Switzerland my allow incest between siblings, and parent and adult children

[Primordial Annihilator]

The irony is no one has dared challenge the facts in post 142...which naturally I expect from you guys...avoidance.

LOL

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

This article is from the Daily Mail instead...maybe someone could actually show how the article fails...instead of bleating on about how wrong and emotive I am...?



''A rise in the number of marriages between cousins in Britain has prompted calls for a crackdown on the practice amid warnings it is putting children's health at risk.

Crossbench peer Baroness Deech has called for a 'vigorous' public campaign to deter marriages between family members, which is common in Muslim and immigrant communities.
Her comments come as figures show up to 75 per cent of British Pakistanis in some areas are married to first cousins.
In a speech to be made next week, obtained by The Times, the leading family lawyer will warn that such marriages can be a barrier to the integration of minority communities and increases the risk of birth defects in children.
She is also expected to call for testing for genetic defects when marriages between family members are arranged and for a register of people carrying genetic diseases to be set up in order for two carriers not to be introduced.
She said such a scheme could be possible in Bradford, which has the UK's highest population of Pakistanis.
Up to three-quarters of Pakistanis in Bradford are married to their first cousins.
The trend is also evident in Birmingham, where figures show that one in ten of all children born to first cousins died in childhood or suffered from a serious genetic disorder.''


Read more: Baroness Deech: Rise in marriages between cousins putting children at risk of birth defect | Mail Online​

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I would appreciate apologies (or frubals) from Comicaze Mestemia and mball if no one answers the above post.

Just to ram it home some more...coz I know you guys need all the help you can get.

''British Pakistanis, half of whom marry a first cousin, are 13 times more likely to produce children with genetic disorders than the general population, according to Government-sponsored research.''

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...children-risk-birth-defect.html#ixzz18ZA9PiPA

Thus my insistance that legalising incest between siblings and parents/children would be damaging to public health and increase health/social costs...is vindicated.

Incest is to remain illegal because it substantially increases the risks of birth defects....as I maintained.
​

I WIN you guys FAIL...get used to this state of affairs...ner ner.

*blows rasberry*

(Alright I am being very childish but I have put up with a lot of 'Oh PA you are just talking from your orifice we know better because we are morally superior libertarians' kinda attitude from you guys)

As a final note I am still rather new here...and havent quite got the hang of how you guys tick or what my parameters are (different forums have different views on what is or isnt acceptable in debate, yes I could read the terms and conditions but there is much that is open to interpretation it seems)...if my manner is offensive or somehow displeasing let me know and I will try to moderate my tone...this is your forum and I respect that, I am not here to troll.

 

[Magic Man]

YOUR constitution...not mine

Well, sure, but you guys have the same values. You may not have the Constitution like us, but you at least go by the same standards in general.

Look...lets just forget it...you are not disgusting...your view on incest is polarised to mine but I would be very churlish to let that cause antipathy between us.
I apologise mball for getting emotive and perhaps going too far.

xxx :rainbow1:

Works for me. I appreciate your comments. I apologize for my part in it. We'll meet up on a less emotional topic next time.

 

[Magic Man]

I would appreciate apologies (or frubals) from Comicaze Mestemia and mball if no one answers the above post.

Just to ram it home some more...coz I know you guys need all the help you can get.

''British Pakistanis, half of whom marry a first cousin, are 13 times more likely to produce children with genetic disorders than the general population, according to Government-sponsored research.''

Read more: Baroness Deech: Rise in marriages between cousins putting children at risk of birth defect | Mail Online

Thus my insistance that legalising incest between siblings and parents/children would be damaging to public health and increase health/social costs...is vindicated.

Incest is to remain illegal because it substantially increases the risks of birth defects....as I maintained.
​

I WIN you guys FAIL...get used to this state of affairs...ner ner.

*blows rasberry*

(Alright I am being very childish but I have put up with a lot of 'Oh PA you are just talking from your orifice we know better because we are morally superior libertarians' kinda attitude from you guys)

As a final note I am still rather new here...and havent quite got the hang of how you guys tick...if my manner is offensive or somehow displeasing let me know and I will try to moderate my tone...this is your forum and I respect that.

I guess this is where I take back what I just said. Here you go:

A panoply of state laws say cousin marriages are taboo. But a new report in the Journal of Genetic Counseling, described in the New York Times last week, might send state lawmakers back to work revising their incest laws.
The report concludes that cousins can have children together without running much greater risk than a "normal" couple of their children having genetic abnormalities. Accordingly, the report potentially undermines the primary justification for laws that prevent first cousins from marrying or engaging in sexual relations with one another.

