Incorrect. One results in higher than normal birth defects that exacerbate over time, and one is perfectly healthy. We, as a society, should try to limit birth defects, no? Are you also in favor of bringing back thalidomide?
Out of curiosity, are you chill with incest if the couple is incapable of biological reproduction? (They’re the same sex, one or both has been sterilized, ect.)
that’s not true, and false equivalencies only serve to make you seem more ridiculous. You’re gross, and your kink is historically shamed because it destroys us a viable species. I feel sorry for the people in your life.
Facts. You just don’t like it because of the ick, and the cognitive dissonance is making you angry. No one likes when it’s pointed out that they’re acting irrationally.
no, I don’t. you seem pretty intent on trying to make me tho. banning first cousin marriages doesn’t lead to us banning all pregnancies began after the mother is 34. you’re using a logical fallacy of the slippery slope and it doesn’t apply.
It’s not a slippery slope, it’s the exact same thing. The same excuse you use for banning incest equally applies to women over 34 giving birth. Banning that would not be a slippery slope, it would be an equivalence.
no it wouldn’t and that’s your logical fallacy. banning consanguineous marriage does not mean banning all women over the age of 34 from giving birth. You’re wrong.
It increases the risk of birth defects slightly but not as much as people seem to think.
a single first-cousin marriage entails a similar increased risk of birth defects and mortality as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 rather than at 30
Incorrect. One results in higher than normal birth defects that exacerbate over time, and one is perfectly healthy. We, as a society, should try to limit birth defects, no? Are you also in favor of bringing back thalidomide?
Out of curiosity, are you chill with incest if the couple is incapable of biological reproduction? (They’re the same sex, one or both has been sterilized, ect.)
incest is not something I’d call myself “chill” with.
And why not?
The birth defects are on par with a woman over 30 giving birth. Want to ban that too?
that’s not true, and false equivalencies only serve to make you seem more ridiculous. You’re gross, and your kink is historically shamed because it destroys us a viable species. I feel sorry for the people in your life.
Sorry, it was women over 34: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-07-cousin-marriage-older-mothers-birth.html
Facts. You just don’t like it because of the ick, and the cognitive dissonance is making you angry. No one likes when it’s pointed out that they’re acting irrationally.
look at you moving goalposts. go back to disappointing your family.
I just misremembered. But my point still stands. You want to ban women over 34 having children?
no, I don’t. you seem pretty intent on trying to make me tho. banning first cousin marriages doesn’t lead to us banning all pregnancies began after the mother is 34. you’re using a logical fallacy of the slippery slope and it doesn’t apply.
It’s not a slippery slope, it’s the exact same thing. The same excuse you use for banning incest equally applies to women over 34 giving birth. Banning that would not be a slippery slope, it would be an equivalence.
no it wouldn’t and that’s your logical fallacy. banning consanguineous marriage does not mean banning all women over the age of 34 from giving birth. You’re wrong.
It increases the risk of birth defects slightly but not as much as people seem to think.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/there-s-nothing-wrong-with-cousins-getting-married-scientists-say-1210072.html
continued procreation within the family destroys the viability of the offspring eventually. This is not something to be encouraged.
Are you for any law preventing people more likely than average to produce offspring with defects from reproducing, or just cousins?