Quote:
|
Originally Posted by horn
i think the point he was making was that this would be the view held by someone consistent in using the reason given for their distaste of incest.
i.e. if they say the reason they "disagree" with incest is because it could lead to a weaker gene pool, then surely other actions that lead to this outcome should be viewed as equally undesired. for instance, letting people with "weak" genes live.
|
According to the article I quoted when siblings have a kid together there is a 50% chance that the kid will be disabled. This sounds very high to me and it's quite right that the law forbids it. Even if the kid doesn't show any clear signs of disability it's gotta mess you up genetically to have parents that are so closely related. Just look at the royal family as a sign of what inbreeding does to you.
Things like hereditary diseases and higher risk of downs syndrome with mothers over 40 can be got around with embryo screening and I don't see a problem with making it compulsory for all people who are likely to pass on a disability to their offspring. After all we have the technology and it would be criminal not to use it to improve the quality of life of everybody.