From here. There's a lot more to the article, but that's the gist of it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

We'll meet up on a less emotional topic next time.

I would enjoy you starting a new thread with a different subject. What is on your mind lately Matt?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

From here. There's a lot more to the article, but that's the gist of it.

So what we have here is a conflict of presumably scientific opinion.

My post cites scientific research I assume your link does too.

However I will give scientific research conducted/funded by the british government priority..the research of an alien nation (even one as illustrious as yours) in my view is of secondary importance.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Works for me. I appreciate your comments. I apologize for my part in it. We'll meet up on a less emotional topic next time.

No worries mball...you are alright mate

I should really avoid emotive topics...I get very emotional...

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Well, sure, but you guys have the same values. You may not have the Constitution like us, but you at least go by the same standards in general.

More or less...you can do anything you like in this nation as long as it isnt proscribed by common or legislative law (Saying that we have the Magna Carta which is about as close to a constitution you will get in the UK)

 

[McBell]

However I will give scientific research conducted/funded by the british government priority..the research of an alien nation (even one as illustrious as yours) in my view is of secondary importance.

wow.
Big surprise there.
You go with the article that supports your bias.

And you want frubals for that?

 

[Comicaze247]

I quote the article number....that is sufficent...your denial here is most purile and revealing.

7069255 | Search | The Sunday Times
Yep, very revealing article.

It's only "sufficient" if people can actually find it.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

wow.
And you want frubals for that?

Yes pweese.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

7069255 | Search | The Sunday Times
Yep, very revealing article.

It's only "sufficient" if people can actually find it.

Yet you managed to..bravo..capital..etc..

 

[Reverend Rick]

And you want frubals for that?

You sound surprised

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

You sound surprised

Well I have to be loyal to my own nation surely?

God bless Her Majesty!

*Salutes*

 

[Comicaze247]

Yet you managed to..bravo..capital..etc..

It's clear that you didn't click on the link . . .

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

It's clear that you didn't click on the link . . .

Listen Comicaze...not interested in your crappy link...thats why I didn't click it.

I have already posted the same report from another source the Daily Mail...which is clearly linked.

Just for you Comicaze...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz18ZA9PiPA

So...you fail...as usual....mwahahaha.

 

[Comicaze247]

Listen Comicaze...not interested in your crappy link...thats why I didn't click it.

Shows just how closed-minded you are and how little you're willing to listen and think. The link was simply taking you to a search page with no results. Seems you're no better than the Christian "sign people."

I have already posted the same report from another source the Daily Mail...which is clearly linked.

Just for you Comicaze...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz18ZA9PiPA

I'll excuse the fact that you provided a link to only one of the articles you quoted simply because I'm sure I'd be wasting my time asking you to provide the other one.

Reading it more fully (now that you've finally provided the full article) it doesn't argue your point that incest should be banned (as your selective quoting tries to convey). It simply argues that banning it completely would violate religious freedom and that education on risks is the better course.

Also, the statistics from the article you quoted was shown by the Human Genetics Commission to be taken out of context:

One recent media report estimated that British Pakistanis were 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population. Taken out of context, this figure implies that ALL British Pakistanis are equally at risk irrespective of marriage patterns, and fails to clarify that the risk relates specifically to recessive genetic disorders which can arise in cousin marriages. Other types of genetic conditions, including chromosomal abnormalities, sex-linked conditions and autosomal dominant conditions are not influenced by cousin marriage.

The absolute risk to first cousins having a child with a recessive genetic condition is about three in every 100 births, unless they have a family history of an autosomal recessive disorder, in which case the risk may be higher. When we also include the background risk of having a child with any type of congenital or genetic disorder, which applies in every pregnancy, the overall risk to first cousins rises to about six in every 100 births, i.e. double the risk in the general population. The great majority of pregnancies do not result in abnormalities.

So even studies performed by the Human Genetics Commission (whose focus is obviously on genetics) conflict with the statistics provided by your article, which doesn't even state who exactly did the study nor does it state when this study was performed. All it said was "Government-sponsored." Given that I know who did one of the studies, but I don't know who did the other, I'm going to find the study by a group that has been named much more credible. So is it 13x or 2x? I'm sure I know which one you're going to side with.
And if you can't tell by the .gov.uk part of the URL, that's a study from your country as well, so you support it, right?

So...you fail...as usual....mwahahaha.

Again, you're clearly out of arguments. Even your own "evidence" is weak.

