Whille inspired by this thread, I don’t want to talk just to incest. I’m more interested in broadening the discussion to include all couples who, because of their genetic make-up, have a high chance of producing handicapped children.
If genetic defect due to inbreeding is the main justification behind incest laws, why shouldn’t the state be concerned about the riskiness of other procreative acts? Why should two 1st-cousins be restricted from marriage, while carriers of Huntington’s disease or Sickle Cell anemia are given a pass? This family has six autistic children. If the parents were siblings, most of us would be outraged, but because they are unrelated they evoke more sympathy. If they were to have another child, knowing what they know about their own DNA, wouldn’t they be just as irresponsible as someone having a child while drug addicted?
With our knowledge of the genome increasing by the day, it seems very likely that one day we will be able to detect all of our troublesome alleles. We may get savvy enough so that we can select gametes with the smallest number of these genes (or do more sophisticated manipulations), but at the very least one day we will be able to profile ourselves and find out, from a list of the top 10 most common genetic conditions, which ones we carry. Should this be the case, will the state feel compelled to get involved in this process (i.e., requiring a profile to get a marriage certificate)? And if so, will it have valid justification? IMHO, it does to a limited degree, but I can also see the many downsides.
I don’t know about bad genes. But I sure wish you could pick from a catalogue of characteristics. I went to a lot of trouble to marry a guy with perfect teeth*, and whose teeth did my kids get? Four out of five got my. bad. teeth. Why why why? If I could have screened that out, believe me I would have.
The other one got his father’s teeth and he’s happy and orthodontist-free.
The “perfect obedient child” gene also came down via his side, and only one of them got it.
I do have some good points, honest I do. I think.
*At the time I met him, straight perfect teeth, no cavities, no orthodontia. Now, 35 years later, he’s had one bad tooth. Cavity + root canal. That is it.
Me? Filings in every tooth, just about, by the time I was in my mid-teens, years of orthodontia, retainer for life (which I didn’t do).
I can’t argue with the logic in the OP. The problem, I think, is that most people really aren’t concerned primarily with incest related genetic defects. They think they’re against incest because of potential genetic defects, but it’s really the ick factor. If it weren’t, then they’d propose banning marriage (and sex) of and/or between partners at risk of producing genetic defects. Personally, I have no problem with legalizing incest. The increased risk is minimal, and there is natural tendency to avoid it anyway. n.b.: I’m talking about sex between consenting adults, not child abuse (which is often the case with incestual relationships).
See, that’s the thing… it’s just such a slippery slope. Once to gov’t starts telling you whether or with whom you can mate… there’s a real challenge knowing where it will stop.
And something as fundamental as sex… most consider that a right - so long as it isn’t molestation or rape.
The best counter arguments I have heard are that in the event that things go south - or don’t - it leaves a person with a confusing family structure and seems likely to result in more shredded homes. Additionally, we aren’t saying they CAN’T have sex or have kids - just not with each other.
I know you are avoiding the incest topic - wisely, I think. Even so… it’s one facet in this discussion.
I can say I feel annoyed any time a person knows full well that if they have children that there are high odds of difficulties - and has them anyhow. Especially when they want a litter instead of a kid.
High cancer, mental disease, and heart disease rates would seem to be easy picks. Eyesight? Bad teeth, as mentioned above? Acne? Extreme shortness? (maybe under 4’0 for women, 4’6" for men?) How about moderate shortness? (say, 4’6" and 5’0"?) What about plain old ugliness?
For that matter, why stop at identifying bad pairs- why not just sterilize individuals with bad genes? That would be a million times simpler, (no hyperbole there, when you consider how many possible partners would have to be eliminated for each person) and it’d be even more effective in removing undesirable genes from the population.
In checking the population for bad genes, you’re bound to find that particular groups are more likely than others to have bad genes. Not to Godwinize the thread, but Jews, a relatively insular group for most of the last three or four thousand years, have a high instance of Tay-Sach’s disease. If that seems a little too Nazi-like, consider the Amish, who have high instances of several diseases, such as Ellis-van Creveld syndrome. Even if you didn’t put a blanket ban on these groups and continued the same person-by-person judgment process, you’d still be oppressing them by holding back the population from growth in common with the rest of the world…
Where do you draw the line? James Madison, in writing about a proposed establishment of Christianity as a state church (a very popular idea at the time), said “That the same authority that can call for each citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of only one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment, in all cases whatsoever?” I, for one, don’t want to give the government the power to prevent offspring from anyone- if they can draw the line somewhere, they can draw it anywhere- better to not allow the line to be drawn at all.
Phew, that was easy. I don’t think governments should have the power - or people should have the power over each other - to determine what genes are bad and which are acceptable. This isn’t even something that should be prevented because of the slippery slope potential: this IS the slope. Whenever people start playing this game it becomes a disaster.
