Yes we need to know, but this article was full of "could"s. Well duh! Yes DNA testing "could" reveal incest, and if it did, scientists "might" face an ethical dilemma. (I don't see why - anyone who deals with children, from school secretaries to counselors MUST report even suspected abuse, and incest is always abuse.) But it never said this has happened! This is truly a non-story. Most children who are products of incest are raised in basements or backyard tent compounds. When they're ill, they're not taken in for genetic counseling!

Wouldn't the DNA show the parents had incest, not the child with the disability?

Most children who are products of incest are raised in basements or backyard tent compounds.

This quote reflects a profound misunderstanding about incest and who is a victim of it. I've known many incest survivors, and not one of those that I knew was raised in a basement or a backyard tent compound. In fact they were perfectly normal to look at. Many had never told anyone about their abuse either because they had denied that it was truly abuse (and often felt that they deserved it), they were afraid because they had been threatened, or they were ashamed. Most of their families also looked perfectly normal on the outside. Often the abuser was very well regarded by the community. At times the abuse had been so traumatic that the memories were locked away and forgotten; sometimes if one person in a family remembered others would come forward with information or someone would have always known about the abuse. There was a large controversy about this in the 90's and 2000's. There have been many estimates of what percentage of children are abused, and I am not sure which one is accurate. Some have said that as many as one fourth of girls are victims of incest. That would probably fit my experience with women I know who have told me about their experiences.

Apparently the sarcasm was not obvious. Mea culpa.

My irritation was at the article, and the supposition that money may have been wasted looking in the wrong place (genetic counseling businesses, where very concerned parents and hopeful-parents-to-be seek guidance) rather than spent on real research that might actually help society to get a better grasp of this horrible reality.

Most children who are products of incest are raised in basements or backyard tent compounds.

I think that this was talking about babies that were born because of incest.

If there is something wrong with the child they would hide it away. I

Im not sure how true this is though because most kids born of incest dont have obvious bad deformities.

A question comes to mind. I'm not qualified to answer, but perhaps someone out there is. Can they tell the difference between a child who is a product of a father/daughter, mother/son or brother/sister union from a child who is the product of a lot of cousin unions in past generations?

I would have to imagine that this will only be beneficial insofar as ascertaining the amount of individuals that are disabled or down's, etc.. that are this way due to incest and not other factors, such as aberrations genetically, chemically or medically so as well as due to environmental factors while in the womb, mother's habits et al.

Some will be important to the medical and industrial fields, as depending on the results, some may be exonerated based on these findings pertaining to tort suits, thus the results may be skewed as depending on the findings, I for one would like to see funding sources prior to judging whether or not they are unbiased science or paid-for results. Science can, does, and has in the past manipulated findings to lean; afterall, most all of us, especially in smaller, clanish areas and nations are somewhat, somehow related down the lines most noteably prior to the past century or so... limited travel, limited ways to do so. Hence, the area that Abe Lincoln came from being known for having a populace that has the pronounced 'bump' on their occipital lobes (can't remember the name for these folks, but believe it starts with an 'A').

By testing DNA and alleles, it can be determined how closely related, say, baby X is to the parents. Mother and son, let's say, would have more in common genetically than mother and 3rd cousin's offspring. A blood relative aunt and nephew vs. one cousin getting together with a 2nd cousin; as the more the gene pool varies from strict blood lines and others combine with the strict blood line, though blood related, the gene pool will vary more and more. Not sure, but mitochondrial DNA may be the known factor, as it's passed from mother and is used as an identifier in unsolved criminal cases, lost relative searches and the like. Some of the closer vs. more distant may be based upon this.

At any rate, no matter the results, it's sounds like nothing more than an interest to science but changes nothing; if it's found to be a major contributing factor in many, let's say, then what? Incest is already frowned upon, illegal for the most part, and involves rape in many instances; this is for the law, and most has gone on hidden for various reasons forever and a day. So again, it may boil down to medical and industrial fields getting an 'out' of lawsuits against them, and quell further ones. Pharmaceutical companies, chemical industries, pollution standards.... much more to lose or gain, depending on the results.

Tie up the courts for years, outlast those you've screwed over... somewhat a pessimistic outlook, but makes sense.

Sally- How did you see a joke in my comment questioning another person's comment? Of course, incest should be reported. However, people at a school won't be able to see if someone is a victim of incest through a DNA test since the school wouldn't have access to medical records like that.

Dandelion:

If you'll scroll up, you'll notice that the actual first and second comments have been deleted. You are not comment 1 or 2, but comment 1.2; she was not talking about you, but posted here so that she would have a greater chance of being seen and read.

