Incest in Ireland.

17-05-2014 12:12AM

kneemos wrote: »

She'd have to already exist to have a brother and sister.

I know that. Does the OP?

Jaysus, slow crowd tonight, eh?

WhiteWalls · 17-05-2014 12:31AM

Should have said 'A' brother and sister instead of the word 'her'. Sincerest apologies. I was genuinely shocked listening to that woman though. I obviously had heard of incest but never actually knew that children were born from it. Maybe my own parents ain't so bad after all

kumate_champ07 · 17-05-2014 12:34AM

thelad95 wrote: »

I'd imagine a lot took place in Ireland in the early to mid 20th century.

Think about it, two hormonal, uneducated, ignorant teens with little or no outside interaction, living in cramped conditions. Things probably did get a bit... weird from time to time.

Apparently a lot of it goes on in the travelling community but that's a very sweeping generalisation.

why do you say that? doesnt matter about education, its not normal to be attracted to a sibling

I dont think its a sweeping generalization, travelers mostly marry their cousins. a higher than average percentage of their babies die from complications too

Tokarev · 17-05-2014 12:37AM

I blame the catholic church.

See no Evil, Hear no evil.

Victor · 17-05-2014 12:39AM

Hotale.com wrote: »

I think about 10% of children of incest have some form of illness due to the close relation of parents..

I actually think it's more likely that they'll have an illness/disability if their parents are 1st or 2nd cousins than siblings.

No. The highest risks are always with the closest relatives and lowest with genetic strangers. That said, there is always the remote possibility that the stranger will have the same problem gene.

However, if you have multiple incidents of incest in the same family tree, then the risks get much higher.

ringadingding · 17-05-2014 01:11AM

ElleEm wrote: »

The concept of incest makes me feel a bit sick.

Sick ? How sick ?
In bed with your 11 year old sister sick ?

Adamantium · 17-05-2014 01:12AM

Tonight's thread on After Hours is brought to you by ours sponsor The Lannisters, who sent their regards.

Rhyme · 17-05-2014 01:42AM

BrokenArrows wrote: »

I think you're mixing up incest with time travel incest!

Doing the nasty in the pasty.

R P McMurphy · 17-05-2014 01:48AM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

He ended up doing alright for himself as he became the lead singer with radiohead

Turtwig · 17-05-2014 03:45AM

It's one of those grey areas that people let their feeling of disgust cloud the complexity of the ethics.

The argument against incestuous reproduction is mainly one of eugenics: the statistical risk of genetic illness to the offspring. So consider the following scenario where the risk of a severe debilitating illness is 1 in 4 and another where it is 1 in 10. By the arguments against incestuous reproduction the assumption is made that 1 in 4, or some other arbitrary value, is the cut off threshold for which reproduction is acceptable. Any couple who have sex has a risk of having a child with down's syndrome. Any couple with a CF gene has a risk of a having a child with Cystic Fibrosis. With an incestuous couple that risk is much greater but the key point here is that it's still only a statistical outcome. There is also a chance that offspring will be healthy.

Incest can be broken down into two general categories:
Without reproduction and coercion.
With reproduction or coercion.

If there's no reproduction and coercion involved, what exactly is wrong with incest? How is different from love between any other adult consenting human couple? To put it another way, is the argument used to dismiss the incest homophobic or racist when an incestuous couple is replaced with a homosexual one or an interracial one?

If there is reproduction involved at what probability does one draw the line for which reproduction isn't acceptable and why don't they apply this to carriers of severe genetic illness. For example, if it can be shown that a non incestuous couple carrying the CF gene have a higher risk than the normal population of creating a child with Cystic Fibrosis why don't we stop them reproducing and cite genetic risks the way we do for incestuous relationships? The science suggests that for CF the risk through incest is way way higher but this is a statistical argument. So where is the cut-off percentage risk wise? Is it 1 in 40,000, 1 in 4, how do we evaluate the criteria by which couples are allowed to reproduce?

Finally, imagine an environment where Cholera* is rife and there is no medicine. Then it's kind of in the humans interests to ensure the CF gene prospers. In this scenario, incest might actually be preferable - statistics wise, natural selection will probably select for it anyway. The point here is that 'natural' and 'unnatural' have no bearing on our current society. We've evolved to be sociological creatures. The arguments for or against incest need to be ones of liberties and individual health. Saying nature dictates this or that kind of ignores modern living.

*Some CF genes give immunity to Cholera. Hence another reason why CF rates are so high in Ireland.

