IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.ObamaCare.gov   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.law-enforcement, alt.prisons   
   XPost: alt.revisionism, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.politics.immigration, alt.true-crime, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: misc.survivalism, soc.culture.usa, alt.survival   
   XPost: soc.culture.usa, tx.guns   
   From: I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.   
   BI.NSA.CIA.EPA.ObamaCare.gov   
      
   On 1/14/2015 12:28 AM, SOU_ M . i . g _ h _ t y W a . n n _ a b e _ SOU   
   wrote:   
   > Just Wondering wrote on 2015-01-13 20:42:   
   >> On 1/13/2015 3:27 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:   
   >>> On 1/13/2015 5:14 PM, Just Wondering wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/13/2015 11:25 AM, Scout wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> "deep" wrote in message   
   >>>>> news:hpq6bap5qhil24ujj314aeeaeg9dlv3908@4ax.com...   
   >>>>>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 23:52:37 -0600, Steve Rothstein   
   >>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> But if the goal of preventing incest is to prevent birth defects (a   
   >>>>>>> very   
   >>>>>>> admirable goal),   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That is the reason, yes of course.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Ah, but there's a slight problem with that. All people who are part of   
   >>>>> the same family may not be genetically related, nor is it a given that   
   >>>>> both will have a bad recessive gene, much less that it will be   
   >>>>> passed on   
   >>>>> by both parents to their children.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So why exactly should they be prevented arbitrarily?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> The problem is even more complex than that.  Example:  Couple A are a   
   >>>> fertile male and female in their twenties, and are unrelated by blood   
   >>>> within at least ten generations, but are both known to carry the genes   
   >>>> for an uncurable, painful, fatal medical condition.  Couple B are an   
   >>>> infertile male and female in their sixties, and have gone to the   
   >>>> trouble   
   >>>> and expense of extensive genetic testing that shows even if they were   
   >>>> fertile, they have no genes that could pass on birth defects, but they   
   >>>> just happen to be brother and sister.  Couple A can marry but couple B   
   >>>> cannot. What legal rationale justifies that result?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If the prevention of birth defects is the goal, why aren't ALL people   
   >>>> who apply for marriage licenses genetically screened?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And if they were screened, who would decide what genes would disqualify   
   >>>> a couple from marrying?  Should people who share the gene for sickle   
   >>>> cell anemia be allowed to marry?  What about genetic screening to   
   >>>> prevent dwarfism, or myopia, or male pattern baldness?   
   >>>   
   >>> then it dips into the racism area sine some genetic problems are   
   >>> primarily in blacks like sickle cell....   
   >>>   
   >>> Skin cancer in whites....   
   >>>   
   >>> Breast cancer is now tracked genetically and Angelina Jolie had both   
   >>> breasts removed due to genetic history.  Suppose she was denied a   
   >>> marriage license?   
   >>>   
   >> It sure raises a lot of thorny questions.  My point is that if parenting   
   >> genetically defective children is the rationale for laws banning   
   >> incestuous marriages, those laws really don't stand up to close   
   >> scrutiny.  If the rationale is to prevent coercion, all you need is a   
   >> law banning coercive marriages.  And if the rational is the moral "ick"   
   >> factor, those laws don't stand up to constitutional scrutiny at all.   
   >>   
   >> BTW, the odds of a couple randomly chosen from the general population   
   >> NOT having children with genetic defects is about 96%.  Among randomly   
   >> chosen first cousins, the odds of a defect-free child only drop a couple   
   >> of percentage points, and those odds are better than for an unrelated   
   >> couple chosen from a small insular population.  And obviously, if an   
   >> incestuous couple DON'T share defective recessive genes, the odds of   
   >> them having defect-free children is 100%.   
   >>   
   >> Before anyone asks, I think laws banning incestuous marriages should be   
   >> repealed.   
   >   
   >   
   > First, you should do some brainstorming. Why evolution has created the   
   > situation in which procreation in higher lifeforms involves male and   
   > female? Why not just replicate itself without going through the trouble   
   > of acquiring the other half of the DNA?   
   >   
   > Apparently evolution has found out through trial and error that   
   > self-cloning didn't work well because self-cloning does not facilitate   
   > mutation. Without mutation, the organism will not be able to adjust to   
   > environmental changes.   
   >   
   > Besides, if an organism keeps replicating itself and stays genetically   
   > the same all the time through thousands or millions of years, then   
   > infectious bacteria and viruses will eventually be able to get around   
   > the organism's immune system to kill it off in a massive die-out.   
   >   
   > It is also proven in eugenics that interbreeding can yield stronger   
   > offspring, and inbreeding can cause genetic defects. You can find lots   
   > of undesirable consequences in inbreeding of pets and livestock.   
      
   "Apparently evolution has found out through trial and error"   
      
   And gay is one of the repeating errors.  Like down Syndrome....   
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
                        *Rumination*   
   #4 - Liberals don't know shit from Shinola.   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinola#mediaviewer/File:Shinola.jpg   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)