Define wrong beyond today. Thanks.

Kedbob, just curious-your opinion of incest between a child and an adult-right, wrong, or indifferent?

I agree. the only people who should be worried is the people who are doing soming wrong. I know for a fact that in Las Vegas if a minor has a baby the police are called just to make sure that there isn't like a 20 year age difference and it was consensual..... I think that when they do the study if there is going to be legal concerns they maybe should think about not using names but a number system (like a deli)

test everyone know the truth and let the ethicist's worry about whats right and wrong later.

if the truth is unethical then the ethics are wrong.

some incestuous relationships are completely innocent.

for example you meet a hot girl fall in love and have no idea that your dad thought her mom was pretty hot 20 years ago.

the people who are harmed aren't being harmed by the knowledge so much as they are being harmed by the lack of knowledge.

it would be nice if we all just got dna fingerprinted and could do a quick compatibility scan before we got drunk or at least before we got her home while drunk.

Onepoker;

Yep... as warped as it sounds, some scientists and moreso behaviorial therapists believe that in the scenario you've described, and not knowing, of course... you'd be likely to be attracted to a sibling, half sibling, or 1st cousin as you'll tend to have more in common, genes play a role in personality and all else about who we are.

This isn't to say that all are attracted to those related to them (for the black and white crowd out there) but that in the case you've pointed out above there's more of a chance you or her would pick the other out of the crowd.

Personally, however, I'd roll the dice and play the odds before allowing DNA finger printing; not for more controls and invasiveness, government bar coding. Not nearly the degree of trust you may have, but that's just me....

Reading the article, I came away with a different understanding.

Scientists sometimes analyze the DNA of disabled children looking for clues to understand their underlying disorders. That may lead to chromosomal information that identifies the children as having been conceived by two close relatives.

The authors say scientists doing such tests could legally be required to report that information to authorities in cases where the mother conceived as a minor.

Beaudet and colleagues did not cite any studies on the prevalence of the problem. But they suggested institutions establish committees to discuss the legal and ethical issues surrounding DNA testing. They proposed that guidelines be developed by American and European genetics organizations.

"Science is moving so fast it is often discovering information that we won't know is sensitive until the future," he said. Upshur said science has often outpaced ethical considerations on issues such as cloning, stem cell research and genetic sequencing. He agreed recommendations were needed to advise doctors on how to handle potentially sensitive information.

My take on the article is that the scientists want to establish guidelines on how to handle such information, before it becomes an issue.

it would be nice if we all just got dna fingerprinted and could do a quick compatibility scan before we got drunk or at least before we got her home while drunk.

Wasn't that in a movie starring Ethan Hawke? Very frightening concept because of its societal implications.

Carmarie. Thank you -- someone who actually read the article (rather than just the title and not even the subtitle) before commenting.

My comment was in response to all of the upset comments I had read, not to the article itself. I was shocked so many people thought it was unethical.

I just looked it up... Most guesses are between 10-15% of the population... That really does seem like alot... And children born from incest are more likely to develop genetic disorders. Most cases probably go unreported because of fear and shame. Makes you think...

where's the scientific proof that children born of incest has a higher risk of birth defects then non incest? According to the bible, we are all products of incest. They laid with their fathers in the bible also and they turned out just fine. Anyone ever though maybe the problem isn't incest but cross breeding with different gene pools? Think about it, you cant mix two different types of blood. Maybe its bad to be mixing two different types of gene pools?

hmmmm you are a moron... go back to your KKK meeting and stick up up your %@&... some of the most beautiful and intelligent people I know are mixed races... Wake up to the new world...

I suspect that by "mixing two different types of blood" you are not talking about Rh factors. Look up "hybrid vigor."

Reply to unknown-2962713 --- Although you may not LIKE what your predecesor wrote, it actually sounds just as intelectually legitimate as any of the other posts herein. Why is it open season to overreact (as you demonstrated) whenever somebody raises a race question? Your knowledge of some beautiful mixed race people carries no scientific weight. Whereas "hmmmm-2027367 MIGHT be a racist you truly ARE an intelectual lightweight and a bandwagon jumper.

@hmmmm, the Bible is a fairy tale and I suspect you're a mo-fo.

hmmmm-2027367. I just know you are dumber than a first grader! In fact, a first grader just hasnt had the chance to learn stuff yet, on the other hand, you are a complete moron.

I would be willing to bet that you never even studied BASIC science, and, genetics in High School, to you Mendelsohn is an unknown. The only thing you seem to know well, is deep rooted ignorance, and, prejudice against others who may not look like you. Thus, your very stupid comment.

