I doubt that. Those are the same people who object to aborting fetuses that could have Down Syndrome.
I don’t think that is the basis for the incest exception. If it’s simply the possibility of genetic abnormalities that justifies abortion, then that same principle should allow abortions if amniotic testing shows the foetus has an actual genetic abnormality, such as Downs. Yet pro-lifers don’t usually agree with abortion in those cases, do they?
Theoretically, an uncle/niece or aunt/nephew marriage is possible in France, but it requires a presidential dispense. I guess this was probably originally intended in case of pregnancy, but I’ve no clue how often such a dispense is granted nowadays or even if it’s ever done.
(And there’s no law against any kind of incest if neither participant is a minor)
I couldn’t find any recent figures (the most recent dating back from the late 50s). There were about 10-20 dispenses granted each year during the 90s, but they include other types of relatives, like a father in law marrying his daughter in law. No clue about uncle-aunt/niece-nephew specifically.
However I discovered two things :
-Germany and Netherlands have both lifted their bans on these marriages (uncle/niece, I mean).
-Not really related, a procedure I was aware of apparently only exists in France (I had assumed it was done in other countries as well) : post-mortem marriages.
Actually, first cousins are 1/8 (12.5%) consanguineous, and uncle-niece etc. is 1/4 (25%).
And to be strictly nitpicky, the vast majority of our DNA is shared among all humans, but I know that’s not what you meant there.
But in one instance, the sex was a choice for both parties. If concerns for genetic abnormalities were so paramount, then the sex that allowed that pregnancy wouldn’t have occurred in the first place, would it? The same can’t be said of the sex that took place for the pregnancy resulting from the rape. That was involuntary sex, on the part of the woman (in this instance). So how can they even be on the same level of “special case”?
OK, now, you can’t just leave this dangling in front of us with no further explanation!
**Moderator Warning
**
jtgain, you’ve been here long enough to know that this kind or gratuitous use of racial slurs is out of place in GQ. If you were so offended by the posts, you should have reported them. This is an official warning. Do not do this again.
Moderator Note
Let’s keep the regional slurs out of GQ too, even if intended as a joke. I’m making this a note instead of a warning because the language is not over the top as in jtgain’s.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I think it’s a calculated convenience. It allows the extremists to get support lot of people who find abortion somewhat disagreeable but not horrible, and certainly think it’s OK for “poor innocent victims”.
Oops sorry, the 3% was second cousins.
I think that religious people who would make the exception for incest would see it as something morally repugnant and totally against God’s law – even more so than adultery or sex outside of marriage. Like rape, they would see it as so deviant that they would be willing to make an exception. The people who engaged in consensual incest would essentially be the equivalent of the rapist – violating a powerful moral taboo. I’m strongly pro-choice, but I can see why someone who was against abortion might make an exception in the case of incest.
It seemed to me it was self-explanatory. In some circumstances, you can be granted a dispense to marry someone who died. In practice (the law itself isn’t that clear, since the dispense is an arbitrary right of the president, like the right of grace), and if I remember correctly, you can get one if :
-You can show that the deceased person unambiguously took steps to marry you
And :
-You had children together or you’re pregnant at the time of death.
If you want weirder (but not officially sanctioned) parents of young men deceased unmarried in China might seek a dead bride for their son. They pay the bride family for that purpose.
Oh, another point: What constitutes “incest” is a legal and cultural thing, not necessarily biological. For instance, a grandparent and grandchild are about equally closely related as an uncle and niece or aunt and nephew, yet some cultures will ban the one but not the other. And some cultures might prohibit some relationships as incestuous despite involving no common blood at all: For instance, Henry VIII’s argument for annulment of his first marriage was that it was incestuous by virtue of his wife being the widow of his brother.
Yes. More generally:
You share 2^(-2k-m-1) DNA with your k’th cousin, m times removed, or 2^(-2k-m-2) if half-cousin.
To apply this for relations closer than cousin, just note that siblings are 0th cousins, and uncles and nieces 0th cousins 1x removed. (To fit the template, a grandparent, I’m afraid, is viewed as a (-1)'th half-cousin twice removed. :smack: )
Yes. The inbreeding disadvantage of incest may not have been understood; the taboos were for other reasons.
Note, BTW, that another such “incest” matter applies to Henry VIII, specifically in connection with his children Henry Carey and Catherine Carey. Some argue that these were probably not Henry’s children because he never openly acknowledged them.
But Henry could not acknowledge them! To do so would be to admit to fornication with Mary Boleyn, which would have provided grounds to annul his marriage to Mary’s sister Anne.
Perhaps the “and incest” part of the exception is to deal with circumstances where you didn’t know it was incest. Say a guy and a girl meet, fall in love and have sex. It isn’t until she brings the guy home to meet her parents that she finds out that he’s her long lost brother!
…well, it could happen…