welikeincrowds Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 The brain forms before birth. The brain is what makes somebody alive. Just because that brain is in another person's body does not negate it. I'm confused as to how you're addressing me, as this is exactly what I was talking about. You're making a distinction between the organs in her body that belong to her and belong to someone else. To do it you use the forming brain as evidence. It's not significantly different from a religious argument. Of course that doesn't surprise me because, like I said, almost all arguments against abortion start with a distinction, including your original one: Not all development happens in the womb, Thus some development happens inside the womb, thus the child is an independent, developing entity regardless of being inside or outside the womb, thus a distinction.
Yer_Blues Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 rofl.... if you are trying to determine when something is alive, the distinction of the brain is as irrelevant as a religious argument? Maybe 300 years ago. Thanks for the laugh. Using the body/physical location as the distinction is probably more ignorant than religious arguments.
denise_xo Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 We have to get an abortion right? l If I were in your position, I would want legal advice as well as emergency counselling for the two of you, where you could get some professional help to hash out the key issues involved (potential prosecution, medical implications, family/ stigma implications, financial implications, the whole lot). THEN make a decision. If she's on the fence, I think you'll come a longer way if you a) show willingness to work out the key issues WITH her (as Stung said, it takes two to tango), and b) that you show her that you're not going to just run away from this if she doesn't want an abortion. If you do the latter, she'll just go ahead and make her own decision anyway without taking your views into account. Good luck, you'll need it either way.
welikeincrowds Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 rofl.... if you are trying to determine when something is alive, the distinction of the brain is as irrelevant as a religious argument? Maybe 300 years ago. Thanks for the laugh. Using the body/physical location as the distinction is probably more ignorant than religious arguments. I never said irrelevant, nor do I think a religious argument is irrelevant. Apparently that is your cross to bear. I said not much different. It's not. Call it consciousness or call it a soul. The main difference for you is that in aborting you aren't transgressing against God, but man. I never once discredited an abortion argument. If you'll look you'll see I never made one, either. I can, but I feel it's not appropriate here. Instead I'm solely discussing arguments, for the sake of understanding all of them better.
Yer_Blues Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 I never said irrelevant, nor do I think a religious argument is irrelevant. Apparently that is your cross to bear. I said not much different. It's not. Call it consciousness or call it a soul. The main difference for you is that in aborting you aren't transgressing against God, but man. I never once discredited an abortion argument. If you'll look you'll see I never made one, either. I can, but I feel it's not appropriate here. Instead I'm solely discussing arguments, for the sake of understanding all of them better. I apologize for the post. It was hasty, inappopriate, and more a reflection of how angry I was at other things at the time I wrote it. I'm not sure I even fully comprehended where you were going
rhonian Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 First off, if Im wrong....IM SORRY! IMO, I think we all just got played?? There is something "fishy" about this thread.......just sayin'.......
SmileFace Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Could imagine the emotional load this child would have to deal with. Knowing his father is also his/her uncle and his mother is also his/her aunt. Or either of you even financially stable to have a child? Sigh, I don't even understand why being catholic would have an affect on you having an abortion. You already having sex . You don't seem that dedicated.
pookster72 Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 First off, if Im wrong....IM SORRY! IMO, I think we all just got played?? There is something "fishy" about this thread.......just sayin'....... thats what im thinking
Penney Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 (edited) We're both catholic but in this case I want an abortion asap, she's still on the fence about it. We have to get an abortion right? I think so, yes. I think the chances of a serious genetic problem are significant in this instance. You both need counseling right away. And please, please, please do not even think about getting counseling from a priest. This is a medical issue, not a religious one. I mean a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist. And she needs to see a doctor right away and tell them the facts so that she can receive genetic counseling if she is going to go through with this pregnancy. You both need to have genetic screening and she would need an amniocentesis or chorionic villi sampling. If you don't have insurance, she can get on medicaid for this. Edited December 30, 2010 by Penney
Penney Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 and WHAT THE H, man?!?! you were f*cking your sister... knowingly, & several times, for nearly a consecutive week?!?! OMG, did you read his story? Half-sister whom he was not raised with. listen; have the baby and put him/her up for adoption. Bad advice. There is a significant risk of genetic problems. Special needs children are hard to adopt out. Don't listen to the ignorant people who post here. They don't even understand basic genetic principles.
