If Women Over 40 Can Marry And Spawn, Why Not First Cousins?
Brandon Keim writes on Wired that cousin marriage is okay by science -- about as okay when producing kids as it is when a woman in her 40s does:
"Women over the age of 40 are not prevented from childbearing, nor is anyone suggesting they should be, despite an equivalent risk of birth defects," write zoologists Hamish Spencer and Diane Paul. Bans against cousin marriage, they say, should be repealed, "because neither the scientific nor social assumptions that informed them are any longer defensible."Thirty-one states outlaw marriage between first cousins, making the United States the only developed country in which the practice is regularly banned. Most were passed in the Civil War's aftermath -- not, say Spencer and Paul, to reduce the chance of defects caused by combinations of deleterious genes, but as part of a radical expansion of government authority over private lives.
"Unlike the situation in Britain and much of Europe, cousin marriage in the U.S. was associated not with the aristocracy and upper middle class but with much easier targets: immigrants and the rural poor," they write.
CousinmarriagemapBut their argument is far from consensus: in Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage, Kansas State University anthropologist Martin Ottenheimer argues that the bans were driven by now-discredited 19th century research on birth defects among children born to first cousins.
Whatever their motivations, the laws are not supported by science. According to the National Society of Genetic Counselors, birth defects are 2 to 3 percent more common in children born to first cousins than among the general population -- a real risk, but not enough to justify the bans.
"It's a form of discrimination that nobody talks about. People worry about not getting health insurance -- but saying that someone shouldn't marry based on how they're related, when there's no known harm, to me is a form of discrimination," said Robin Bennett, a University of Washington genetic counselor who led the NSGC study.
Precise statistics on cousin-union frequency in the United States are hard to come by, she said, but discrimination and ignorance have serious consequences.
"I'm aware of people who have been afraid to tell people that they're in love with their cousins, who've become pregnant and potentially terminated a pregnancy based on false information," said Bennett. "Or they didn't marry the person they loved because of their concerns."
My cousin looks just like Brooke Shields... boy did I have the hots for her. She's an air marshall now, with handcuffs...
Eric at December 27, 2008 7:59 AM
| birth defects are 2 to 3 percent more
| common in children born to first cousins
| than among the general population -- a
| real risk, but not enough to justify
| the bans.
Sez hoo? That's not a trivial risk. And Alkon, when we consider what horrors you'll enforce when presented with birth defects, your mind seems like a wicked & sinister playpen of eugenics fantasy.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 27, 2008 8:21 AM
I'm not "enforcing" any horrors, merely suggesting that people at risk for birth defects should, um...adopt or something? Like if you're 45 and feel like becoming a mommy. There are plenty of children out there in need of adoption. Eric adopted a darling boy and is raising him with a lot of love, and doesn't seem at all affected by the fact that his son doesn't have his genes.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2008 8:51 AM
"birth defects are 2 to 3 percent more common in children born to first cousins than among the general population"
I hate phasing like this. Does this mean 2-3% chance of birth defects plus the normal rate? Or does it mean an increase of 2-3% of the normal rate? Depending on what the normal rate is, this could be huge. If the normal rate is 1%, then we are talking about tripling or quadrupling the risk, or about changing the risk to 1.02-1.03%. If the normal rate is .1%, then we are talking about either having 20-30 times the normal rate, or .102-.103%. I know that if it means the second, then the article makes sense and banning 1st cousin marriage is dumb, but if it means the second, then I think the increased risk is unacceptable.
Crid, what horrors would Amy enforce? Tell me what is wrong with not wanting to bring a child into the world who is doomed to a life of pain and suffering, or with not wanting to help pay for the support of that life when the selfish parents can't? I'm all for supporting people who through no fault of their own become dependent on society to support them, but to deliberately bring someone into this world who can never function on their own is extremely self centered.