Foxhound38 · 17-05-2014 04:11AM

Was she born in Shelbyville? They love their incest over there, or so the Simpsons tells me :pac:

Victor · 17-05-2014 04:12AM

Turtwig wrote: »

To put it another way, is the argument used to dismiss the incest homophobic or racist when an incestuous couple is replaced with a homosexual one or an interracial one?

Is it actually incest of the two people are of different races? That kinda implies they aren't brother and sister.

Foxhound38 · 17-05-2014 04:17AM

Turtwig wrote: »

It's one of those grey areas that people let their feeling of disgust cloud the complexity of the ethics.

The argument against incestuous reproduction is mainly one of eugenics: the statistical risk of genetic illness to the offspring. So consider the following scenario where the risk of a severe debilitating illness is 1 in 4 and another where it is 1 in 10. By the arguments against incestuous reproduction the assumption is made that 1 in 4, or some other arbitrary value, is the cut off threshold for which reproduction is acceptable. Any couple who have sex has a risk of having a child with down's syndrome. Any couple with a CF gene has a risk of a having a child with Cystic Fibrosis. With an incestuous couple that risk is much greater but the key point here is that it's still only a statistical outcome. There is also a chance that offspring will be healthy.

Incest can be broken down into two general categories:
Without reproduction and coercion.
With reproduction or coercion.

If there's no reproduction and coercion involved, what exactly is wrong with incest? How is different from love between any other adult consenting human couple? To put it another way, is the argument used to dismiss the incest homophobic or racist when an incestuous couple is replaced with a homosexual one or an interracial one?

If there is reproduction involved at what probability does one draw the line for which reproduction isn't acceptable and why don't they apply this to carriers of severe genetic illness. For example, if it can be shown that a non incestuous couple carrying the CF gene have a higher risk than the normal population of creating a child with Cystic Fibrosis why don't we stop them reproducing and cite genetic risks the way we do for incestuous relationships? The science suggests that for CF the risk through incest is way way higher but this is a statistical argument. So where is the cut-off percentage risk wise? Is it 1 in 40,000, 1 in 4, how do we evaluate the criteria by which couples are allowed to reproduce?

Finally, imagine an environment where Cholera* is rife and there is no medicine. Then it's kind of in the humans interests to ensure the CF gene prospers. In this scenario, incest might actually be preferable - statistics wise, natural selection will probably select for it anyway. The point here is that 'natural' and 'unnatural' have no bearing on our current society. We've evolved to be sociological creatures. The arguments for or against incest need to be ones of liberties and individual health. Saying nature dictates this or that kind of ignores modern living.

*Some CF genes give immunity to Cholera. Hence another reason why CF rates are so high in Ireland.

The whole ethical argument when reproduction is taken out of the equasion (ie: a consentual but incestuous homosexual relationship) is the sort of dilemma that makes my brain hurt thinking about it. I don't pretend to have an answer - although there could be something to be said about the power dynamic within a family unit being inherently hierarchical and therefore unequal except between partents (who are unrelated most of the time).

Turtwig · 17-05-2014 04:24AM

Victor wrote: »

Is it actually incest of the two people are of different races? That kinda implies they aren't brother and sister.

I don't know. Very interesting point. Is it possible for interracial couples to have offspring of different races?

The point if wasn't clear to anyone was to consider if the argument against incest was incestophobic or had its roots in less prejudicial foundations.

LizzieJones · 17-05-2014 05:38AM

Not in Ireland but Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are 3rd cousins. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were first cousins.

Spunge · 17-05-2014 05:39AM

ElleEm wrote: »

The concept of incest makes me feel a bit sick.

Probably we're evolutionary meant to feel sick by it.

Merkin · 17-05-2014 05:49AM

Turtwig wrote: »

I don't know. Very interesting point. Is it possible for interracial couples to have offspring of different races?

The point if wasn't clear to anyone was to consider if the argument against incest was incestophobic or had its roots in less prejudicial foundations.

Yes, entirely possible. Children and even twins of interracial couples can be different races. My husband knows of twins to a black father and white mother where the kids surprised everyone at birth by being one black and one white.

Merkin · 17-05-2014 05:54AM

Spunge wrote: »

Probably we're evolutionary meant to feel sick by it.

Interesting point because I think we're environmentally and sociologically conditioned to find it abhorrent but the concept of GSA or genetic sexual attraction is a very interesting one, albeit slightly puke inducing!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction

This goes to explaining why we don't have the urge to hop on close family members we grew up with

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect

PeteEd · 17-05-2014 06:00AM

if you sign off your post, your probably the result of an incestuous relationship

PeteEd

steddyeddy · 17-05-2014 07:10AM

CTYIgirl wrote: »

The child would only be disabled if there was an illness that ran in the family. Often a child born out of an incestuous relationship is totally normal.

