Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Inbreeding and Accelerated Evolution, prev: Incest, Inbreeding & Evolution

views
     
~lynn~
post Jan 5 2010, 12:07 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
417 posts

Joined: Feb 2009


Erm, anyone of you care to discuss this in another perspective, say in terms of human rights and freedom of choice.

If to look at it, some of the country's constitution did not disallow it. It is deem as legal, but was socially rejected.

Well one of the example (pardon me, I have no link nor proof, but remembered reading an article) was Germany, where the siblings married each other.
~lynn~
post Jan 5 2010, 01:20 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
417 posts

Joined: Feb 2009


QUOTE(lin00b @ Jan 5 2010, 12:33 AM)
does freedom of choice/human right include the freedom/right to marry your own sibling if both party consent?
*
Well if argued in a liberal democractic country where human rights and freedom of choice are of higher priority, the case could be won :/

QUOTE(Mesosmagnet @ Jan 5 2010, 12:52 AM)
this is a link that relates to that particular german sibling couple.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6424337.stm

According to the article only in Sweden is marriage between siblings not illegal. I wonder what the law in Malaysia states.

I would like to read up more about the topic. So if anyone knows any links to research done on this particular topic please leave a link here. Most of the studies I've read only focus on the negative side of inbreeding. And based on the fact that the chances of defectiveness in the offspring increases, it should be highly possible that the chances of getting an extra refined offspring also increases. Right?

And regarding human rights, I feel that our private lives are our own concern and the "state" should not get involved.

One more thing, does anyone know of any case where 2 people with AIDS have children? I am well aware that the child born has an almost 100% possibility of being born with AIDS but I also think that there might be a chance that a child born might be immune to the disease. Any research on that?
*
Correct, I agree on how the states shouldn't intrude into the privacy of a personal choice, more so if both parties consent.
However, one may argue the state has the responsibility to protect its citizen. Thus this comes into play in a premise where the society deems incest and sibling marriage as a taboo. Dire repercussions may follow suit if it is allowed.
~lynn~
post Jan 7 2010, 04:12 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
417 posts

Joined: Feb 2009


QUOTE(thesupertramp @ Jan 5 2010, 10:01 PM)
I don't think the HIV status of the father matters. The child contracts the virus mostly through the mother's blood as the virus passes through the placenta. The only way the father can pass on the virus to the baby is if he infects the mother, and the mother infects the baby. In other words, sperm does not carry the virus. I'm talking sperm cells here, not semen. Semen does. Be safe.

As for statistics, it is not 100%. According to this study:
Vertical transmission rates for HIV in the British Isles: estimates based on surveillance data. British Medical Journal Nov 6, 1999, v319 i7219, p1227

The rate is 20% with normal birth for pregnant ladies not on Anti-Retrovirals. Cesarean is higher at 32%. With Anti-Retrovirals, the rate drops to 2% and 4% respectively. Of course, there are also some who contract the virus within 6 months of birth from breast-feeding.

Be mindful these statistics are from one particular population, so might not be representative of all humans.
As far as I'm concerned, anti-HIV antibodies are ineffective against the virus. So even if it was passed on from the mother, I doubt the baby will have immunity.

Hope that helped.

EDIT: sucky grammar.
*
Helpful statistics, but I don't see how relevant it becomes to the discussion of incest. smile.gif

QUOTE(hurrr @ Jan 6 2010, 07:43 AM)
was not the whole population of the world started from inbreeding?

how did adam and eve was able to copulate and eventually populate the world with 6 billion people?
*
So, if I'm a non-believer i.e. aetheist, your argument falls?

More importantly, looking at the essense of your argument, just because (assuming that it does happen) they practice such act in the past, it should be allowed now?
I find it illogical because then by your logic, shouldn't canabalism be allowed since, well, it was practiced last time no?
Vice versa, long ago women has no rights. Perhaps then by your logic women should be chained to the home (or how some would say, specifically kitchen).
~lynn~
post Jan 7 2010, 09:30 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
417 posts

Joined: Feb 2009


QUOTE(Mesosmagnet @ Jan 7 2010, 05:33 PM)
Funny how everyone keeps insisting that our recessive genes are more likely to bring harm rather than good.

I'm not saying that they don't bring about harmful traits, but that's the way nature works. Go through a huge bunch of combination until it comes up with a good one to proceed on. Or am I wrong?

Another point to ponder on.. if inbreeding is bad.. then why are we not mating with apes? Humans all in some way related to each other, so we should not be mating among ourselves. And if you go back to a time when there were only a few humans, it is very very obvious that inbreeding did take place, and that is what probably allowed each ethnicity to develop unique likenesses to suit the way of life and environment. eg. Those in sunny countries developed skin to survive in such an environment, people in cold developed sharper noses to be able to breathe in colder air without damaging their inner nasal cavities. If we really look at each ethnicity unique feature we can clearly see evolution. Which very likely would not be present if we continually resisted inbreeding.

I look forward to a rebuttal statement. ^^

EDIT: thanks for the reading material. After reading that I would like to point out that the inbreeding that is being discussed here is not selective inbreeding, as in we do not get to choose which to keep which to be rid of, but rather let nature be the judge of what to keep and what to be rid of. And obviously I am not suggesting that we should ONLY practice inbreeding, as other humans also posses traits that makes a super elite human. And by incorporating them by cross breeding and removing unwanted genes through inbreeding the human race is likely to progress through evolution much faster. =P
*
Well if there's anyone who's willing and choose to mate with an ape, I don't see why not. It is that person's personal choice and freedom to do so.
However, the thought that anyone who find an ape attractive and is turned on by it is rather disturbing.
But then again, there's nothing new I suppose. After all, there are people marrying their pillow/videogame character.

Are there any law that forbids one from mating with animal? Maybe there is. Unnatural sex perhaps?

QUOTE(thesupertramp @ Jan 7 2010, 06:49 PM)
Did you read the question that was asked? I was answering a question, not discussing incest. If you have a problem with that, you should have asked why was that question asked in this thread.
*
Okay.

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0178sec    0.29    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 26th November 2025 - 01:32 AM