I also like how you edited that post #142 to remove your "evidence" from 1875 AFTER Mestemia pointed it out and then you pretended it was never there.

Really, the weakness of your arguments along with your tone make me think that you're just a troll. At least I'm hoping you're a troll. Otherwise, I'd lose even more faith in humanity.

 

[Comicaze247]

And again, since you seemed to miss the other points I made, and therefore, didn't respond to them, here they are again. Should you fail to make points against them, I'll assume you concede.

such people are to me utterly polarised to my world view...and as far as I am concerned an enemy of man to be suppressed and silenced at every opportunity.

So . . . you don't think people who disagree with you should be allowed to express their beliefs? Why is that?

I absolutely despise dogooder left wing hand wringing libertine attitudes....

Why?

There are no benefits in incest...

As I explained earlier (not that you were actually listening) should a family have a great amount of beneficial genes and no history of defective genes or harmful recessive genes, if they were to have children through incest, they would most likely have children with the same beneficial genetic make-up. How is that not beneficial to the gene pool? And please, actually think about it and answer rather than spout the same response, claiming there are no benefits.

It doesnt matter...legalising incest will make it more difficult to prosecute child abusers.

You still have yet to provide evidence as to how. All you've given us is the slippery slope fallacy.

I Parent/child incestuous relationships (whether consensual or otherwise is irrelevant) are certainly the most damaging in terms of long term psychological health for the child...much evidence supports the fact that incest leaves its victims unable to form healthy sexual relationships suffering from post traumatic stress disorder personality disorders anxiety and depression.

Your argument is moot, in that this is talking about adult children, meaning that they are considered legally capable of making their own decisions.

Legalising incest will make it difficult to prove cases of incestual rape and or ensure maximum sentences are given because perpetrators will likely insist any DNA evidence is the result of consensual incestual sexual activity.

That's not exclusive to incest, and you have yet to provide any actual evidence as to how it actually leads to that.

As for sibling incest the psychological implications there are as far I have ascertained hardly demand that incest be legalised in that they are quite negative much like those of above...

Do you have any examples of cases where incest among adult siblings has been scientifically proven to be psychologically damaging?

II Incest leads to interbreeding and that leads to decreasing fitness of the overall population as more and more people inherit recessive alleles that code for deletrious or dysfunctional causes of inheritable illness.

I've already provided proof that this is false.

Which has to lead to increased health care and social security costs.

How?

III Incest (of any kind, even cousins is overstepping the mark quite frankly) is morally unnacceptable to the Primordial Annihilator...a foul betrayal of trust at its worst..but he accepts that his moral view point is entirely subjective and thus irrational HOWEVER it is a common view held by the majority of humanity.

Again, I've given you proof that this is also false, in that it is subjective to each individual culture and society.

Really, I would love to hear how you respond to these.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Shows just how closed-minded you are and how little you're willing to listen and think. The link was simply taking you to a search page with no results. Seems you're no better than the Christian "sign people."

I did not supply that link..you did...so blame yourself if it doesnt work.

Reading it more fully (now that you've finally provided the full article) it doesn't argue your point that incest should be banned (as your selective quoting tries to convey). It simply argues that banning it completely would violate religious freedom and that education on risks is the better course.

It is already illegal...LOL...it is already banned.
The article I mention cites that Pakistani children born to first cousins are 13 times more likely to inherit genetic conditions...if you cant see what implications that has for very close relatives...such as siblings...then I dont think anymore needs to be said LOL.

So even studies performed by the Human Genetics Commission (whose focus is obviously on genetics) conflict with the statistics provided by your article, which doesn't even state who exactly did the study nor does it state when this study was performed. All it said was "Government-sponsored." Given that I know who did one of the studies, but I don't know who did the other, I'm going to find the study by a group that has been named much more credible. So is it 13x or 2x? I'm sure I know which one you're going to side with.
And if you can't tell by the .gov.uk part of the URL, that's a study from your country as well, so you support it, right?

I will 'side' with ever is the more accurate...but I certainly will not ignore data supplied from either.

Again, you're clearly out of arguments. Even your own "evidence" is weak.

Says you...which frankly means nothing to me.

I also like how you edited that post #142 to remove your "evidence" from 1875 AFTER Mestemia pointed it out and then you pretended it was never there.

As a staff member pointed out...I did not intend to post them in the first place as they were hardly relevant or necessary...so why dont you...yes you know what.

Really, the weakness of your arguments along with your tone make me think that you're just a troll. At least I'm hoping you're a troll. Otherwise, I'd lose even more faith in humanity.

Think what you like...your opinion means nothing to me.