Wouldnt doubt it if you have a family full of what we used to call "retards" and "cripples", better known now as "mentally challenged" and "handicapped". The sad part of it is that these people are victims of people with no scruples, no morals, and, above all, people like you who are so hung up on their own gene pool, that they create unfortunate beings with detrimental recessive genes becoming dominant genes via inbreeding.

By the way, who turns your PC on and off for you?

hmmmmmm- WOW. You are a F$#*tard.

The bible says alot of stupid things. You need help. Turn on the Discovery channel or PBS and grow a brain. Church has sucked away any good you might have been born with and left you an empty sad shell filled with S@#$!

Phil-

Hmmmmm does not bring up a valid point. Are you drunk? People have a right to their opinions but not their own facts regarding truth. (Christians and other deeply religious folk often don't get this)

What he mentions holds NO merit because it has already been debunked scientifically decades ago. Been there , done that. It's like he has asked if maybe blond haired people are smarter than short people. Yeeeeesh. and if your going to spell a word regarding someones lack of intellect- HAHA- Spell it correctly.

Oh and Hmmmmmmm- to answer your stupid question "Where's the proof"

(the "GO-TO" joke would, of course, be "In your mirror")

but the correct answer is .... wait for it..... EVERYWHERE IN EVERY STUDY EVER DONE ON THE SUBJECT SINCE FOREVER!

well if you have a defective gene and you brother has a defective gene that are both recessive, you have more of a chance for that gene to be dominant.

 Incest children have high
risk of diseases and conditions that may be harmful since the 

genes they are working with are not different enough to off-set 

these conditions. One receives one set of chromosomes from each

parent and when the parents have similar genes, the recessive 

genes that are mutated or genes that represent bad qualities 

may be paired with the exact same gene, causing that trait to
be evident.

If you want more proof then what I just wrote you then feel free to look around online.

10-15%? that seems a little high. of course i have a learning disability. :)

Pretty sure you guys are getting trolled.

Yes, hmmmm... the old Punnet's square will tell you, two with bad (pertaining to ill consequences) recessive genes will have a 25% chance of 1 out of 4 having the recessive defect, 50% of carrying the defective or flawed gene, on 1, 25%, of having the dominant 'good' gene that will neither carry nor have the undesired trait.

By your logic, if the recessive trait is desired, then yes... you have 25% chance of getting this, but 75% of not or waiting another generation of carriers to perhaps provide this.

If there were, as you say, incestuous relationships back in the day (I'm certain there actually were, but nothing to do with a book) the offspring that were 'undesired' for lack of a better word (disabled and/or disfigured, really) they were likely done away with. Most don't hear as much about that.

Phil darling you call me an intellectual lightweight I find that interesting because this blond haired, blue eyed, California girl holds a masters degree in special education. They do not just give those away, but if they do please let me know I would love to get another one without all the hard work and research that goes along with the degree. Without delving into scientific terms (because they might hurt your little head) the only people who stick to the thought process of not mixing races are, in my experience, people who are ignorant. People who are ignorant are people who are afraid of the world around them. It continually amazes me that post Nazi annihilation people still hold to the belief that one race or religion is better than another. Every single person on this planet must do the same thing basic things to live eat and drink to name two of them. I mentioned the KKK because I was tired from (of wait for it) writing another paper on evolution of plants (oh look another masters) not bad for an unintelligent schmuck like me.

To quote Warren Beatty from the movie Bulworth:

"Everybody just gotta keep fu**in' everybody til they're all the same color"

Right on Atomic... lovin' is the way to go....

Please, hmmmm-----you're not talking eugenics, are you?

Thats what I was thinking. The children they are testing already have enough problems in their life. Why bother giving them this information so they have even more issues to deal with.

Once again hhmmmm you shouldnt even open your mouth!! your opinions are ignorant and sad too see people still live in the dark like you. but if their is a god, its people like you that need too worry!!!!!

The children should be informed about their genetic heritage when they become adults. Knowing one's parents' and grand parents' medical history is important when making life style and preventative medical decisions.

you have a right to know if your an abomination. wouldn't you want to know? political correctness causes me a lot of guilt when i finish laughing at my own stupid jokes.

Yes, as adults especially people who have genetic disorders should have it disclosed to them that they have the disorder. The thing is, you can know about your own genetic predispositions without knowing how you got them. You can give the child the information on exactly what is in there genetics without telling them "Oh yeah, you're a product of incest and considered an abomination by a lot of people. Don't let it get you down though, it's not your fault." The psychology behind being told that straight up can be devastating not only to the person but to everyone around them.