Mme. Chaucer Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 First off, if Im wrong....IM SORRY! IMO, I think we all just got played?? There is something "fishy" about this thread.......just sayin'....... He was still a virgin back on December 21. One way or another, there has been some playing going on ...
TaurusTerp Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 FWIW, from my preceptorship with a genetic counselor, your case isn't as rare as it's made out to be here. And the likelihood of deformity is often overblown. Yes, it is a good deal higher than non-incestuous couplings, but its not like 50% or anything. Either way, educate yourself, get some counseling on all aspects, and ignore the jesus freaks that I guarantee have violated several aspects of their religion anyway.
alexlakeman Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 And if you gave your child up, how will you feel knowing that your child is out there being raised, and you have no part in it, because you were young and ashamed? . That must be great, they didn't kill the unborn child and a family who couldn't have kids has adopted it and giving it a healthy life.. So he should feel great! Ok so I'm not going to chastise you for having sex with your half sister you never knew. It wasn't like she was your sister this whole time growing up. That WOULD be sick.. It's not liked the where not brother and sister for a time, then decided to be brother and sister afterwards... He KNEW she was his sister...It wasn't an accident. HE influenced her (guys usually take the lead, so I am assuming) that it was Ok, sleep with him, blah, blah, blah... She was an easy target... Like Eminem says "it's not like she tripped over and fell on his d)ck!" .. lol OP, I need clarification. On December 21 you evidently were a virgin: What's the real story? LOL, ooopss... maybe he was drunk and forgot he was a virgin?? LOL, or a troll
alexlakeman Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Bad advice. There is a significant risk of genetic problems. Special needs children are hard to adopt out. Don't listen to the ignorant people who post here. They don't even understand basic genetic principles. Can you post the source of your info? I'd be interested to read more upon it; you seemed so well versed on it.
Penney Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Can you post the source of your info? I'd be interested to read more upon it; you seemed so well versed on it. That would be the medical literature. But in more layman's sources, take a look at the royal families in Europe. Now they did not have half-sisters and brothers marrying each other, but even when it was first cousins having children together, they amplified the hemophilia gene through their pairings, which of course, somewhat directly lead to the Soviet revolution and misery for millions who had to live under communism. You can look that one up rather easily.
Cracker Jack Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Sounds like a troll topic. But if it isn't, I really feel sorry for you. This is a complete mess.
Penney Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Just did a quick search for those who are interested. This is an article from 1981. There are more recent articles, but none I can pull up as free full text like this one. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1504045/pdf/bmjcred00642-0006a.pdf Obviously, it is hard to study this type of situation since it occurs rarely and when it does, is hidden due to stigma or ends in miscarriage due to genetic defects of the fetus. In the Czech study, fewer than 1/2 the children born were normal. In the combined Michigan/England data, only 60% were normal, but they studed far fewer children.
TaurusTerp Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Can you post the source of your info? I'd be interested to read more upon it; you seemed so well versed on it. Lol do you seriously not believe him? It's simple high school biology. 2 carriers of a recessive disease/condition have a child, the child has a much higher risk of getting the recessive trait. By the way, for you morally superior folk, incest was fine and supported by society up until a couple centuries ago (and still is in some areas). So your "morals" are simply those passed down to you by your parents and religion, not some all-encompassing truth.
