The Gnome King said:
1) The damage can be reduced to 0 in a stable, monogamous homosexual couple who have no STIs.
2) The damage can be greatly reduced by condom usage.
3) We're talking about damage between consenting adults vs. damage you are going to potentially do to a new human life; very large difference. You're bringing a 3rd party into the equation.
You're correct. However, most MSM have had multiple partners, and even if they are in a single monogamous relationship, there is still a risk that one of the partners acquired it earlier. I'm not saying anything against homosexuals by the way, there was a big movement in the 80s for awareness that's being replicated now (thank god), but for a decade MSM were the only group in the country that were driving the incidence of STI's. HAART and disinhibition, etc. I was at the USAIDS conference in Chicago and there we're plenty of monogamous homosexual people who were living with HIV/AIDS.
OT: There is a difference, sure, but I would argue that the chances-to-incedcent-consequence ratio of damage of a person getting an STI or colorectal cancer from trauma is far greater.
As for the whole third party idea, you can't argue that. The kid would never have been born in the first place if the parents had never gotten together.
As an aside; I actually support genetic testing for anyone who plans on having a child.
Also, in my eight(+) years of college I've taken a couple genetics courses.
You might be interested in these links:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6509683
and
http://www.biolreprod.org/content/early/2010/05/24/biolreprod.110.084798.full.pdf
The first relates to humans, the second to possible damage done to sperm DNA done in other species... and yes you can't use animals in human studies, but if YOU have taken genetics courses you know much crossover is done this way because all living beings, well, have DNA. We can make certain guesses based on this.
The NPR interview just argues my point for me. It's a village. Most of the population is inbred. It took generations. Not equivalent to one cousin marrying another. It has to happen for generations to take effect.
The second is a biological paper, NOT an epidemiological one. You cannot, and the authors do not, attempt to draw any conclusion on Humans at all. They mention human beings once as an aside, and quickly state that there was sampling bias in that study. I would also question their use of Generalized Linear Models. I can see them wanting the ability to do an F-test on the increment of R-squared for modeling purposes (god knows I've been waiting for the stats boys to come up with an logistic equivalent for years), but I still think that the probabilities you get out of a Generalized Logit model may have been more appropriate considering they want to study potential genetic defect using cross-sectional data. They probably did it both ways, so I dunno what about their data made them do it this way, especially when you consider that the different species were essentially proxies for different exposure groups. It would have made it a lot easier to read I didn't have keep flipping to the tables...
As an aside, I advocate genetic testing too...for those who can afford it
Correct; and you also know that animals are seen as a rapid way to get results with genetic testing BECAUSE you can breed so many generations so quickly.
Yeah. You can't do that with Humans though. Kinda my point.
So as long as it takes a while, the damage is acceptable? Personally, when I sought out genetic children I looked for breeding partners as far away from me genetically as possible; and I am happy I did. I know these discussions make people uncomfortable but really, remove all the "ew eugenics" feelings from it and just look at current medical technology and the wisdom of having a child without at least considering his or her genetic future.
It's not just that it takes a while, its just that it has to be done for generations, a concerted family effort. If a few people break the chain, which is likely outside of insular communities, then the damage is averted, genetic diversity is restored.
Peace, brother or sister. We can disagree without questioning each other's comprehension abilities. Yes, I do understand what you are saying I simply think we disagree.
Peace, indeed.
My bottom line is that we aren't in a place to question other people's choices on who they want to marry. Sure it's sub-optimal, but children are born with birth defects everywhere, regardless of who their parents are. Are we going to deny two people who want to get married that? Just because there's a chance that if they do, their kids might end up doing it for generations and somewhere down the line a child will be born with a birth defect? I don't think there is any point to discussing this in a biological context.
In the modern societies we live in, there is little chance that your children would marry their cousins, let alone your children's children marrying their cousins (all of whose parents also married your children). Hell, the chance that they will even be married is slimming.
I don't disagree with you that it's not a smart idea. I just don't think we're in any position to question two people's choices.
Captcha: Lame Duck
