and the initial data I could find in white women over 35 showed an increased risk of 0.89 which is nowhere near 6%.

I looked further into the research and found this:

Infant mortality rates for term babies have fallen since 2007 for mothers of all ages, the only statistically significantly lower rates are for mothers ages 20 to 24 and 25 to 29. In 2013, the lowest infant mortality rate occurred in mothers aged 35 to 39 (1.2 deaths per 1,000 live births), while the highest rates occur in mothers aged under 20 and mothers aged over 40,

I have a feeling this claim that white mothers over 35 have the same risk to their babies health as repeated cousin marriage is an invention.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/bulletins/pregnancyandethnicfactorsinfluencingbirthsandinfantmortality/2015-10-14#age-of-mother-at-birth-of-baby

That.

They're is very little risk to first cousins marrying for the first time within a family. A pair of 25 year old cousins who are the first consanguinous couple in their family, are probably less likely to have a child with a disability than a forty year old couple with no family link whatever.

The problem arises when generation after generation of first cousins marry. The risk then increases rapidly with each generation. Unfortunately I worked with some of the resulting children.

There is a lot of work going on in the cultures where there's a problem across generations. I have worked with several professionals who run projects within their own culture, to spread the information. This is an area where information rather than legislation is the way to go.

Yes and a strategy like genetic testing is much more accurate and much more likely to prevent the much feared inbreeding than banning cousin marriage.

I have to say, I think that is crazy.

There is a differernce between saying something is a bad idea now, or unnecessary, that its a sensible law that protects young women in the 21st century UK, and that it is a fundamental violation of human rights. Because if it is a fundamental violation, then it really is across all time and place.

My grandmother was married at 17. She had finished school and was working and supporting herself as was quite common in those days. Was it really so strange that she might decide to get married?

Similarly, 500 years ago, or 1000 years ago, would it really be bizarre for a young woman of 16, able to run her own household, doing the exact same work as her parents on the farm or in some kind of trade, to wait to marry?

Alexander the Great set out to conquer the world at 17, who was going to tell him he couldn't get married?

I think some of these things undermine the idea of fundamental human rights, tbh. Things can be a good idea, even a necessary idea for the times and circumstances, without it being a human rights issue as such.

I would like to point out another group who would benefit enormously from this ban : Irish Travellers

. They still commonly marry first cousins (and have other problems esp to do with treatment of women).

The Roma community I think also do this here, but much less, though need to check this.

In Europe the Roma marry first cousins a lot more in some countries and this seems to correlate with poor educational attainment.

Lowered IQ should also be emphasised as a risk to both Pakistani Muslims & Irish Travellers, as well as birth defects, to discourage.

This lady is an Irish Traveller - it's Sun clickbait but the attitudes she voices are apparently common among Travellers.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/29441567/traveller-gypsy-cousin-marriage/

And if that genetic testing says that two cousins should not marry and have children, especially if their parents already have been cousins and maybe their parents before them? What you gonna do then?

You really are talking nonsense.

Apparently in 2003, between 20 and 40% of Irish Traveller marriages were between first cousins. And their death rate was reported to be 5% higher than the general population.

I hope it's lower now...☹️

The article mentions genetic counselling but how successful is that?

Either way, a ban would also tackle this issue at least somewhat.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/study-urges-genetic-counselling-for-cousins-who-marry-1.357442

And as pp pointed out, when is this generic screening going to take place? Before the barrage is arranged? A sort of genetic matching service? Or will they just screen the foetus and raise the rate of abortions significantly? That’s before you deal with the weaknesses of the screening where abnormalities due to new combinations are not predicted

Where's the law compelling people to marry their cousins?

I suppose it would be similar to what happens in other communities and situations where genetic counselling is recommended.

www.researchgate.net/publication/341410892_Mother's_age_as_a_risk_factor_of_birth_defects

“Objective. To analyze the age structure of the mothers of children with birth defects and to assess the age-related risks of chromosomal and non-chromosomal congenital anomalies. Material and methods. The authors analyzed the data from 23 regional registers of birth defects from 2011 to 2018. There were total 5 047 468 births during this period. The authors calculated the incidence and relative risks of chromosomal and non-chromosomal birth defects in different age groups of mothers: under 20, from 20 to 34, from 35 to 39, 40–44, and above 45 years old. Results. The incidence of chromosomal abnormalities significantly increases with the mother’s age. The relative risk (RR) of chromosomal abnormalities in different age groups: 4,67 (95% CI 4,44–4,92) in Group 35-39, 15,00 (95% CI 14,10–15,96) in Group 40–44, and 26,49 (95% CI 21,89–32,07) in Group ≥45 as compared with the main age group of 20–34 years old. The authors also revealed the dependence of the non-chromosomal birth defects on the age of the mother: RR 1,15 (95% CI 1,08–1,23) in Group <20 years, RR 1,18 (95% CI 1,13–1,23) in Group 35–39, RR 1,35 (95% CI 1,24–1,47) in Group 40–44, and RR 2,03 (95% CI 1,47–2,79) in Group ≥ 45 years old. Conclusion . The study demonstrates the dependence of chromosomal and non-chromosomal birth defects on the mother’s age.”

Ffs, laws dictate what is illegal. The fact we had no law prohibiting it, and never have and guess what the British upper class that was Governing and ruling these colonies were doing it, showed these cultures what was right & ok.

The comparator claims are being made specifically about white mothers over 35, both in the Living in Bradford report and claims on this thread.

Data table 11 is ALL abnormalities, it’s not broken down by race so doesn’t back your claim.