News1 min ago
It Has Been Known For Years That It Is Unsafe To Marry One's First Cousin, But With The Large Influx Of Such Pakistani Marriages Now In This Country, Should It Be Made Unlawful?
51 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Gromit
Gromit
/// 1.8% of the UK population is of Pakistani origin. ///
/// 16.1% of Bradford's population is of Pakistani origin. ///
/// So of course, Bradford will have more defects than the national
average. ///
Then you admit there is a problem amongst Pakistani families, why are you trying to shy away from this fact?
*** Although British parents of Pakistani origin account for 3.4 per cent of all births nationwide, they also account for around 30 per cent of children born with recessive gene disorders. ***
Gromit
/// 1.8% of the UK population is of Pakistani origin. ///
/// 16.1% of Bradford's population is of Pakistani origin. ///
/// So of course, Bradford will have more defects than the national
average. ///
Then you admit there is a problem amongst Pakistani families, why are you trying to shy away from this fact?
*** Although British parents of Pakistani origin account for 3.4 per cent of all births nationwide, they also account for around 30 per cent of children born with recessive gene disorders. ***
//It Has Been Known For Years That It Is Unsafe To Marry One's First Cousin, But With The Large Influx Of Such Pakistani Marriages Now In This Country, Should It Be Made Unlawful?//
Well that's going to muck it up for the Fenlanders then. (And before anyone gets offended on behalf of Fenlanders I am making a comment aimed at my own immigrant family who intermarried for three generations with seemingly no ill effects).
Seriously though, I do see the point that the risk is doubled, but how will making it illegal in this country help? If it is still legal in Pakistan they can just go there, get married and then come back again. Isn't education the key?
Well that's going to muck it up for the Fenlanders then. (And before anyone gets offended on behalf of Fenlanders I am making a comment aimed at my own immigrant family who intermarried for three generations with seemingly no ill effects).
Seriously though, I do see the point that the risk is doubled, but how will making it illegal in this country help? If it is still legal in Pakistan they can just go there, get married and then come back again. Isn't education the key?
AOG
No one denies that first cousin births are genetically bad.
But so is having children with mothers over 35,
Or having children with older fathers,
Or drinking during pregnancy,
Or Smoking.
If you are not going to ban women over 35 from having babies, how can you ban cousins from having babies. Or banning the other factors that slightly increase the risk.
No one denies that first cousin births are genetically bad.
But so is having children with mothers over 35,
Or having children with older fathers,
Or drinking during pregnancy,
Or Smoking.
If you are not going to ban women over 35 from having babies, how can you ban cousins from having babies. Or banning the other factors that slightly increase the risk.
@aog
Instead of flat-out prohibition, you could have a watered-down version where it is stipulated that the infant must have at least 6 sets of great grandparents, or 15 sets of great-great-grandparents, or whatever.
The ultimate limit is that you mustn't put the Royal Family into a situation where they would (or could potentially) be made into law-breakers, part way through a marriage (laws are seldom made retro-active).
Incidentally, the wiki Royal endogamy page lists Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon as a 13th cousin of her spouse, the most distant relationship on a list which goes back to pre-Norman times (other than Mrs S, who never became Royal, as such).
@beso
//The eggs cells of the female are all produced during gestation and mature later. No further division is involved in this process. //
They are still subject to however many years of exposure to dissolved substances such as ethanol, teratogens (e.g. dioxins, PCBs), medicines, recreational chemicals etc. They are well protected from non-penetrating radiation (UVA/B, alpha particles) but cosmic rays and gamma rays can pass right through living tissue,potentially leaving a trail of ions which can damage DNA or whatever biomolecules are nearest them at the time.
To be fair, some DNA damage is more likely to kill the cell completely than turn into a non-lethal - and thus heritable - gene defect but that is what sexual reproduction exists to attempt to cancel out. Some of those 'defects' turned out to be advantageous, hence variety, hence evolution.
Anyway, it's bad news for the career woman paradigm. We don't know the full ramifications of embryo cryogenics but, so far, so good.
Instead of flat-out prohibition, you could have a watered-down version where it is stipulated that the infant must have at least 6 sets of great grandparents, or 15 sets of great-great-grandparents, or whatever.
The ultimate limit is that you mustn't put the Royal Family into a situation where they would (or could potentially) be made into law-breakers, part way through a marriage (laws are seldom made retro-active).
