The Right to Parent

neandermagnon said:

Kuwisdelu - apologies from me as well for the thread derail. I have something on-topic to post in a little while. I think this is a very important thread you've made and it's very thought provoking and I just wanted to provided a biological explanation of the above as I think it's important for people to understand what's going on when long lost relatives meet and fall in love.

Click to expand...

The derail veered straight for the morality issue of close-genetic-relation sexual contact, when my original question was actually intended to address the biology issue in this -

sunandshadow said:

...and also they have to be completely unrelated because of a horror of possible unhealthy incest babies <snip> I feel that whether people are genetically related is no business of any government or religion when it come to sex, love, marriage, or children.

Click to expand...

Neandermagnon's post has gone a long way towards diagramming that, so thank you.

As far as the specific limiting of the issue to that of first cousins, and the dangers of their having children being on par with smoking during pregnancy, I'm not sure where that came from. "Unhealthy incest babies" did prompt my question, but did not invoke a particular subset of close-relation procreation. Not sure how that happened. So, sorry about that.

I'm not sure how to respond or react to thread elements #23 and #24 but I will do my best. I'm a scientist myself but I'm a geologist not a biologist. Should I choose to, I could pull up scientific data that questions global warming and climate change but I won't. The point I'm trying to make is that certain topics have become so politicized, so charged with political correctness that it is impossible to have rational conversations on those topics. Examples of such topics would include gun control, Roe vs, Wade, legalized drugs, legalized same sex relationships, etc. Anyone who questions any of these areas and wants to revisit and discuss them again is suspect and accused of being out of step. I believe what we have here is something that has not reached this level but on its way because we now have scientists telling us to consider the facts that it exists in the Animal Kingdom and has been a part of human history for thousands of years so maybe we should rethink our attitude toward incest. Murder, rape, and war have been a part of human history as well and I would question anyone that would tell me that we should accept those things as a part of society. I think the reference to Queen Victoria marrying a cousin and thus committing incest and making it socially acceptable is a ridiculous argument given the fact that it was an arranged marriage. That marriage was more of a business arrangement than an intimate relationship that would have culminated in them running off to Vegas together.

As a scientist, I'll be the first to say that science doesn't have all the answers and that scientists are not always right. For example, in the early 20th century psychologists blamed the mothers of autistic children and accused them of not being emotionally close to their young. Prior to the 1970s, the American Psychological Association (the AMA) classified homosexuality as a sexual deviancy. I'm certain that all can agree that these early scientific ideas were way off the mark and happily put out of their misery. The thought of an incesteous relationship being considered normal or acceptable because of a few scientific observations will most likely die on the vine as the future unfolds. The bottom line is that not a single western country or civilized country accepts incest or regards incest as normal acceptable behavior.

Having explained my position on this issue I am done with this thread. Relationships and parenting are concepts based on love and not political correctness. Just because a politician tells you its legal doesn't necessarily make it right. If it doesn't feel right in your heart and soul then don't do it.

realityfix said:

I think the reference to Queen Victoria marrying a cousin and thus committing incest and making it socially acceptable is a ridiculous argument given the fact that it was an arranged marriage. That marriage was more of a business arrangement than an intimate relationship that would have culminated in them running off to Vegas together.

Click to expand...

Also, bouncing off of the awesome point made by Kuwi, you're showing such a mentality while being historically inaccurate. Victoria was known to have been deeply in love with Albert from the start, the source of this assertion being autheticated documents written in her own hand at the time of their meeting and after. Furthermore, Albert is known to not have been her only choice. Victoria chose Albert, even, or so the rumor goes, was the one to propose to him. And even if you had been right, Victoria's love of Albert was a known quanity. Whether it came before or after the marriage is immaterial to the strength of her feelings for him.

realityfix said:

I think the reference to Queen Victoria marrying a cousin and thus committing incest and making it socially acceptable is a ridiculous argument given the fact that it was an arranged marriage. That marriage was more of a business arrangement than an intimate relationship that would have culminated in them running off to Vegas together. concepts based on love and not political correctness. Just because a politician tells you its legal doesn't necessarily make it right. If it doesn't feel right in your heart and soul then don't do it.

Click to expand...

Bullshit.

I've read their letters. They were clearly in love, and were very happily in love to the point that Victoria was devastated by Albert's death.

Part of the point of referring to Victoria was that cousins marrying each other has been legal for centuries in the UK.

The other part of the point was that the fact that they were, I believe double first cousins, is reflected in the various genetic disorders experienced by their descendants.

Biologically speaking, most interbred offspring don't survive to be born if they inherit negative recessives.

But when they do, in humans, they often express undesired traits like hemophilia.

I realize you've got personal issues. They're nothing to do with QUILTBAG though.

And you're done derailing this thread.

kuwisdelu said:

That line would definitely bother me, and I imagine it would bother many queer and adoptive fathers as well. You can remove that sentence completely and the conversation still reads naturally and makes perfect sense without it.

Click to expand...

Thank you for picking that up... I didn't mean it that way at all but can see now how it's a big problem. Will axe it.

What I meant to do was highlight the difference between the role of a fertility doctor and being a father and that previously he didn't think of himself as being Carl's father - but you're 100% right DNA isn't what the difference is. I'll probably just axe the line anyway because everyone knows from the context what they're talking about.

I could be wrong, but I doubt his expertise as a fertility doctor and presumably geneticist would overlap greatly with solving the surgical and immunological difficulties of successful uterus transplants.

Click to expand...

You're not wrong - AFAIK transplant medicine would be a different specialism. However, I was thinking more along the lines of pregnancy without a uterus which is a different area of research, albeit less promising due to the high risks involved. That would be more of an obstetrician's specialism, although there's a big crossover between obstetrics and fertility medicine. I'm not 100% sure how the specialisms work, now you mention it.

It might be more realistic if he pioneered making fertility treatments for trans men more accessible, since that's probably more in his area (and would likely give him a wider definition of fatherhood than he seems to have now).

Click to expand...

He never had such a narrow definition of fatherhood... that was just very thoughtless, insensitive wording on my part.

Another option would be if he pioneered methods for cis men and trans women to create eggs and for cis women and trans men to create sperm, which would help same-sex cis couples as well as trans people in heterosexual relationships.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. I've not come across that actual research before and it's definitely more in line with what he'd be researching and practicing. I'll probably go with something along these lines

Thank you again very greatly appreciated

Sorry to contribute to the derail, but I'll note you can totally marry your first cousin quite legally in New Jersey. In fact, my ex's brother ended up marrying their cousin (for a couple of years) when they were both in their late 50s.