You can have recessive genes and not be a product of incest, just as you can have a genetic mutation that is not really a gathering of recessive genes but does cause a problem that is also caused by recessive genes. It would be just as easy for the doctor to tell them "You have a genetic disorder and there are several different ways you could have come by it, this is how we deal with it now." and not even worry about the origin of it. Once the genetics are bound and a person has them you can't go back in time and change them, you can only go forward and deal with them or let them take their course, which is a personal choice. Knowing why they are there is not a necessity.

i was thinking the same thing

is there a petition to sign? can we add Phoenix - AZ state capital?? please!

Cruel, Jim. But you have a point about politicians and their intelligence...

Heh, the Phoenix Capitol dome would clearly throw off the study's data.

Way to make a non-political article political.

hey we have a lot of diversity in phoenix. 1 million mexicans, 1 million white people and 7 black folks.

Jan Brewer for President!!!!!! Wish Utah's Governor had as big a set as her. Maybe someone can test Mikey Bloomburg then we could send him to a funny farm where he belongs. Along with Nazi the fluzzy, Hairy Reid, CHUCKY Schumer, and best of all how about Pres. Odrama maybe then we could prove citizenship once and for all. LOL HAHA Take a chill pill Libs you said alot worse about W. as I drive by road signs with " Bush Lies" stickers all over them every night as a reminder of your so called Tolerance.

Loved your comment on D.C.

Onepoker, I'm from Phoenix originally and that about sums it up. Might I add the 750,000 of the one million white people are Mormons? Not that I have anything against them, just a statement of fact. Thanks for making me smile.

I was thinking the same thing.

Thats no joke! Bubba and cousins making babies, heck....Bubba and his sister sometimes.

Must be why southerners are so hog wild about family reunions. LOL

Ain't just the south, honey. I got into genealogy a while back. My grandfather came from a small town in upstate NY, founded by a bunch of Germans who came over in 1709. The people in that town to this day is almost all descendants of that same small group. While figuring out the blood lines, found out that both grandpa's parents were descended from the two same guys...didn't marry first cousins, but pretty close a few times...too close for comfort, if you ask me. I think in those small towns, the genetic pool is pretty small.....

If you go to family reunions to pick of women, you might be a redneck.....

DNA is a wonderful thing .... paternity tests have helped two of my best friends show they could not have been the father. One broke off the engagement and the other got a divorce. He sued her for over $100K in support that was paid during the marriage to raise her and the "other mans" child. DNA ... leading to solve crimes, to absolve others of crimes. It is truly a tool of great importance to unlocking so many physical, mental and social issues.

My neighbors both have blue eyes. Their daughter has brown. He thinks he's the biological dad! It's stunning to me that in 2011 people don't know this biology 101 fact- Two blue eyed parents always have a blue eyed child. ALWAYS.

Two blue-eyed parents can produce a child with brown eyes. It is rare, but can happen. Google for more information.

@ Dennis - That's 20% of those tested, those who have no reason to question don't get tested.

@ Riley - Ever hear of a mutation? It has happened before.

the above is for riley before he causes divorces all over the country.

sorry i forgot they quit allowing links on this site. well it was an article on how blue eyed parents can have brown eyed babies.

Dennis,

I see no problem in a guy/girl raising a child that isn't his/hers, unless he wants out of the situation.

I am a big believer in the idea that your parents are the ones who raise you, not necessarily your sperm/egg donor.

Sorry Riley, you need to go on the net and do the research, two blue eyed parents can have a brown eyed child... don't make high school genetics lessons be your guiding force through life.... they were over simplified.

Riley- Since everyone here is talking genetics. The brown eye gene is a dominant gene. If either parent has a family member with brown eyes that would be the reason for the child to have brown eyes. just because two parents have blue or brown eyes does not mean the child will have the same.

Saphystal....you need to finish your thought and you'll realize your "logic" also disproves your statement: if a gene is dominant (and brown eyes are) then there are no "silent carriers" as you proclaim, dominant genes are expressed. Looking at one side of genetic inheritance, if Grandma has brown eyes and her granddaughter has brown eyes, then the connecting child/parent would "carry" the brown-eyed gene and that child/parent would also have brown eyes. BUT, your logic does prevail if you substitue recessive for dominant....I have blue eyes and both of my parents have brown eyes. They are (silent) carriers for blue eyes (a recessive trait) as I have a grandparent on each side that has blue eyes.

Side note: genetically speaking, there are only 2 eyes color genes: brown and blue. BUT, there are more than those 2 genes that contribute to eyes color. There is also a pigment gene and the contribution of incomplete penetrance. It is possible for blue-eyes parents to have a child with "brown-like" eyes, more commonly called hazel (which is not genetically recognized as an eye color, but merely the end result of the several genes involved with eye color).

