Discussion Forums > The Lounge
Incest
Soulreaper77:
--- Quote from: Sosseres on October 23, 2010, 06:51:46 PM ---
--- Quote from: Soulreaper77 on October 23, 2010, 10:40:26 AM ---
--- Quote from: tomoya-kun on October 23, 2010, 05:50:20 AM ---
--- Quote from: Xenoran on October 22, 2010, 10:57:44 PM ---*adding to my who cents*
And whether most people like it or not we are in a (well most of us) are in a civilized world and to me this isn't very civilized. Although this is just my opinion and i am simply expressing it. (also goes against my beliefs in the bible and god) but lets not bring religion into this because i really do hate religion (theres a differance between believing and being a crazy religious crusader person who breaks down doors and shoves shit down peoples throughts) /sidenote lol i got off topic sorry
--- End quote ---
Allowing freedom of choice in partners is something civilized, is it not?
--- End quote ---
Yes, but with that you're also allowing the retardation of their children. Whereas with normal partner choice that is 80% preventable. So would you knowingly want to give a child an mental handicap because you love your freedom so much?
--- End quote ---
Incest = retarded children? Proof?
--- End quote ---
Inbreeding = higher chance on genetic diseases or if you don't believe me Coefficient of relationship and Inbreeding. Now let's say the mother has a recessive gene which causes Huntington (or any other disease) and she gets kids. The kids now both have that recessive gene. If the brother and the sister decide to produce offspring then there is a 25% chance that any one of their kids has the recessive gene twice and thus getting the disease. If two strangers produce offspring then there is very little chance that any of their children will get the actual disease, they may become a carrier but that's as far it will go.
As for the list of diseases that have a way higher chance of occurring with inbreeding and cause mental retardation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanconi_anemia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberous_sclerosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactosemia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelman_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cri_du_chat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisomy_18
I bet there are more than just these. Some are very rare 1/350000 people and some are as common as 1/3000 people. Now when inbreeding you raise the chance of all these diseases to considerable levels. And while it doesn't always happen I wouldn't want anybody to take the risk.
tomoya-kun:
--- Quote from: Soulreaper77 on October 23, 2010, 06:45:18 PM ---
--- Quote from: TightMuffin on October 23, 2010, 06:38:36 PM ---
--- Quote from: Soulreaper77 on October 23, 2010, 10:40:26 AM ---
--- Quote from: tomoya-kun on October 23, 2010, 05:50:20 AM ---
--- Quote from: Xenoran on October 22, 2010, 10:57:44 PM ---*adding to my who cents*
And whether most people like it or not we are in a (well most of us) are in a civilized world and to me this isn't very civilized. Although this is just my opinion and i am simply expressing it. (also goes against my beliefs in the bible and god) but lets not bring religion into this because i really do hate religion (theres a differance between believing and being a crazy religious crusader person who breaks down doors and shoves shit down peoples throughts) /sidenote lol i got off topic sorry
--- End quote ---
Allowing freedom of choice in partners is something civilized, is it not?
--- End quote ---
Yes, but with that you're also allowing the retardation of their children. Whereas with normal partner choice that is 80% preventable. So would you knowingly want to give a child an mental handicap because you love your freedom so much?
--- End quote ---
If that's the case, wouldn't we be better off not letting anyone but geniuses breed? In a few generations we'd surely reap great benefits from this.
--- End quote ---
Stupidity is not equal to a mental handicap. Besides intelligence is not gene based. Even the most idiotic parents can bore a genius on the level of Newton.
--- End quote ---
Two parents of higher intelligence are more likely to create an intelligent child. if we really wanted to make our population smarter, we would sterilize all the stupid people.
Soulreaper77:
--- Quote from: tomoya-kun on October 23, 2010, 09:05:37 PM ---
--- Quote from: Soulreaper77 on October 23, 2010, 06:45:18 PM ---
--- Quote from: TightMuffin on October 23, 2010, 06:38:36 PM ---
--- Quote from: Soulreaper77 on October 23, 2010, 10:40:26 AM ---
--- Quote from: tomoya-kun on October 23, 2010, 05:50:20 AM ---
--- Quote from: Xenoran on October 22, 2010, 10:57:44 PM ---*adding to my who cents*
And whether most people like it or not we are in a (well most of us) are in a civilized world and to me this isn't very civilized. Although this is just my opinion and i am simply expressing it. (also goes against my beliefs in the bible and god) but lets not bring religion into this because i really do hate religion (theres a differance between believing and being a crazy religious crusader person who breaks down doors and shoves shit down peoples throughts) /sidenote lol i got off topic sorry
--- End quote ---
Allowing freedom of choice in partners is something civilized, is it not?
