|
Post by gabriel on Sept 27, 2010 5:41:14 GMT
H'm. Well. Someone really needs to be accountable for this mess.news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8071607/brother-and-sister-marry-in-secretBrother and sister marry in secret15:00 AEST Mon Sep 27 Sep 27, 2010 A brother and sister in Ireland have married and are planning to flee the country to avoid legal action. The couple, known as James and Maura, wed in a civil ceremony last week and then announced they would be having a second child, The Irish Mail reports. James and Maura, who are both in their twenties, share the same father, Tom. The couple from Leinster were together for eight years before they realised they were related and by that time had already had their first child. It was James' mother who realised the connection after hearing details of Maura's life. See more: Incestuous Irish couple blame legal system A subsequent DNA test confirmed the two were related. James' mother then confessed she had put James' stepfather down as his real father on his birth certificate, hiding the identity of his real father. In an interview after the wedding, James said: "We have been together for so many years now that I don’t look at her as my sister." Their father and mothers were at the wedding, and along with two witnesses, are the only people who know the truth about James and Maura. Their father had to leave the civil ceremony after he became overwhelmed with emotion. Incest is illegal in most countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and the United States. There's a reason why it's illegal. The children born out of such a union are facing really tragic medical consequences. From this article it appears they are only half brother and sister but still, the link is there. I mean, 1st cousins may not be prohibited from marrying but even then it's frowned upon and discouraged because of the threat to the children. What a mess.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 27, 2010 7:52:06 GMT
in that they were unaware when they first got together....they were innocent of any wrong doing but having become aware then deliberately marrying was a little stupid...a little commonsense should have been used...if they wish to live together...so what but why didnt he have the snip so no children could have been born to them? the first generation will possibly get away with being the results of an incestuous relationship...if incest were to continue into further generations is where the problems start showing up
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Sept 27, 2010 10:08:33 GMT
If they do not encourage incestuous relationships between their children, and there is no suggestion that they might, I see no problem. It is their life, let them live it.
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Sept 27, 2010 10:52:34 GMT
If they do not encourage incestuous relationships between their children, and there is no suggestion that they might, I see no problem. It is their life, let them live it. H'm. Half brother and sister. What screwed up genes do you think their 2 kids may already have inherited? There is a reason why interbreeding is a huge no. That creep in Germany who fathered how many kids on his own daughter? What will happen to those kids? Alan, how can you see this as not being a problem? They are half brother and sister. They carry the same genes. Whatever defects are in the family lines are more than likely going to appear in these kids. They are in their 20's and obviously appear to be ready to continue together. Someone should seriously explain to them the probabilities of birth defects for children born of parents so genetically connected.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2010 11:38:04 GMT
If they are half siblings, the risk that they have both inherited the same recessive disease-linked gene from the parent they share is (I think) one in four: ( ie each has a 50% chance of inheriting that gene). It is still high enough to make most parents think twice.
And though they claim to have produced a healthy child, many genetic defects don't appear till adulthood. Let them live tgether if they want to , but Gabriel is right; someone needs to give them a serious talk about the risks they are running.
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Sept 27, 2010 11:53:16 GMT
2 people so closely related are going to have kids with way over the odds genetically caused medical problems.
That's why you don't breed with your family members. Sorry to be so blunt but it's the truth.
I'd be interested to find out where this 'marriage' took place. And who authorised it. And why no-one has looked into the health of the kids.
The brother and sister will do want they want to do. But the kids have no say. They never do. Who's looking out for them in this sorry mess?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 27, 2010 12:50:24 GMT
2 people so closely related are going to have kids with way over the odds genetically caused medical problems. That's why you don't breed with your family members. Sorry to be so blunt but it's the truth. as long as the children are not incestous the odds will be reduced...but surely every one is aware of the problems of inbreeding by now and i agree with you gabe....who is looking after the interests of these children... if these two really must live together..why on earth are they breeding......and being allowed to breed more to the point a need for compulsary sterilisation..possibly in this case
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Sept 27, 2010 13:03:11 GMT
OK. Short version. Brother and sister copulate. Bad. Produce children. Even worse.