This is all true; however, there are instances where it is unlikely. My brother's ex-girlfriend has a history of cheating. Her Swedish emigree blond hair blue eyed spouse and her (she is also a blonde/blue from Sweden) have a dark skinned, wide nosed, dark kinky haired child with brown eyes who he believes is his own because neither believes in DNA or genetics. Based on her previous behavior, I have no doubt that he is NOT the father and throwbacks are NOT possible.

I've been told that my hazel eyed husband and I could not have a brown eyed child by an internet test and that is totally false. One daughter has mostly green but technically hazel eyes and the other has very light brown eyes. He carries both the blue and brown gene and I carry one green and one blue (so I technically don't have blue eyes although most would call them blue). Not every situation is testable on the internet. His brown eyed sister and her blue eyed husband's three kids all have blue eyes... it's just luck and which genes show through. You have to know the colors of eyes back more generations than most people have proof of... I know my grandma has hazel eyes and my mom has grey, my dad's family have all lighter blue eyes than Paul Newman.

The thing though Dennis is that men wouldn't bring the kids in unless they already were afraid the kids weren't there, so there would be a higher chance of that. In the general population I doubt 20% of kids don't belong to the guy who thinks he's dad.

Riley - as typical for most, you are posting without thinking. Use any search engine on the net. That search will yield numerous studies (which you can read, hopefully), and it will reveal the following:

If both parents have blue eyes, they can, in fact, have a baby with brown eyes.

Hey guys,

I did look around abit. Thanks for your input. I think (for now at least) I'm going to stick with my original "Eye color"post simply because these particular folks have VERY ICY blue eyes. What I've read (just a bit-your correct, there is a lot of material out there) shows examples of eye color that is greyish or greenish- called blue by some and certainly bluish but I didn't see any thing that confirmed a brown (not hazel) eyed offspring of a TRULY double set of very blue eyed parents. I certainly don't want to oversimplify but I don't want to overcomplicate either by including these various shades and calling them blue when they are really not or brown when they are really not. If someone can show example of two BLUE eyed parents producing a BROWN eyed child- this would be news to me and I would appreciate and gladly accept the much deserved schooling.

Check out this site...

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=332

Basically it is possible but unlikely. If the child does have brown eyes it could be a genetic mutation or some other gene determining eye color.

Thank-You Becca! Very interesting model. I might be willing to take away my "ALWAYS" statement if I can find another source that concurs with this one....but even this one says Blue from Blue at least 99% of the time ....and again I'm still wandering what shade(s) of blue this author is willing to accept. That area was a little, pardon the pun, grey for me. I love this stuff. Thanks again.

Well if its a mutation I would think it wouldnt matter how blue your parents eyes were...

I just wanted you to know it is theoretically possible (though highly unlikely)

LOVE that creepy episode! Brave and horrible!

aniki0609, very true. There is always a possibility of it getting out and whittled down because of family ties. I am also a firm believer that it is not psychologically healthy for the individuals involved to continue to be in that situation where they will be put down for something like this. In our town we recently had a college girl throw a baby in a dumpster because she said she was raped and couldn't handle being a mother (there is much more but I am not going into it all), she was caught and is awaiting sentencing, but the girl's parents tried to get custody of the child and the courts decided that that would be even more damaging because the child does not need to know what happened because it was not his fault. In cases like that the child is often moved far away from what happened as quickly as possible for the psychological well being of the child, why not let that be in this case too. Why continually force the child to be raised by and a subject to the idea that they were not wanted? Or in the case of incest and rape, came about from an act that is beyond frowned upon, but is often forced violently? It is unfortunate but human beings wrap so much of their own identity up in their origin and connect who they are to who their parents are. We are not our parents, siblings, or extended family. If the child, when older and better able to understand that fact, wants to go out and find all of that out then it is their choice and responsibility to get the help to deal with it all, but forcing the stares, questions, and misery on a helpless person is ridiculous.

.... never 'was' any children??? Raised in West Virginia I suspect.

thats what your fathers brother was wondering. but there was a kid and he is as dumb as his uncle.

Times have changed Chris.

take your own advice hmmmm!!!

Chris, you're assuming it's daddy molesting daughter. It could just as easily be 13-year-old brother having sex with 16-year-old sister that produces that baby. Gonna put a 13-year-old in jail for having sex with his sister? Incest of this nature happens a lot more than people think.

