437
NHS defends cousin marriages because ‘only 15 percent lead to birth defects’ (www.yahoo.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
124 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Midwives have been told about the benefits of “close relative marriage” in training documents that minimise the risks to couples’ children.

The documents claim “85 to 90 per cent of cousin couples do not have affected children” and warn staff that “close relative marriage is often stigmatised in England”, adding claims that “the associated genetic risks have been exaggerated”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30 points 9 months ago (9 children)

Devils advocate: I have a genetic defect that has 50% chance of being passed to my children. It causes bone tumors that range from stetic to life changing.

We only managed to ensure it wasn't with expensive DNA tests pre - implantation.

Should I be barred from marriage if I can't pay for that?

It's not a hypothetical

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 9 months ago* (6 children)

    Not sure what marriage has to do with it in either case tbh. The cousinfuckers can have babies without getting married and so can you lol

    But I do understand your point. It's an ethical dilemma and not a simple one. I mean on a policy level. I imagine on a personal level it's easier to say "the risk is too great, I won't do it" as opposed to policymakers saying "the risk is too great, you shouldn't be allowed to have children"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    I'm just following that logic, I made a similar comment about marriage =! Children

    https://lemmy.world/comment/21642724

    For me this is a good thing (remove the restriction). I would love the message to be more of support rather then "well, some will have defects" though

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Oh I didn't disagree with you. I'm just wondering why tf they're talking about marriage anyway. In this day and age, I think most babies are born out of wedlock.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    In this day and age, I think most babies are born out of wedlock.

    Around 40% in the US.

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/out-of-wedlock-births-by-country

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Do you think it's (morally) right for you to have kids that you know would have a 50% chance to have bone tumors?

    Sex bans are generally not workable. A marriage ban for you would be restrictive. This is very different for cousins, because there's plenty of non-cousin alternatives for everyone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    The worse question is, is it more morally rightful for me to have children when I can afford the test that ensured he wasn't affected versus those who can't afford it? Does wealth and access make me rightful?

    I don't think marriage bans are OK in general. Consenting adults can do whatever they want. Hell, let's bring polynomy forward too (but I'm not sure how consent would work there). As a matter of fact, I'm not even married so restriction or not didn't matter

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent