Inbreeding

[Sorrowgrave]

This is personal opinion here based on science

 

I am against inbreeding because i think the risk is simply not worth it. You risk offspring for your own selfish benifit.

as for the argument of it might happen anyway, this is true, which is why my boyfriend and i will be having genetic screenings when the time comes. but it is more likely to happen if you inbreed

 

and if inbreeding became socially acceptable, the rate of inbreeding would skyrocket and these disorders would skyrocket as well. We have enough issues with genetic disorders as it is, we do not need to be increasing the risk.

 

and as for animals, inbreeding happens, but nowhere near as often as people seem to belive. take lions for example, the alpha male in the group can change monthly. Also, in the WILD, in NATURE, animals with genetic disorders simply DIE they do not survive and thus don't get the chance to pass on the genetice disorders because it killed them.

 

SO back to domestic animals. it is in domestic animals you really see the effects inbreeding on modern society can have.

honestly seeing as i don't have google i can't find links right now. but in the past i was researching dog breeds in interest of looking for a pet of my own. due to the mass of issues these dogs can get thanks to past inbreeding (happens much less these days) i have decided against ever getting a pure breed dog.

 

why do mutts live longer? one of the reasons is they are less likely to be inbred in the past. of course there are other reasons as well such as the fact that specifically selected traits (pugs squasheed face) are detrimental the the animals health in pure breeds. but the fact still remains that inbreeding has contributed to the purebreds shorter life span

 

Now let also look at that 4% chance. doesn't seem big really does it. now think of how many people actually live in this world... how many genetic disorders there are right now in perfectly normal non inbreed couples. theres a lot isn't there... imagine if we all started inbreed ing and increased the chances...

 

Scientist don't think small scale when they say stuff like this is bad. a one in a million chance is very high considering theres billions of people populating this earth

who says if it's accepted it'll increase dramatically?

 

All that accepting it will do is keep children with their parents and STOP people from being put in prison because their related to their lover.

 

How many people would sleep with their mother or sister JUST BECAUSE there wasn't a stigma attached to it?

Edited December 31, 2011 by Sorrowgrave

[Keriel]

who says if it's accepted it'll increase dramatically?

 

All that accepting it will do is keep children with their parents and STOP people from being put in prison because their related to their lover.

 

How many people would sleep with their mother or sister JUST BECAUSE there wasn't a stigma attached to it?

not sure how to respond to this without seeming sarcastic or insulting sorry.

 

it will increase. just the same as gay relationships have increased as that has become more socially acceptable. (not against gay relationships)

 

i am against inbreeding. if you wish to have a realation with someone in your family and not have kids, i am not against it. i admit it weirds me out, but i am not against it. it's the kids that result from inbreeding i worry about.

 

edits thanks to dodgy keyboard

Edited December 31, 2011 by Keriel

[Sorrowgrave]

that's my biggest problem,

 

sure there's an increased risk of genetic disorder, but no more than if two people with genetic disorders themselves met and married.

 

would you stop someone with Autism from marrying a blind/deaf/ or mute and or any other genetic defeat because there's a high risk their children would have both?

[Keriel]

the chances of genetic disorders surfacing is higher in an inbred pair. 4%

normal couple it is only 2%

 

i know the number seem small but keep in mind the sheer size of human popluation. the chance is actually high

[Sorrowgrave]

I've spent a few years studying genetics on and off for fun, I'm no where near claiming to be an expert but the only time inbreeding would be a problem is if the family has a known history of genetic disorders.

 

IF they don't then I literally don't see why they could face jail.

 

you see the same thing in fish,

 

breeding two that had a attractive trait, such as longer fins would increase the likely hood of that getting passed down verses outter breeding

Edited December 31, 2011 by Sorrowgrave

[Keriel]

Every person has a genetic disorder OR genetic weakness somewhere in the mix.