Yes, it's true. My ex told me in our better days that her elder brother had been molesting her on the farm way back when she was 9. If her Mama didn't know, she must have not cared or it was the way things were in Alaska. she has come out of the experience unscathed and for 18 months gave me the best time of my life. I miss her, but my aim's getting better.

The overwhelming majority of incest cases ARE father/daughter. Thus it would be only natural for an investigator to look at that angle first.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7093878

As for "times change", thankfully they have. Most people now know that begetting children on a blood relative leads to all sorts of medical issues. However it was known as far back as 1200 AD that incest was a bad thing and outlawed in most civilized nations.

Yea but in most states you can have sex as a "minor" You are considered a minor until your 18, so if a girl was 17 or even 16 in some states they are able to have sex. The question becomes how old was the father. Most victims of abuse don't tell people that easily. You can do a DNA test but I think that should be done if there is reason to believe it may be the father. It would cost way to much to test every baby to see if the father was the babies grandfather.

But on the other hand, if anyone is going to get child support it should be proven the father is really the father. And if not then the mother should pay for that test plus any others needed to determine who the father was (except in cases of rape where the father is not known)

Whipped? Is that all? What about prison time? That's what the penalty is now.

Yep, and they say men can't be raped. This story and others like it will get more awareness to defenseless disable boys who don't know what they are being led on to do .... and out comes a child. She says it was another man, but now we know she slept with a disabled child relative and now their are genetic disorders.

RBAJ, no, no whipping. I might agree to a fall down the stairs, or two or three flights of stairs, an empty elevator shaft, a tall parking structure, a quick jaunt across any freeway in California (altho if somehow they make it across all 10 lanes, they can skip the next step) wrapping in fresh raw meat and thrown in a pool of pirahna, covered in honey and placed on a fire ant hill, if they survive all those tests, they can go free. Those tests don't have to be in any particular order, so they molestor can choose which one to do first, as a last request so to speak.

@ A Fo5 - Right, get the father killed so we have to pay for raising the child, disabilities, (if any), and all. Brilliant!

The perp should have to pay all the costs of taking care of any disabilities, including learning, the child has as well as regular child support.

please note, I said the molestor (already tried, and found guilty) not specific to man, as there are women who are just as guilty of these acts.
Its not a valid argument that we would not have to pay anyway, you don't suppose that parent would be responisible for the life and well being of someone they denegrated after they violated them do you? They get a free ride in jail, and we pay anyway the other way. I at least gave them a hope, if they survived all the tests, they could walk free. (with much laughter as I typed those challenges in)
On the bright side, the animal rights groups wouldnt let them be dipped in honey (as that might violate a bears right to eat in Yosemite) and the Red Ant is a protected species. So my plan wouldn't work, but it was a fun thought for a moment.

yer the bad apple type dude!

I don't think anyone wants harm or punishment to come to the offspring. I think people could be very helpful with this information in aiding the child- be it mentally, physically or both. A doctors first concern is of her patient.

Nothing. Beautiful. Far away. Home of the toothbrush. Anywhere else they'd a named it the teethbrush. Heeya!

Rock Creek, I miss you.

Incest is a crime that should not be ignored. It festers and hurts all involved. It might be convienant to "Leave it alone"- but it's wrong. It just is. Are you sure you meant your post to convey such apathy?

Two bullets per convict is cheaper than even 1 year in prison. I say go for it - figure out who is born because of incest and who was the guilty party, then shoot 'em and kill 'em.

If you violate one of our oldest laws (don't have sex with a close relative) which has serious consequences on another being, besides the one you damaged mentally, you don't deserve to live.

Of course, I think convicted killers (especially those who are serial) should bite the bullet, too.

.38 hollow points should kill 'em nice and quick, right?

I know my view is radical for most, but I believe that strong punishment would help prevent criminals, and that the only good repeat offender is a dead repeat offender.

If people know they're going to get dead real fast after their third strike, I think they would be more inclined to toe the line.

@ Meghan Herr - "If it took more than one shot then you weren't using a Jacobs."

I don't get it... (I don't shoot, sorry!)

I say two - one to the heart and one to the head, that way no one can say the criminal was in any pain or whatever B.S. the lawyers exude these days.

You have to have played the video game "Borderlands" to get it.