Not good. I can't find a good spin on this.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Oct 1, 2010 14:25:18 GMT
It is perhaps a bit selfish to risk creating a child that will have to face less than ideal circumstances but then isn't that what happens when any fertile people have one night stands or underage sex or causal sex or sex in not-very-committed relationships.
If this couple actually wanted to create the new child, as opposed to just risking it via recreational sex, then I think that moves up a notch from 'a little' selfish to 'very' selfish. Or am I being too harsh?
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Oct 2, 2010 5:09:52 GMT
2 people so closely related are going to have kids with way over the odds genetically caused medical problems. That's why you don't breed with your family members. Sorry to be so blunt but it's the truth. I'd be interested to find out where this 'marriage' took place. And who authorised it. And why no-one has looked into the health of the kids. The brother and sister will do want they want to do. But the kids have no say. They never do. Who's looking out for them in this sorry mess? Other reasons this should NEVER be done: it's pure evil and disgusting. What a bunch of ###*** low-life perverts!
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Oct 2, 2010 5:10:54 GMT
If they do not encourage incestuous relationships between their children, and there is no suggestion that they might, I see no problem. It is their life, let them live it. Unfortunately, defending sick, disgusting evil done by perverts is in with some these days. God help us.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Oct 2, 2010 5:11:37 GMT
If they do not encourage incestuous relationships between their children, and there is no suggestion that they might, I see no problem. It is their life, let them live it. H'm. Half brother and sister. What screwed up genes do you think their 2 kids may already have inherited? There is a reason why interbreeding is a huge no. That creep in Germany who fathered how many kids on his own daughter? What will happen to those kids? Alan, how can you see this as not being a problem? They are half brother and sister. They carry the same genes. Whatever defects are in the family lines are more than likely going to appear in these kids. They are in their 20's and obviously appear to be ready to continue together. Someone should seriously explain to them the probabilities of birth defects for children born of parents so genetically connected. I wonder about those kids in Germany also! They're victims in the whole sick, evil thing!
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Oct 2, 2010 5:44:29 GMT
Apparently, they didn't know they were related when she 1st became pregnant. So they said and you can only take their word for it. But they certainly knew before she fell pregnant again. They knew they were related but went for it.
That's not an act of love. Or even lust, for that matter. That's just stupidity. And selfishness.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Oct 2, 2010 11:40:16 GMT
Apparently, they didn't know they were related when she 1st became pregnant. So they said and you can only take their word for it. But they certainly knew before she fell pregnant again. They knew they were related but went for it. That's not an act of love. Or even lust, for that matter. That's just stupidity. And selfishness. It's selfish PERVERTED EVIL! This is WILLFUL PERVERSION! Sickening! Once they knew they should have PARTED for GOOD. That would have been the decent thing to do. By NOT doing that they show they HAVE NO DECENCY. Complete degenerate ###***.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Oct 2, 2010 11:47:59 GMT
If they do not encourage incestuous relationships between their children, and there is no suggestion that they might, I see no problem. It is their life, let them live it. This mentality (rationalizing willful perversion) explains at least in part why you put up with what you do from politicians and are silent when the evils of politicians are brought up.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Oct 2, 2010 11:50:25 GMT
OK. Short version. Brother and sister copulate. Bad. Produce children. Even worse. Not good. I can't find a good spin on this. Why didn't the people who KNEW they were related speak up? They're just as bad by not speaking up and STOPPING the wedding ceremony. What a bunch of degenerate, cowardly ###***.
|
|
|
Post by june on Oct 2, 2010 11:56:24 GMT
OK. Short version. Brother and sister copulate. Bad. Produce children. Even worse. Not good. I can't find a good spin on this. Why didn't the people who KNEW they were related speak up? They're just as bad by not speaking up and STOPPING the wedding ceremony. What a bunch of degenerate, cowardly ###***. But as they haven't got married, what could be stopped? Them having a 'do' because they are siblings? The law obviously knows of this couple, and I presume has acted as it saw fit.
|
|
|
Post by june on Oct 2, 2010 12:02:38 GMT
Actually has it been proven they are related, by DNA testing ?
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Oct 2, 2010 13:45:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by june on Oct 2, 2010 14:36:57 GMT
If DNA proves a sibling relationship then, surely, their marriage is void as they are not eligible to marry each other?
|
|