 

Mine is weakness to depression, anxiety and other similar mental disorders. i also am at risk of high blood pressure, heart failure, anemia (already low on iron but not anemic) spinabiphida and one other i will most likely spell wrong but worth a shot, serrahpaulpolsi

two of those things had remained hidden in our genetics and none of the family on either my dads or mums side know where it came from. Spinabiphida (spelt wrong too) and the other one i spelt wrong (i feel so bad right now)

 

point is, genes stay hidden. no such thing as a perfectly healthy family when you get down to genetic level (not entirely correct, it might be possible but highly unlikely)

[Sorrowgrave]

I have an autoimmune disorder that makes my immune system attack my thyroid (their killing it) and the resulting problems from that and major depression.

 

NONE of which was ever heard of in my family before.

 

and I'm not at all inbred.

[Keriel]

i was responding to this part of your response

the only time inbreeding would be a problem is if the family has a known history of genetic disorders.

 

my point being, that just because we havno known history of disorders, doesn't mean they aren't there

 

i'm not inbred either any where in my know lineage. those two very serious disorders remained hidden for generations and generations. one of the reasons it stayed hidden so long is that both those disirders are recessive gene and were kept nicely hidden away by dominant genes

had my family of inbred, the chance of the recissive disorder genes showing through would have been much higher

[Raun]

that's my biggest problem,

 

sure there's an increased risk of genetic disorder, but no more than if two people with genetic disorders themselves met and married.

 

would you stop someone with Autism from marrying a blind/deaf/ or mute and or any other genetic defeat because there's a high risk their children would have both?

That's sort of my outlook. If we don't stop people with known disorders that have a 50/50 chance of being passed on from having kids, it seems very wrong to stop someone because their children might have a slightly higher chance of a birth defect. We're talking an additional 1% to 3% more than "normal", not a huge amount.

 

 

And when I was saying "known disorders", I was meaning things like hemophilia, where you can clearly see the signs and it has a 50/50 chance of passing on. In a child that gets the gene from both parents, they can often be very, very severely affected, depending on the disorder. If the family has a strong history of that, than inbreeding is way too big a risk, yes.

 

However, if they have no such known disorders or problems, I don't really see going from 1% to 2% as being a huge terrible risk. That's lower than an older woman's chances of having a Down Syndrome baby.

[Keriel]

that percentage IS a huge amount when you take into consideration the sheer population size. this is what people don't understand.

1 in a million is extremely likely when there are billions of people. Why take the risk? and the thing with inbreeding is the people might not even know they have a disorder in there genes. people who display a disorder however know full well the risk they are taking.

 

Mum, before i was born miscarried a child that had two serious genetic disorders. she was releived, why? she didn't want the child to suffer out life in this world in the condition he would have been in. she was sad naturally, she went through depression for a while, but was relieved noetheless.

 

and people with known disorders often choose to adopt or go through different ally's to ensure their child doesn't end up with a disorder like them.

 

Janine is, she refuses to have a child of her own because she has serious asperges and refuses to risk passing that on to a child.

Ash who also has asperges wants to get a screening done first before he has a kid.

they think of these things only because they have to live with them.

 

i am the type of person who will stand up for a child and drive myself into the ground to save and keep them from harm. i honestly do not see the point in taking this risk. you may think it small, but if you look at population size the risk is actually quite large. i don't want anyone born with disorders, but it happens, if i can lessen the chance of it happening i will.

 

We can't stop people with disorders from having kids because that is imoral in a completely different way. and only increses risk of disorder in a child, it doesn't contibute in any way to thinning out gene pool

incest or inbreeding increases genetic disorder and thins out gene pool. two problems with it and possibly more but it's getting late and i need some sleep for now

[Raun]

Actually, and I do not mean this rudely, that is not how the percentages work out. I think you are reading it incorrectly.

 

The actual articles say 2% per birth, not overall in the whole wide world. In completely unrelated parents, the danger is 1% per birth. They are not counting the entire world in these studies, but the small population and the increased likelihood for each birth.