I don’t see the government ever really stepping in in terms of regulations, but I could see the use of goverment-sponsored public health messaging designed to persuade people to profile their genes and undergo reproductive counseling. It would be kind of like what we do with mammographies, Pap smears, and colonoscopies.
And honestly, I’d see nothing wrong with it. As long as the focus was on disease prevention and not on tinkering with genes so that all your male offspring have 12 inch kiellbasas, then I don’t see the ethical problem here.
It’s like saying we shouldn’t entrust the government to punish criminals because what’s stopping it from going after innocents. Yes, the government can go overboard, but it could go overboard with anything. That’s why the citizenry needs to be ever watchful and diligent.
Do you think the government should look the other way if an alcoholic mother produces one child after another with fetal alcohol syndrome? What about a crack or meth-addicted mother, or one who has children knowing that she has HIV? If these children are going to be burdens of the state, either through foster care or Medicare, then doesn’t the state have an obligation to the tax payer to see to it that their numbers are as small as possible? If you say yes, then why shouldn’t we be held accountable in a similar fashion for the genetic time bombs we knowingly carry?
I understand the eugenic fears, and I’m personally skeeved out by the idea of the government snooping around, looking for genetic “dirt” on people. I also appreciate that one person’s “hopelessly handicapped” is another person’s “special pillow angel”. But I don’t pretend that there would be no benefits to society, as well as individuals, if we were able to screen out certain genotypes. Within our lifetimes, I think it’s probable that we will see public service announcements encouraging genetic profiling. It won’t seem so ooky then when everyone is doing it.
No, because historically, that sort of thing hasn’t turned out well. It makes sense in the abstract, but when actually implemented, the people targeted won’t be those with bad genes, but who are politically unpopular. Tens of thousands of people were sterilized in the United States, especially pre-WWII, for such reasons as being poor or black. Often by force, or without being told - they’d find out decades later that their “free appendectomy” had been a sterilization.
That’s an amazing assertion, but even if it’s true I’m not sure it has much impact on the discussion. Can you provide an example where a program meant to prevent inbreeding or genetic disease inheritence turned into an excuse to sterilize poor people or minorities?
There are plenty of examples or forced sterilization of politically undesireable people, but I’m not aware of any that began in the same way the original post described.
The thing about incest is the same with statutory rape laws and laws against teachers having sex with students.
The laws might be sold to the lowest common denominator with the ‘ick’ factor, but it is sold to most of us as a way of preventing coercion and sexual exploitation by people who are seen to be in power. The thread linked in the OP was about a father and daughter who first met when she was in her thirties, so I think in this case, incest is perfectly fine.
But the majority of the time, if a daughter is having sex with the father, there is probably some manipulation and exploitation there, if not many other issues. I don’t believe in zero tolerance here; I think we should take these relationships on a case-by-case basis, along with statutory rape and other illegal sexual relationships. But I still think the laws should stay on the books, and I’m not motivated by genetics or “ick”.
I’m too tired for a more detailed search, so I’ll point you to the Wiki page on the subject. I don’t see why it’s an “amazing” assertion, considering all the other things we’ve done.
For me, I say no with the specific exception of incest. I think if couples choose to get genetic counseling, and decide not to have children, that is their choice. But for there to be laws, would mean the Goverments would have our DNA information, and I don’t want that. With incest, it is different. They are related, and the chances are increased of having offspring with birth defects. That doesn’t mean I don’t think it is unethical for a couple to continue trying to have children, once they find out their offspring likely will have serious, life threatening problems from birth. (ETA: I do think it is unethical, but it is their call.) But, I don’t think there should be a law against it because that would be letting the camel’s head into the tent.
Personally, I can see a good argument for knowingly and deliberately putting your children at a much higher risk for a deadly or debilitating genetic disease being morally no different from knowing you have HIV and deliberately putting your sexual partners at risk of infection.
That’s a really hard line to draw, though. Literally everyone has genetic defects, so I can’t see a reasonable way to prevent a program (not necessarily forced sterilization, but possibly criminalization instead) from being abused.
I agree. But if an informed choice can be made as to whether one has an able-bodied or disabled child, is it not an infringement of the child’s liberties to lumber it with a disadvantage?
In this BBC Radio 4 interview , the interviewee is defending the decision to select a deaf embryo above a hearing one:
You would have a point if someone was talking about killing disabled people. And you could turn this trite statement around and say that parents have a right to have normal children. Where’s the proof for either sentiment?
Even if we had government-induced genetic counseling, we’ll still have plenty of disabled people in our society. The process wouldn’t detect everything, and you’d still have disabilities due to developmental abnormalities and accidents.