Not The Onion

19348 readers

1098 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

306

NHS defends cousin marriages because ‘only 15 percent lead to birth defects’ (www.yahoo.com)

submitted 1 day ago by bytesonbike@discuss.online to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

113 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] Atlas_@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

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.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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"

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 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

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In this day and age, I think most babies are born out of wedlock.

Around 40% in the US.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/out-of-wedlock-births-by-country

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

That's already a lot but apparently in the UK which the article is about it is now over 50%

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

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.