Meghan...I agree. The intentional crime of incest perpetrated by a male or female parent or sibling against a son, daughter, brother, sister is wrong and goes against our natural human instincts. In the mind of the perpetrators, they know that they are consciouslycomitting a criminal act. They know that if they are discovered, there will be criminal charges brought against them by at least the state where the crime was committed. The people who intentionally commit these crimes should be after a fair trial and evidence proves them guilty should be shot dead before a firing squad on national television. Most of the people who commit these crimes have been doing it for years. Later in life, the victims usually never are able to develop a healthy and loving relationship with a spouse because their concept of what a real relationship with a spouse should be is skewed by the fact of the abuse they suffered earlier. I'm with you on the fact that the ones who knowingly commit the crime of incest should be Removed from society by about 6 feet under.

Blue N Gold----"leave it alone"? That seems very cold-hearted, to abandon the victims like that. Incestuous relationships often go on for years; revelation is what is needed, to bring the crime to light. Knowledge that such relationships may come out & a "he-said-she-said" argument could be very be fairly weak might be enough to deter some potential abusers. At the very least, the abused need to be vindicated & perhaps reassured that what happened was not their fault. The guilty should not be allowed to hide.

"And ye shall know the truth, and it will set you free." ( I believe that's how it goes, & I'm sorry, I can't cite book, chapter, or verse. Someone will have to help me on this one. )

Battling Banjos... Did you know that kid actually looks like that!

Shot in South Carolina or North Carolina if I am not mistaken...

Pax....no, it was shot in Georgia.

I am from Arkansas and there is no more "inbreeding" here than anywhere else. Your comment was supposed to be funny and was not.

DNA testing would confirm or deny your statement. I would not take your word for it. The south used to openly pride itself on maintaining family property through the marriage of cousins decades after it was labeled taboo in northern states. This is just history. The odds of inbreeding for cultural reasons has always been stronger in the southern united states than in the north. The North has plenty of issues as well. You'll get your chance to scoof with legitamacy soon enough, I'm sure.

Funny you mention Arkansas cuz I know someone who apparently had sex with his sister... Shes got a daughter that isnt quite right...

The crime of incest happens in all 50 states. To believe otherwise is simply denying the truth. To single out one state over another is just biased opinion. I am sure that if all of the actual cases of incest were known, we may be surprised at what states have the highest rates of incest.

Actually my friend I live in Ashland OH,although the reason they call W.VA. "almost heaven" is because it is located next to Kentucky.

OBTW you know what is the best thing to come out of West Virgina?

An empty Greyhound bus!

This comment not only shows your intelligence, (or lack of any), it also shows your maturity level is that of a middle school child, who finds these kinds of jokes humorous!!

I agree

In other words, Mother Son sex is alright? I think not, remember, in any inbred community, there is a propensity for a certain diseases like, let's say, cancer, or non lymphoma hoskins, or hyper tension, and elevated cholestrol to be even more prevalent in that gene pool, therefore to minimize the risk of the unwanted gene from occurring, you delute the gene pool by going outside the close relatives.

There are almost 7 billion people on the planet. We should probably take a big break from breeding because of that horrific truth. But my point is- Find someone your not related too! It's an easy thing to do.

Jim_H: 2liberal is correct. Take an animal breeding and a genetics course at a university and you'll learn this. Linebreeding can produce high quality animals as long as the inbreeding coefficient isn't too high, they have no genetic diseases, and the phenotype of the selected parents are superior (e.g. horses that were accomplished in the show ring or on the track or the high producing dairy cow.) Hybrid vigor is very important, but when done correctly linebreeding can produce the desired results. Humans should not be "bred" to any sort of plan...that would be morally and ethically wrong, but to imply all linebred humans are genetically inferior is simply incorrect. I consider myself linebred. I have a set of common ancestors in my pedigree about 6 generations back who would've been alive in the mid-1800s. Neither of my parents would've known them. I have ten fingers and toes, no disease or handicaps. I have a BS degree, a career, and a very smart 3 year old who is on the verge of reading, runs fast, and can ride a pony by herself. My husband and I have no common ancestors as our hometowns are geographically 6 hours apart. Still my daughter has linebreeding in her pedigree - I think she is more genetically superior than most. Unfortunately, we can look to communities, such as the Amish, who are severely inbred to the point they have diminished their gene pool and have genetic diseases more frequently than the rest of the population, but I'm not sure their cancer rate is any higher than the rest of us. I think your introductory sentence was out of line. And in your last sentence I think you meant to use the word "concentrate" instead of "delute" which I assume was supposed to be "dilute." Diluting something makes it weaker.

Very true, inbreeding and linebreeding don't "create" genes, only "concentrate" them so they're more likely to be expressed. You get what you select for. If you want a small dog with a round forehead, big ears and buggy eyes (Chihuahua) then over several generations you choose animals that closely resemble what you're going for and breed them to each other repeatedly to increase your odds of pulling the specific genes out of the genetic lottery.