 

When a percentage is "one in a hundred", it means statistically speaking that if you gave birth a hundred times, for example, the percentages say only one of those births would have defects/problems/whatever. Now, of course, this a percentage, not set in stone. Realistically speaking, yes, you could have a hundred perfect births or ten with problems, etc. etc. However, the percentage is always going to be a 1% (or 2% in the case of inbreeding) chance. It is still a roll of the dice.

 

Regardless of feelings though, it is their dice to roll. If we demand people who are related in a certain way do not breed, why can't we just demand anyone with disorders do not breed? Their chances of producing a child with their problems is much higher. Anywhere from 25% to 50% on average! That is a heck of a lot more dice-rolling than a mere 2%. I am not saying we should police who has the right to have children, but it seems very unfair to say "Well, this person with this severe defect can have children, even if there is a 50/50 chance their kids will get it, but we can't let first cousins breed! That's INBREEDING!". Honestly, those first cousins are a lot more likely to have a perfectly healthy normal child than that person with a severe defect.

 

And technically speaking, from a Darwinian standpoint, it does worse than "thin the gene pool" to allow those defects to 'breed on'. It keeps severely deformed genes continuing on and on for generations, instead of flat-out removing them to make the species stronger.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Raun

[natcar9]

I think inbreeding for humans and animals is wrong. I don't see why someone would want to do it, unless they lived in the 1700's when it was proper to do that. I think it's fine on dragcave, someone may do that to get a purebred dragon or something.

[Sorrowgrave]

..you haven't read all the posts in this thread have you?

 

I HIGHLY Recomend doing that so you don't repeat what someone else already said.

 

as always.

 

 

why does it effect you that two people related to each other are also lovers?

 

Do you think they should go to jail for it?

[Kestra15]

..you haven't read all the posts in this thread have you?

 

I HIGHLY Recomend doing that so you don't repeat what someone else already said.

 

as always.

They're stating their opinion; it's not like you can't state your opinion if someone hasn't already done so. The poster said they thought it was wrong; they haven't tried to claim it is scientifically an abomination to the race.

[zpnn]

Immediate family is a definite no. That's just disgusting.

First cousins is a bit iffy. I personally am a little grossed out by it, and would never do it, but it isn't terribly awful.

Second cousins... again, I'd probably never do it, but it's alright.

This. Why would anyone think making kids with your own sister/brother be right?

 

Inbreeding in dragon cave however, would probable make a pretty lulzy family line. Especially if you'r going for a pureblood silver or something.

[Xocowolf]

My father was the result of father-to-daughter incest. He also performed incest with his mother/half-sister (I'm not a product of it, thankfully), and he also molested his grandson for several years. Too squicked about that to delve deeper into family history and see if it started with Grampa/Great-Grampa, or if it goes further back.

 

If it started with GP/GGP, then I don't blame my father/grandmother-aunt. They were just doing according to their upbringing, and the blame lies with GP/GGP.

And yes, I know this is probably going to raise hackles, but I do mean "blame" because my siblings and I have a whole grocery list of genetic issues as a result of that little family affair. I'm the healthiest of the brood and I suffered from cancer some years ago. Pop died at age 67 because of complications with alcoholism and diabetes; my half-brother died of the same thing, at age 59.

The good news: We're all cognitive giants, Mensa-league IQs hovering in the mid-100s. Is it a fair trade-off? Screwy genes for mental brilliance? I'm not entirely convinced. At least if we were mooncalves it wouldn't bother us but we all have the wit to look at our family history and cringe. Ahh, the burden of intelligence…

 

That said…

I'm involved with horses, particularly the Friesian breed and derivatives (Warlander, Moriesian, Georgian Grande, Haute Cheval, black-herd Kladruber). There is unfortunate inbreeding in the Friesian stock because we almost lost the breed to outcrossing. About a hundred years ago, there were less than 500 Friesians worldwide and only three purebred stallions. All modern Friesians and their derivatives go back to them, so there's a lot of pervasive cousin-to-cousin and sometimes first-degree inbreeding in the breed. After a century of that, it's starting to show.