William at December 27, 2008 9:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/27/if_women_over_4.html#comment-1617102">comment from WilliamI'm all for supporting people who through no fault of their own become dependent on society to support them, but to deliberately bring someone into this world who can never function on their own is extremely self centered.
In a nutshell, how I feel.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2008 9:13 AM
Crid, I've reviewed that thread, and nothing's changed: the bulk of comments assumed Amy was forcing the issue, and she clearly was, and is, not. It's one "strawman" argument after another.
Here, too, you make a choice, you get the result first. Geez, read the comments on fora about autism, and you'll find people that have four or five autistic kids. Oh, boy.
Radwaste at December 27, 2008 9:17 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/27/if_women_over_4.html#comment-1617108">comment from RadwasteThanks, Rad, for getting it. It's amazing, people who have four or five kids with autism. Now, one of my very close friends has an autistic boy, and he's a wonderful kid. But, an autistic child requires an enormous amount of special care and attention, perhaps throughout his life. This boy's parents -- my friend and her husband -- are really wise and incredible people, and they've set up their family so the older children see it as just normal that they take care of the younger ones. That doesn't really begin to describe it. Also, this family has resources, and I think part of the reason they feel especially compelled to save money is so the boy can live off it if he needs to after they're gone.
So...one child, very wise parents, it's hard but doable. (Also, he seems to be a savant -- I send him postcards and letters and he can read them himself, and is a math whiz already.) Five autistic children? After you have one, maybe two, maybe you could realize there are genetic issues and (gasp!) adopt? Do these parents with five autistic children have the resources to take care of them? Are they leaving them vast trust funds? Or is it the public trust?
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2008 10:54 AM
This fistfight will have to wait, the guys in the other room need to get whupped first. (It's just being courteous, they asked for it before you did.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 27, 2008 11:05 AM
Something vital is missing from Spencer & Paul's analysis: the fact that consecutive cousin marriages increase the risk of genetic defects exponentially.
Cousin marriage is widely practiced in the Muslim world, as a means of keeping the wealth & the women within the family. As an example, about 65% of the marriages in the Bedouin tribes of Israel are between first cousins, and this has been so for generation after generation. You can read about the horrifying consequences here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/21/science/21bedo.html?pagewanted=all
If you & Gregg wanted to have a baby girl now, she would have a slightly higher risk of serious genetic disease than if you had had her 20 years ago. But if she was healthy, her risk of passing on genetic disorders to her daughter would be no greater than yours, and likewise for her granddaughter, great-granddaughter....
On the other hand, if you decided to marry your first cousin & have kids with him, & then your kids married their first cousins & so on, the risk of recessive, malignant genes expressing themselves would rise higher & higher with every generation, until inevitably the Alkon clan would wind up just like those Bedouin villagers. That is the logic behind the banning or disapproval of cousin marriages.
Martin Beranek at December 27, 2008 11:19 AM
I"m not sure how cousin marriage is any different than gay marriage. They are grown adults who should have the god-given right to marry whom they choose, right?
That said, black people have much higher risks of certain genetic issues, as do all ethnic groups. So no one should every have kids, since we're all, in some way, at a higher risk for some genetic issue or other.
Killing a baby instead of letting it live and (no doubt) experiencing pain is the weirdest, least logical argument I have ever heard. It's just as ridiculous as women who say they could never give up their child to a couple that really wanted it, so they kill it instead. Much better, right?
I have a friend with 3 autistic kids. The younger 2 are twins, and were at least conceived if not born before the older was diagnosed. They do have money, although it seems very likely all 3 will be able to live independent lives with probably good jobs.
I personally have serious issues with fertility treatments. I agree people who can't have kids of their own without serious help should adopt. Whether they are older, or gay, or just infertile. If we want to talk about wisely spending limited resources, then that money should be spent helping people already conceived rather than creating more for this "overpopulated world", don't you think?
momof3 at December 27, 2008 11:37 AM
More on the consequences of cousin marriage, in Saudi Arabia this time:
http://www.vepachedu.org/manasanskriti/middleast.htm
Key quote, from an American geneticist: "Saudi Arabia is a living genetics laboratory. Here you can look at 10 families to study genetic disorders, where you would need 10,000 families in the United States."