Penney Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 (edited) Lol do you seriously not believe him? It's simple high school biology. 2 carriers of a recessive disease/condition have a child, the child has a much higher risk of getting the recessive trait. FYI - I am a woman. If the inheritance pattern is simple Mendelian genetics, if both parents are heterozygous for a recessive trait (in lay person's terms, carriers), the chances are 1 in 4 that the baby will be homozygous for the recessive trait and thus express the phenotype. With brothers and sisters, the risk they both carry recessive genes for the same multiple traits is much, much higher than if two people are not closely related by blood. When the fetus is homozygous for multiple recessive traits, it is often incompatible with life and a miscarriage occurs. So many of these babies never even get born alive. Then of those who do, a large percentage have genetic defects and lower IQs than the offspring of people not so closely related. By the way, for you morally superior folk, incest was fine and supported by society up until a couple centuries ago (and still is in some areas). So your "morals" are simply those passed down to you by your parents and religion, not some all-encompassing truth. I don't believe that there are any societies in the last few centuries that have supported brother-sister, father-daughter or mother-son incest. Even primitive peoples recognized the problems of the offsprings who were the products of these closely-related incestuous relationships. First cousins, that is different. The royal families of Europe were incredibly incestuous at the first cousin level, so were families in colonial America. BUT, the incidence of genetic defects in the children of first cousins is lower than brother-sister. Brother-sister is the worst. Next worst is mother-son or father-daughter. I am not sure if half-brother-half-sister is worse than father-daughter or mother-son in terms of genetic defects. Would have to research it further. But I am sure that many of the children never make it to term and of those that do, there is a very high rate of genetic defects. Edited December 30, 2010 by Penney
SmileFace Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Life begins at Erection. Carry on. Haha that is funny
TaurusTerp Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 FYI - I am a woman. If the inheritance pattern is simple Mendelian genetics, if both parents are heterozygous for a recessive trait (in lay person's terms, carriers), the chances are 1 in 4 that the baby will be homozygous for the recessive trait and thus express the phenotype. With brothers and sisters, the risk they both carry recessive genes for the same multiple traits is much, much higher than if two people are not closely related by blood. When the fetus is homozygous for multiple recessive traits, it is often incompatible with life and a miscarriage occurs. So many of these babies never even get born alive. Then of those who do, a large percentage have genetic defects and lower IQs than the offspring of people not so closely related. I agree with pretty much everything you said, although to clarify it's never a simple mendellian ratio. But to go deeper requires science that is unnecessary to the discussion. And "IQ" is a specious test and not a great indicator of intelligence. I don't believe that there are any societies in the last few centuries that have supported brother-sister, father-daughter or mother-son incest. Even primitive peoples recognized the problems of the offsprings who were the products of these closely-related incestuous relationships. First cousins, that is different. The royal families of Europe were incredibly incestuous at the first cousin level, so were families in colonial America. BUT, the incidence of genetic defects in the children of first cousins is lower than brother-sister. Brother-sister is the worst. Next worst is mother-son or father-daughter. I am not sure if half-brother-half-sister is worse than father-daughter or mother-son in terms of genetic defects. Would have to research it further. But I am sure that many of the children never make it to term and of those that do, there is a very high rate of genetic defects. The point is still there. Incest was supported. And in this case, half-brother and half-sister met after adulthood. It's a pretty textbook case of genetic sexual attraction. It's not that uncommon. I remember reading about a case in Germany where one such case got married. They had 4 kids, and 3 had serious mental and physical problems. Anyway, my point is not "go ahead, bone your half-sister and have children", it's "it's not that uncommon, don't feel like a freak, but educate yourself and make the decision that will be right for both of you and potential children".
Penney Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 I agree with pretty much everything you said, although to clarify it's never a simple mendellian ratio. It depends on the trait whether it is simple mendelian genetics or not. Some, like CF and SC, have simple mendelian genetic inheritance patterns. Others like color-blindness are X-linked and so not simple Mendelian genetics, but pretty simple in their inheritance patterns nonetheless. No crossing over, etc.
Penney Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 And "IQ" is a specious test and not a great indicator of intelligence.Regardless of your opinion as to whether or not an IQ test is an indicator of anything significant, the children of closely related people have lower IQ's than those of people not so closely related on average. The point is still there. Incest was supported.First cousin incest, yes. But I am pretty sure that there are states in the US where it is legal to marry your first cousin to this day. With relatively common recessive traits like CF and SC, first cousin relations are dangerous. But for the less common traits, not near as much as with first degree relatives. Anyway, my point is not "go ahead, bone your half-sister and have children", it's "it's not that uncommon, don't feel like a freak, but educate yourself and make the decision that will be right for both of you and potential children".Well, my point is for them to get an abortion. This child should not be brought into this world. That is assuming this is not a hoax post.
TaurusTerp Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 Regardless of your opinion as to whether or not an IQ test is an indicator of anything significant, the children of closely related people have lower IQ's than those of people not so closely related on average. So do black people and hispanics. First cousin incest, yes. But I am pretty sure that there are states in the US where it is legal to marry your first cousin to this day. With relatively common recessive traits like CF and SC, first cousin relations are dangerous. But for the less common traits, not near as much as with first degree relatives. first degree cousin and half siblings are not really that far off. Well, my point is for them to get an abortion. This child should not be brought into this world. That is assuming this is not a hoax post. Agreed.
Recommended Posts