About ten years ago we had a rash of stallions just up and dying in their early-to-mid teens; unthinkable against the backdrop of Baroque breeds which tend to longevity (there are 30-year-old Lipizzaner stallions, still happily breeding and performing). Some of the deaths were attributable to colic: it's ubiquitous with horses and isn't confined to just Friesians. Fecal matter occureth. But, some just laid down and never got up again. Those were extreme cases and could be argued away as unhappy coincidences, but as for the rest of the breed — Friesian mares are notoriously difficult to get in foal. I heard this from my friends who breed them. And this depressed fertility *is* a hallmark of inbreeding. My friends attribute it to the Friesian inbreeding co-efficient (the registry allows for a limited amount of it, by necessity), and accept it as part of the landscape. I don't work with purebred Friesians as a result of those factors; I prefer typy outcrosses like Warlanders, Moriesians and Haute Chevals to full-breds because you're one step back from inbred and they don't suffer from all that over-concentrated DNA.

 

Now, I'd like to bring up something that's probably going to raise some blood pressure, if you don't already know about it. It's a case of human inbreeding/incest to its most illogical extreme and at its very worst: the case of Marcus Wesson.

This was a fellow in California's Central Valley, around Stockton. He used to be a Seventh Day Adventist until they decided he was too far round the bend for them, and sent him packing. He holed up in his house and started his own, incontrovertibly sick and twisted ministry centred around Seventh Day Adventism.

His congregation was his family, wife and daughters and grandchildren. The grandchildren were the results of his incestuous attentions paid to his daughters, and some of their cousins. It was found that he was even getting it on with his granddaughters, when they were babies.

The authorities got wind of it and yes, Marcus Wesson had a plan, a page straight out of Jim Jones' and David Koresh's books. He forced his eldest daughter to shoot her siblings/children before turning the gun on herself. The police investigating the scene got major PTSD cases when they saw the pile of bodies. And Marcus Wesson never personally fired a single shot.

He was convicted in record time by a jury of his peers and sentenced to death anyway. Hitler didn't personally kill anyone, either.

This is an extreme example of incest run riot. Marcus Wesson was a sick, sick man and serial incest and domestic violence were just two aspects of it.

[Brite]

..you haven't read all the posts in this thread have you?

 

I HIGHLY Recomend doing that so you don't repeat what someone else already said.

 

as always.

 

 

why does it effect you that two people related to each other are also lovers?

 

Do you think they should go to jail for it?

Isn't that punishable in some places? Where the couple actually DO get in trouble if they make kids..

 

 

First cousins is a bit iffy. I personally am a little grossed out by it, and would never do it, but it isn't terribly awful.

 

You might be surprised by how many first cousins had crushes on each other a few times.

[coriopsis]

We're all inbred to some degree. If you believe in the Adam and Eve thing, all humans came from 2 individuals. I was watching a National Geographic special recently, I'd cite it if I could remember what exactly it was called, that stated that, before humans left Africa, a harsh drought knocked the human population back to 2,000-5,000 individuals. My genetics professor said that there is a genetic marker in most Asian males today that can be traced back to Genghis Khan.

 

If you look far enough back in your family tree, especially if you live in small towns with limited populations, you'll probably find inbreeding. I did.

 

Inbreeding becomes a problem if there is a limited population and no new genetic material is introduced for several generations. For example, my genetics professor told us about some Europeans who came to America to escape WWII. They brought 13 of their dogs with them. I don't remember what the breed is, but, until recently, every dog of that breed in the US is directly descended from those 13. The problem is that 1 of those original 13 dogs had a genetic defect that made it highly susceptible to a certain, usually rare, kind of cancer. Because of that, almost every dog of that breed in the US develops the rare cancer.

