observer Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Well a NuLab MP finally had the nerve to actually go public on a "sensitive" issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 In breeding was always a problem with European Royal families hence genetic problems such as the Hapsburg Jaw. When my first wife was training to be a doctor back in the early 80s, she did some training in the Rotherham area....and I remember her coming home rather shocked and telling me that incest was rampant in that area. PS I was rather impressed by Mr Woolass having the guts to talk about a most important issue.....sensitive or otherwise.....seems as though he has had some death threats already....guess the truth hurts. [ 12.02.2008, 08:41: Message edited by: Paul Kennedy ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 can somone who knows better than I explain whats wrong with first cousins breeding ??? I am probably simplifying the issue but it seems to me .... lets say one family line is A and the other is B A+B= child AB 50% A gene pool and 50% B gene pool lets say uncle B meets auntie C they have child BC if AB & BC got together (first cousins), wouldn't this now make ABC creating greater diversity in the pool at 33.3% average (obviously there would be dominant genes but I dont think you can specify which this would be) obviously less than the ideal abcd but still more than ab+ab. or if not and proportions remained it would create BBAC but that still only a maximum of 50% B which is the same as any standard non related parents. I will declare that I have no personal vestment in this since my mother was local and my father a londoner, my wife being scottish so i come from a family of very mixed genes. [ 12.02.2008, 11:44: Message edited by: legion ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithR Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 The problem is when they are of the same sex. Otherwise it's as simple as ABC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Thinks, as Paul noted, historically, Royalty has incested on making the point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Originally posted by observer: Thinks, as Paul noted, historically, Royalty has incested on making the point! Exactly ........ they've been doin it for centuries [ 12.02.2008, 15:28: Message edited by: tonymailman ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kateoflymm Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 We know that intermarriage of first cousins can cause genetic problems. It used to be unlawful in this country unless special dispensation was obtained. The point is that this M P was remarking specifically about this practise in Pakistan, where it is more or less the norm. That is why the issue is described as "sensitive", the government is terrified of upsetting the Muslim community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmless loony Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 More or less the norm in Pakistan? Oh please....it tends to occur mainly in the pockets of rural regions....cousin marriage is not normal practice so please don't stereotype a whole country with a sweeping generalisation....thanks. Surely the UK is going to face an even worse problem in the future with brothers and sisters potentially mating thanks to anonymous sperm donation. If you have no idea who your biological father is then how do you know you're not "getting it on" with your sibling? Likewise for adopted children - if their biological parents have had more children and not declared it there's every chance that siblings can end up in couples like the twins who married each other. How come no one appears to comment on that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Fair comment HL; but I think the reason no one has latched on to your point is (a) it is a random and unknown factor: EG. With casual relationships now the norm, a guy could father kids by several women, then these half-brothers/sisters grow up meet and perhaps unknowingly mate. and ( criticising the current cultural promiscous norm may lose some votes for a politician; and how are they supposed to end it?! :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 And © the case of the twins who married turned out to be untrue in any case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 I think we're dealing with possibilities if not probabilities; the only reason for surprise is that a "politician" dared to raise the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Don't they still do blood tests? Or are you talking about unmarried people mating? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.