|
Yeah. Incest is definitely another example. The odds of a negative ourcome are only 2% higher for incest than 'normal' relationships. Note, that is 2% **overall**. If you carry a trait for a genetic disorder and your partner does too, then it doesn't matter if you are siblings or first cousins, because instead of a 2% increased risk, it will be at 'best' a 25% risk of disease if only one has the trait, a 50% percent risk if 'both' share one faulty gene pair, or one has none, but the other has two faulty genes in their pair (though usually that is fatal for most diseases). If one has both bad genes in a pair and the other has one bad gene, its now 75%. And if 'both' share the same flaw on both gene pairs, guess what? Its now 100% certain to be passed on. But the law was passed for religious reasons and later defended based on the 'huge' 2% increase in risk. lol Of course, by huge they probably meant, "I am not a biologist or anyone else qualified to make a statement, by I and sure it like 50-50 or something..."
The single worst danger to science, medicine and human survival is imho the endless stream of, "I have no clue, but I believe X", statements made to support laws, procedures and policies that prevent progress or undermine our ability to *be* human, while instead promoting conformity, stagnation and inhumanity to those that won't conform.
|