Historically you would have had people marrying cousins or second cousins. It's one of the reasons we've the highest cystic fibrosis rates in the world, because we're genetically inbred.

Em we don't have high cf rates because we're inbred

steddyeddy · 17-05-2014 07:15AM

Turtwig wrote: »

I don't know. Very interesting point. Is it possible for interracial couples to have offspring of different races?

The point if wasn't clear to anyone was to consider if the argument against incest was incestophobic or had its roots in less prejudicial foundations.

Well first we need a scientific consensus on race in humans.

Flippyfloppy · 17-05-2014 07:27AM

Turtwig wrote: »

It's one of those grey areas that people let their feeling of disgust cloud the complexity of the ethics.

The argument against incestuous reproduction is mainly one of eugenics: the statistical risk of genetic illness to the offspring. So consider the following scenario where the risk of a severe debilitating illness is 1 in 4 and another where it is 1 in 10. By the arguments against incestuous reproduction the assumption is made that 1 in 4, or some other arbitrary value, is the cut off threshold for which reproduction is acceptable. Any couple who have sex has a risk of having a child with down's syndrome. Any couple with a CF gene has a risk of a having a child with Cystic Fibrosis. With an incestuous couple that risk is much greater but the key point here is that it's still only a statistical outcome. There is also a chance that offspring will be healthy.

Incest can be broken down into two general categories:
Without reproduction and coercion.
With reproduction or coercion.

If there's no reproduction and coercion involved, what exactly is wrong with incest? How is different from love between any other adult consenting human couple? To put it another way, is the argument used to dismiss the incest homophobic or racist when an incestuous couple is replaced with a homosexual one or an interracial one?

If there is reproduction involved at what probability does one draw the line for which reproduction isn't acceptable and why don't they apply this to carriers of severe genetic illness. For example, if it can be shown that a non incestuous couple carrying the CF gene have a higher risk than the normal population of creating a child with Cystic Fibrosis why don't we stop them reproducing and cite genetic risks the way we do for incestuous relationships? The science suggests that for CF the risk through incest is way way higher but this is a statistical argument. So where is the cut-off percentage risk wise? Is it 1 in 40,000, 1 in 4, how do we evaluate the criteria by which couples are allowed to reproduce?

Finally, imagine an environment where Cholera* is rife and there is no medicine. Then it's kind of in the humans interests to ensure the CF gene prospers. In this scenario, incest might actually be preferable - statistics wise, natural selection will probably select for it anyway. The point here is that 'natural' and 'unnatural' have no bearing on our current society. We've evolved to be sociological creatures. The arguments for or against incest need to be ones of liberties and individual health. Saying nature dictates this or that kind of ignores modern living.

*Some CF genes give immunity to Cholera. Hence another reason why CF rates are so high in Ireland .

I'm genuinely curious, is your last point fact or speculation?

kneemos · 17-05-2014 08:30AM

Merkin wrote: »

Yes, entirely possible. Children and even twins of interracial couples can be different races. My husband knows of twins to a black father and white mother where the kids surprised everyone at birth by being one black and one white.

Genuinely hilarious.

Wacker The Attacker · 17-05-2014 08:56AM

I'm glad I wanked my way through puberty

Santa Cruz · 17-05-2014 08:59AM

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Was she born in Shelbyville? They love their incest over there, or so the Simpsons tells me :pac:

No wonder they didn't get that Monorail. God only knows what they would have done on it

DildoFaggins · 17-05-2014 09:04AM

Hogan knows best:D

Merkin · 17-05-2014 09:40AM

kneemos wrote: »

Genuinely hilarious.

Why?

Soft Falling Rain · 17-05-2014 09:45AM

Nowt wrong with incest, Joffrey grew up to be a sound bloke!

Czarcasm · 17-05-2014 09:50AM

Turtwig wrote: »

It's one of those grey areas that people let their feeling of disgust cloud the complexity of the ethics...

[Here's the science bit]

So... nothing wrong with incest then, when you ignore every reason why there's a whole lot wrong with incest. Everything is just statistics.

If only human beings and relationships were as simple as they are on paper for some people.

kneemos · 17-05-2014 09:50AM

Merkin wrote: »

Why?

One white kid and one black?..c'mon.

Incest in Ireland.

Comments