You could select for intelligence, or skin color, or any number of traits possible in the genome--and this goes for humans as well as every other living creature (plant and animal) on the earth.

Doing random inbreeding (or incest) on a family line is a toss up, you have no clue what your genetic bag of goodies holds without careful research into past generations. Who knows what you'll get, but odds are that it won't result in disabilities. The inbreeding coefficient of human families is MUCH more open than that of any animal that humans choose to breed.

It's like the old "mutts are healthier dogs" idea. Yes, Poodles carry certain breed specific medical problems. So do Laboradors. When you breed a poodle to a labrador, your cute labradoodle has inheretied possible genetic disorders from both breeds instead of only one set of possible problems. Go to a *good* breeder who uses dna tests, medical screening, pedigree research, and inbreeding to screen for and eliminate animals who carry those genes from their breeding program and what you get is a very healthy dog from very healthy parents--not despite the inbreeding, but because of it.

The key word in these posts about line breeding is select. The breeder has to be willing to cull offspring with undesirable traits. This may be O.K. with livestock, but not with humans. You might do genetic screening in utero and abort those with obvious problems, but there would always be those you miss.

all the information on livestock, and breeding of animals is great information, not really pertaining to the original subject of how the DIRECTION of testing in Defects, and in most incest (meaning already in a trial for criminal proceeding stage) cases. Its fantastic that we can breed exactly what we want in our animals.

On this side track from the main article, Im guessing that you all want to prove that its okay to inbreed humans as well, to make them stronger, or more specifically tailored to a certain genetic disposition, lets just say , blonde hair, blue eyes, white male, non-jew, as a final selection of the ACCEPTED final HUMAN? Maybe not.

The article was not denegrating those with birth defects, or handicaps from birth. IT was relating how a certain percentage has been proven to be a result of those defects from close family (incestual relationship). I guess tho we need to have a biology lesson on the difference between a well bred dauchsund and labrador, even when the result of those breeds will still be (in animal terms) a bitch. :–noun 1. a female dog . 2. a female of canines.

Oh to blog or not to blog, and stay on topic, that is the question.

Inbreeding risks recessive genes becoming dominant. Although we were not related, both my wife and I had German ancestors. The result was that our son was born with a alpha-trypsin enzyme deficiency, which causes the immune system to attack the lungs. With progressive lung dysfunction, the heart compensates, developing a weakened condition known as cardiomegaly. None of this medical history was known, when one day in October 1978, he and I went out for our usual morning run. We had gone just over a mile, when he collapsed, died and could not be revived. The autopsy revealed lungs that resembled a fish net. Subsequently, both daughters, younger than their brother were tested for the disease, but none of them have it.

In controlled breeding you are correct. But indiscriminate in-breeding in humans through incest most likely wouldn't achieve any positive results. There is already something wrong with a parent wanting sexual activity with their child. However among cousins it is most likely harmless.

I read the article more as "If we can prove incest, would we be ethically bound to report it and what ramifications would that have." You do have a valid point, there are other instances where it has been hypothesized genes are linked (not proven) to a predisposition to certain actions such as violence, substance abuse, etc. but that is not what this is talking about. Ethics has to deal with these things in an objective as well as subjective manner to make sure too many personal right boundries are not overstepped. It is known that just because someone is predisposed to something doesn't mean they are going to do/have that problem (as seen by society) and just because someone does not have that predisposition does not mean they are not going to do/have that problem.

I agree. I don't understand the "Thorny" side of this subject at all.

Anyone?

There shouldn't be a "thorny" side. The act of incest is wrong. PERIOD !!! It damages it victims for life, and the offenders usualy don't stop with just one victim. They are predators looking for another opportunity to commit the same crime. It should be reported to the authorities as soon as it is discovered. No matter what method was used to discover it.

Actually the risk is compounded exponentially with a family history of inbreeding. This can be catastrophic genetically as there becomes less and less of a stable "base" to pull healthy code from.

Biology is complicated. Most people are somewhat ignorant on the science but they should still be able to voice concern about the moral issues.

You have shown your somewhat ignorant but you also write with an air of false superiority that shows you are not charming.

Laura-2979239, what are the risks of genetic disorder of closer relations? You know, brother/sister, parent/child? Incest does not only occur between cousins so your idea that this is completely ignorant and the evidence you have shown really does show your ignorance as to the problem that most people have with incest. There is a difference between inbreeding and linebreeding, but you obviously are one who puts them in the same group as well as incest in anyone you have a thin strand of relation to. I have seen in the article and a lot of people before you comment on "family lovin'" but not on "kissing cousins" so what is you problem?