Incidentally, the wiki Royal endogamy page lists Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon as a 13th cousin of her spouse, the most distant relationship on a list which goes back to pre-Norman times (other than Mrs S, who never became Royal, as such).
@beso
//The eggs cells of the female are all produced during gestation and mature later. No further division is involved in this process. //
They are still subject to however many years of exposure to dissolved substances such as ethanol, teratogens (e.g. dioxins, PCBs), medicines, recreational chemicals etc. They are well protected from non-penetrating radiation (UVA/B, alpha particles) but cosmic rays and gamma rays can pass right through living tissue,potentially leaving a trail of ions which can damage DNA or whatever biomolecules are nearest them at the time.
To be fair, some DNA damage is more likely to kill the cell completely than turn into a non-lethal - and thus heritable - gene defect but that is what sexual reproduction exists to attempt to cancel out. Some of those 'defects' turned out to be advantageous, hence variety, hence evolution.
Anyway, it's bad news for the career woman paradigm. We don't know the full ramifications of embryo cryogenics but, so far, so good.
@I_H_I
Yes we *know* it is not illegal in UK. Hence AOG's opening post!
You can't possibly have read it, to make a comment like that.
Meanwhile, I have decided against posting a YouTube link to 'Duelling Banjos' as I only need to mention it for everyone to know what I'm on about.
And it is probably in poor taste. We already have a Norfolk reference in this thread, which is quite enough.
Yes we *know* it is not illegal in UK. Hence AOG's opening post!
You can't possibly have read it, to make a comment like that.
Meanwhile, I have decided against posting a YouTube link to 'Duelling Banjos' as I only need to mention it for everyone to know what I'm on about.
And it is probably in poor taste. We already have a Norfolk reference in this thread, which is quite enough.
Gromit
/// No one denies that first cousin births are genetically bad.
But so is having children with mothers over 35,
Or having children with older fathers,
Or drinking during pregnancy,
Or Smoking. ///
/// Two American Presidents also married first cousins AOG, so you may be on to something :-) ///
Why are you so obsessed in bringing other factors into the debate instead of debating the issue of Pakistani and African first cousin marriages?
I know just like the media, the police and the politicians, it is a hot potato to discuss or take action where minority groups are involved, but surely we should be able to on sites such as this, after all we do live in a free country.
I don't think for a moment that this would have even reached the press if it hadn't been Britain's first Asian peer who dared to approach the subject.
/// No one denies that first cousin births are genetically bad.
But so is having children with mothers over 35,
Or having children with older fathers,
Or drinking during pregnancy,
Or Smoking. ///
/// Two American Presidents also married first cousins AOG, so you may be on to something :-) ///
Why are you so obsessed in bringing other factors into the debate instead of debating the issue of Pakistani and African first cousin marriages?
I know just like the media, the police and the politicians, it is a hot potato to discuss or take action where minority groups are involved, but surely we should be able to on sites such as this, after all we do live in a free country.
I don't think for a moment that this would have even reached the press if it hadn't been Britain's first Asian peer who dared to approach the subject.
@AOG
Gromit is taking the mote out of his own eye, figuratively speaking, before attempting to address the issue central to your question.
Or looking into all aspects of the problem before proposing a solution. If it's been good enough for our royals and noble families, for centuries (in the interests of feudal overlordship), then why shouldn't other nations practice it too?
Kashmir is moutainous, so productive land must be precious. Stopping it getting into the hands of those who marry-in is the logical thing to do.
It is not clear why you choose to single out Pakistanis, Africans or any other ethnicity for your opprobium but we would be failing in our duty not to widen the subject to make it apparent that they aren't so different to ourselves. Same motivations, same solutions.
Care to clear up why you're picking them out for special attention?
Gromit is taking the mote out of his own eye, figuratively speaking, before attempting to address the issue central to your question.
Or looking into all aspects of the problem before proposing a solution. If it's been good enough for our royals and noble families, for centuries (in the interests of feudal overlordship), then why shouldn't other nations practice it too?
Kashmir is moutainous, so productive land must be precious. Stopping it getting into the hands of those who marry-in is the logical thing to do.
It is not clear why you choose to single out Pakistanis, Africans or any other ethnicity for your opprobium but we would be failing in our duty not to widen the subject to make it apparent that they aren't so different to ourselves. Same motivations, same solutions.
Care to clear up why you're picking them out for special attention?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.