Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (28752)	2/10/2004 8:40:06 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793917

All you have to do is check the history of royal families. I understand that. I am not questioning the notion that inbreeding is detrimental to progeny, although, for the royal families, it was generations of inbreeding that caused their problems, not a single marriage, and a single coupling of relatives is not all that likely to be particularly problematic. What I'm asking is why we single out that particular genetic problem for special treatment in our law and why it really matters. Even if we don't allow the brother and sister to marry, we have no way to stop them from producing offspring. We have genetic problems every bit as serious as theirs that we allow. We enthusiastically produce babies much more defective than the defects of a child of one intra-family coupling. In that context, what warrants making a big deal out of changing the law to simply be silent on the subject of siblings marrying? Or alternatively, how about a law that proscribes the marriage of any couple with genetic problems, not just that one?