--- End quote ---
Yes, but with that you're also allowing the retardation of their children. Whereas with normal partner choice that is 80% preventable. So would you knowingly want to give a child an mental handicap because you love your freedom so much?
--- End quote ---
If that's the case, wouldn't we be better off not letting anyone but geniuses breed? In a few generations we'd surely reap great benefits from this.
--- End quote ---
Stupidity is not equal to a mental handicap. Besides intelligence is not gene based. Even the most idiotic parents can bore a genius on the level of Newton.
--- End quote ---
Two parents of higher intelligence are more likely to create an intelligent child. if we really wanted to make our population smarter, we would sterilize all the stupid people.
--- End quote ---
No, there is no proof that genetics play a part in a person's intelligence level. There are genetic disorders that disorder one's intelligence level, such as Down's Syndrome. But that's as far as it goes.
A kid raised by more intelligent parents will be more intelligent himself, if he likes it or not. Intelligent parents expose the child to different vocabulary (as in they use more difficult wording to say something), they plan activities normal or stupid parents wouldn't (like trips to science museums or art galleries instead of a theme park) and they most likely teach their child in the subjects they already receive at school. They also press the child more to do his homework and to play less.
But this all doesn't mean that stupid parents can't get an intelligent child. I've seen it happen. The smartest guy at my school had parents who had the lowest kind of degree you can get here, probably something that's on the level of an crafts school. He went on to a university to do mechanical engineering, which is a pretty high level field I think.
IMO it all depends on how you decide to raise your child. Do you choose to let him/her play or study? Do you care about whether he/she will succeed or not? Do you actively try to convince your child to seek out more intelligent activities? That sort of thing. Until there is concrete proof that a person's intelligence level is in fact based on genes for a major part I will stand by this.
x5ga:
--- Quote from: Soulreaper77 on October 23, 2010, 07:34:23 PM ---
--- Quote from: Sosseres on October 23, 2010, 06:51:46 PM ---
--- Quote from: Soulreaper77 on October 23, 2010, 10:40:26 AM ---
--- Quote from: tomoya-kun on October 23, 2010, 05:50:20 AM ---
--- Quote from: Xenoran on October 22, 2010, 10:57:44 PM ---*adding to my who cents*
And whether most people like it or not we are in a (well most of us) are in a civilized world and to me this isn't very civilized. Although this is just my opinion and i am simply expressing it. (also goes against my beliefs in the bible and god) but lets not bring religion into this because i really do hate religion (theres a differance between believing and being a crazy religious crusader person who breaks down doors and shoves shit down peoples throughts) /sidenote lol i got off topic sorry
--- End quote ---
Allowing freedom of choice in partners is something civilized, is it not?
--- End quote ---
Yes, but with that you're also allowing the retardation of their children. Whereas with normal partner choice that is 80% preventable. So would you knowingly want to give a child an mental handicap because you love your freedom so much?
--- End quote ---
Incest = retarded children? Proof?
--- End quote ---
Inbreeding = higher chance on genetic diseases or if you don't believe me Coefficient of relationship and Inbreeding. Now let's say the mother has a recessive gene which causes Huntington (or any other disease) and she gets kids. The kids now both have that recessive gene. If the brother and the sister decide to produce offspring then there is a 25% chance that any one of their kids has the recessive gene twice and thus getting the disease. If two strangers produce offspring then there is very little chance that any of their children will get the actual disease, they may become a carrier but that's as far it will go.
As for the list of diseases that have a way higher chance of occurring with inbreeding and cause mental retardation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanconi_anemia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberous_sclerosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactosemia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelman_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cri_du_chat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisomy_18
I bet there are more than just these. Some are very rare 1/350000 people and some are as common as 1/3000 people. Now when inbreeding you raise the chance of all these diseases to considerable levels. And while it doesn't always happen I wouldn't want anybody to take the risk.
