Midwives have been told about the benefits of “close relative marriage” in training documents that minimise the risks to couples’ children.
The documents claim “85 to 90 per cent of cousin couples do not have affected children” and warn staff that “close relative marriage is often stigmatised in England”, adding claims that “the associated genetic risks have been exaggerated”.
Devils advocate: I have a genetic defect that has 50% chance of being passed to my children. It causes bone tumors that range from stetic to life changing.
We only managed to ensure it wasn’t with expensive DNA tests pre - implantation.
Should I be barred from marriage if I can’t pay for that?
It’s not a hypothetical
Not sure what marriage has to do with it in either case tbh. The cousinfuckers can have babies without getting married and so can you lol
But I do understand your point. It’s an ethical dilemma and not a simple one. I mean on a policy level. I imagine on a personal level it’s easier to say “the risk is too great, I won’t do it” as opposed to policymakers saying “the risk is too great, you shouldn’t be allowed to have children”
I’m just following that logic, I made a similar comment about marriage =! Children
https://lemmy.world/comment/21642724
For me this is a good thing (remove the restriction). I would love the message to be more of support rather then “well, some will have defects” though
Oh I didn’t disagree with you. I’m just wondering why tf they’re talking about marriage anyway. In this day and age, I think most babies are born out of wedlock.
There’s a law that prevents the marriage from back when marriage==children.
It’s a stupid law, but an even more stupid reason to change it.
Around 40% in the US.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/out-of-wedlock-births-by-country
That’s already a lot but apparently in the UK which the article is about it is now over 50%
There are far fewer practising Christians in the UK. Also there’s no tax incentive favouring marriage, everyone files separately.
Do you think it’s (morally) right for you to have kids that you know would have a 50% chance to have bone tumors?
Sex bans are generally not workable. A marriage ban for you would be restrictive. This is very different for cousins, because there’s plenty of non-cousin alternatives for everyone.
The worse question is, is it more morally rightful for me to have children when I can afford the test that ensured he wasn’t affected versus those who can’t afford it? Does wealth and access make me rightful?
I don’t think marriage bans are OK in general. Consenting adults can do whatever they want. Hell, let’s bring polynomy forward too (but I’m not sure how consent would work there). As a matter of fact, I’m not even married so restriction or not didn’t matter