 

Its also a problem from an immune system point of view. People are genetically more or less susceptible to different diseases. If one small population breeds together for a long time, everyone will be susceptible to the same thing, so if 1 person gets it, the entire population could be wiped out.

 

Anyway, would I marry closely related family members? No way. Do I think other people shouldn't? As with most marriage/sex issues, I believe that what consenting adults do to together is their business, not mine.

[Xocowolf]

For you religious folk Adam and Eve were the first people, who do you think their sons and daughters married? Wasn't anyone else around but themselves

Devout Baptists may wish to stop reading here.

Or not. Connecting synapses is to be encouraged. But be forewarned.

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

Ready?

 

Adam and Eve did not exist as actual historical personages, nor did their progeny as detailed in the Old Testament. They were all fictional characters in an allegorical tale. The Book of Genesis is an epic poem, like the Táin Bó Cúlainge, Don Quixote and the Ramayana. It has as much bearing on reality as Mozart's and Schikenader's Die Zaüberflöte. Centuries of scholarship both secular and theological, with REAMS of documented and canonized evidence, including opinions and analysis by the originating culture that produced said work of literature, have proven this point. Your argument about Adam and Eve's children marrying each other is as relevant to the debate as the case of the Lannister twincest in Game of Thrones.

Don't take my word for it. Find your local rabbi, make an appointment, and ask about the Book of Genesis. Be ready for a vigourous wake-up call.

[Tommyknocker]

This is just my opinion, and I'm sure it's been said numerous times, but I view inbreeding as something done with close blood relatives in the immediate family, and I don't really count cousins. Although, like someone said before, there is the Westermarck effect, which probably explains why I can't even for a second fathom marrying my cousins. Ick. That being said though, my grandparents on one side are first cousins and, to my knowledge, there's nothing out of the ordinary in my family. But my maternal uncle and his wife are second cousins. I don't even know what that makes their kids in relation to me, but it doesn't really squick me out as much as true incest does.

[ethasa]

heterozygosity, nuff' said.

[Sorrowgrave]

alright I said I'd shut up if someone had a good reason to hate it, and I did for a while but you REALLY haven't read all the posts have you?

 

YES they do get in trouble for it, but it was consensual!

Edited January 9, 2012 by Sorrowgrave

[linkx7]

it depends some conditions are genetic and u have to have some1 with same gene for the child to have the disease so if you inbreed your children will defiently have it but if no such genes are present its perfectly fine even if they are if its nothing serious its still fine

[Nine]

it depends some conditions are genetic and u have to have some1 with same gene for the child to have the disease so if you inbreed your children will defiently have it but if no such genes are present its perfectly fine even if they are if its nothing serious its still fine

Uh, no? Sorry, but that's not how genetics or active mutations work. 2 people with the genes for albinism could have a child without it, for example. Inbreeding doesn't create a certainty in mutations showing up either, just increases the risk. Just as well, if a child of inbreeding does not show such a mutation, it's not 'perfectly fine'-- they could still pass on the mutations to their own offspring or have a development later in life.

 

Edit:

 

Oh, I hadn't caught up on some of the posts here, but I totally agree that inbreeding in domestic pets should be avoided at all costs.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Nine

[Lila]

To be completely honest, I don't understand how people could be attracted to their family members. I mean, are they really attracted to them, or do they have needs, mental or physical, that they cannot satisfy with anyone else? I dunno. If it's real true love, I have no problem with that, as long as they know what risks they could possibly run by reproducing. At the same time, if it's immediate family members I can't help but be a little bit suspicious about it. Partly because I'm not accustomed to such relationships, and partly because I've seen quite a few incestual relationships lead to bad things.

 

Personally I couldn't imagine it, just because in the best circumstances it's your family that knows you best. I could never date anyone that knew everything about me.