--- End quote ---
Well, while I do agree that with inbreeding you'll get children who'll probably have an autosomal recessive disease, the risks of developing Angelman, Cri-du-chat and Edward's disease (trisomy 18) are most likely the same, since the first one is related to genetic imprinting, the second is a deletion which usually appears spontaneously and the third one is a numeric anomaly (3 copies of the 18th chromosome instead of 2). Also, tuberous sclerosis is autosomal dominant, so it's not a good example because at least one of the parents manifests symptoms, and his/her baby will have the same risk of inheriting the disease - the other parent doesn't matter (unless he/she also suffers from the disease, then the risk is at least doubled).
Fanconi anemia and Galactosemia are Autosomal recessive diseases and inbred children have a much bigger chance of inheriting them, though Fanconi Anemia does not usually cause mental retardation (it only increases the risk of developing cancers, since an enzyme involved in DNA repairing is damaged/absent) and Galactosemia only causes brain damage if it is not diagnosed at birth (and there's a quick screening available for it) and/or if the child does not follow the recommended diet (no food containing galactose or galactose compounds).
EDIT: forgot to say this: with autosomal recessive diseases, mental retardation is your least concern. Survival should be the first one. These are usually metabolic diseases (usually lack of an enzyme, or the replacement of an enzyme with a defective/abnormal version of it) that screw up everything in your body. With Tay-Sachs you die when you're 5y.o. (on average). With Niemann-Pick you die after living for 1.5y up to 12-14y, depending of the subtype of the disease. And don't even google images of babies born with Harlequin-type Ichthyosis, you won't sleep well at night. Of course, there are autosomal recessive disorders that cause mental retardation (MORM syndrome, Kapur-Toriello syndrome... etc), but you'll have bigger problems that being a bit dumb.
Soulreaper77:
--- Quote from: x5ga on October 23, 2010, 10:03:02 PM ---
--- Quote from: Soulreaper77 on October 23, 2010, 07:34:23 PM ---
--- Quote from: Sosseres on October 23, 2010, 06:51:46 PM ---Incest = retarded children? Proof?
--- End quote ---
Inbreeding = higher chance on genetic diseases or if you don't believe me Coefficient of relationship and Inbreeding. Now let's say the mother has a recessive gene which causes Huntington (or any other disease) and she gets kids. The kids now both have that recessive gene. If the brother and the sister decide to produce offspring then there is a 25% chance that any one of their kids has the recessive gene twice and thus getting the disease. If two strangers produce offspring then there is very little chance that any of their children will get the actual disease, they may become a carrier but that's as far it will go.
(click to show/hide)As for the list of diseases that have a way higher chance of occurring with inbreeding and cause mental retardation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanconi_anemia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberous_sclerosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactosemia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelman_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cri_du_chat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisomy_18
I bet there are more than just these. Some are very rare 1/350000 people and some are as common as 1/3000 people. Now when inbreeding you raise the chance of all these diseases to considerable levels. And while it doesn't always happen I wouldn't want anybody to take the risk.
--- End quote ---
Well, while I do agree that with inbreeding you'll get children who'll probably have an autosomal recessive disease, the risks of developing Angelman, Cri-du-chat and Edward's disease (trisomy 18) are most likely the same, since the first one is related to genetic imprinting, the second is a deletion which usually appears spontaneously and the third one is a numeric anomaly (3 copies of the 18th chromosome instead of 2). Also, tuberous sclerosis is autosomal dominant, so it's not a good example because at least one of the parents manifests symptoms, and his/her baby will have the same risk of inheriting the disease - the other parent doesn't matter (unless he/she also suffers from the disease, then the risk is at least doubled).
Fanconi anemia and Galactosemia are Autosomal recessive diseases and inbred children have a much bigger chance of inheriting them, though Fanconi Anemia does not usually cause mental retardation (it only increases the risk of developing cancers, since an enzyme involved in DNA repairing is damaged/absent) and Galactosemia only causes brain damage if it is not diagnosed at birth (and there's a quick screening available for it) and/or if the child does not follow the recommended diet (no food containing galactose or galactose compounds).
--- End quote ---
Ok I may have chosen some bad examples but that's because I'm no doctor or geneticist but my point still stands. Even if the disease itself doesn't directly causes retardation then just having it will cause it as the child won't be able to fully concentrate on education, or even concentrate at all. And if the future children can't concentrate on education then all the higher educated people will disappear and thus society becomes stupid.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version