According to this article from the New York Times, research shows that there is no genetic reason to discourage first cousins from marrying. That doesn't mean however that there isn't a greater risk of serious birth defects, but just that the risk is a lot less serious than most people believe. The chance that unrelated parents have a child with a serious birth defect is between 3 and 4 percent, while the chances are increased by only 1.7 to 2.8 percent when the parents are first cousins. Although many may argue that even a slightly increased chance of genetic defects is still harmful, geneticists point out that they don't question the right of people with a lot higher levels of risk to have children. An example would be someone with Huntington's disease, who would have a 50 percent chance of passing it to their offspring. The researchers were brought together by the National Society of Genetic Counselors and based these claims on 6 studies conducted between 1965 and 2000 which documented thousands of births. For quite some time it has been widely thought that first cousins could not safely have children and it has now become a taboo subject with social and legal disapproval, with laws in 30 states forbidding first cousins from marrying. Almost every other country in the world has no such laws and in some countries between 20 to 60 percent of marriages are between close biological relatives. Although this research and the report make a valid point that you can find people in the general population with higher risks of birth defects than first cousins, I don't think it will change the belief in American society that marrying your first cousin is frowned upon and wrong.
Even if the risk of having a child with birth defects is only slightly greater, it is still not a risk worth taking. Also, it is repugnant to marry and reproduce with someone whom you have most likely grown up with (unless you did not realize the person was your cousin). I believe that marriage between first cousins should be made illegal in every state.
ReplyDeleteThe risk involved of having a kid with someone that is related to I believe is to great of a risk, but there is always an exception for everything. Bringing another person into this world is something that should never be overlooked. It is already hard enough raising a child in this world and if there are any complications with the child it will be much harder to raise them and this should not be taken lightly.
ReplyDeleteThere is no genetic reason to discourage first cousins from marrying? It is a known fact that at least 12% of the human genome contains deleterious alleles. Most are heterozygous but if two members of a family decided to have children, it is more likely these alleles will be homozygous pairs causing complications. Why even take the risk?
ReplyDelete@Angela, the geneticists use the term "discourage" to politely say that you shouldn't have children, so their argument is that they can't "discourage" first cousins from marrying just because of a 1 to 2% increased chance of complications. This is because they don't "discourage" couples with Huntington's disease from having children, and they have 50% chance of passing on the disease to their offspring. I completely see where your coming though, as any increased risk is still important. I think geneticists are just stuck saying that it's not discouraged because of the example above.
ReplyDeleteEven though the risk is only increased by 1 to 2%, I don't think this would change America's view on marrying within the family. Those born in America are raised and taught to view marriage within family as wrong and inappropriate.
ReplyDelete