That really ought to put the kibosh on the ridiculous notion that the genetic risks of cousin marriage & over-35 pregnancy are the same.
Martin at December 27, 2008 11:42 AM
"Killing a baby instead of letting it live and (no doubt) experiencing pain is the weirdest, least logical argument I have ever heard."
So, where did you hear it? I don't think Amy said to do that.
Didn't you say that a lifetime of surgery and pain for you child is preferable to believing the doctor about anything?
(An analogy, about straw men.)
Radwaste at December 27, 2008 1:12 PM
William, I'm glad you brought up how statistics are misunderstood, and consequently misused.
Chrissy at December 27, 2008 1:46 PM
No Rad, I didn't. I said Drs have a 66% failure rate for me personally on very serious life-threatening things so I tend to question, question and question some more, and would never terminate because they are just wrong a heck of a lot.
I wasn't responding to a strawman, or Amy. I was responding to William, who asked what was wrong with not bringing a baby into the world for a life of pain, which we all experience to some degree.
nd yeah, having nearly died form having a baby and having had lots of painful procedures done, I would always choose life. It's worth it.
moof at December 27, 2008 4:34 PM
Oops, I'm momof3, not moof
momof3 at December 27, 2008 4:35 PM
Welcome Martin welcome! Your posts are the reason I come to this blog, to learn.
Eric at December 27, 2008 4:37 PM
Thank you kindly Eric, and Happy New Year to all!
Martin at December 27, 2008 5:39 PM
So, momof3, please re-read my last comment and note what you missed. It's simply not all about you.
Radwaste at December 27, 2008 8:42 PM
First of all, wicked and sinister are kind of the same thing; thanks for not making fun of the redundancy.
> I'm not "enforcing" any horrors,
> merely suggesting...
A quote from October:
> The mother is to blame for all of
> Parker's future torments.
This isn't the rhetoric of a woman offering gentle “suggestions”. You've got accountability on your mind, we can tell. But there are mathematical considerations:
> people at risk for birth defects
> should...
Everyone is at risk for birth defects. Presumably there's some threshold at which you're willing to let other people take a chance, such that when things go wrong, you might not demand the money-saving abortions you discussed a couple of months ago. But tell why, exactly, you want us to trust you to decide what that threshold is? How do you know what makes other people's lives worth living? (I remember seeing Itzhak Perlman on a talk show thirty years ago. He was fiddling like a fiend and the audience was eating it up, but he never smiled as widely as when he was walking across the stage.)
> fact that his son doesn't have his
> genes
If memory serves, the kid has quite a few of them, but this makes his fatherhood no less honorable. (To me, it's even more impressive.)
> what horrors would Amy enforce?
See the earlier threads.
> Tell me what is wrong with not wanting
> to bring a child into the world who is
> doomed to a life of pain and suffering
Because that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about proscriptive abortion, which is for assholes.
> or with not wanting to help pay for the
> support of that life when the selfish
> parents can't?
Because the risk is always there. And to my taste, almost all parenthood is “selfish”. Aren't you glad my tastes don't rule this planet? I feel the same way about yours.
> I've reviewed that thread, and
> nothing's changed
I didn't say things had changed, I said you guys were still wrong!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 27, 2008 11:47 PM
It's a form of discrimination that nobody talks about.
More PC crap to make our lives worse.
Let's just go all the way and okay brother-sister marriage. The ancient Egyptians did it, and they turned out fine.
Modern society does not benefit from cousin marriage. We don't need to encourage it.
doombuggy at December 28, 2008 3:35 AM
Sorry Crid- Dayton and I share no more genes than you and I do. Dayton is actually my wifes' grandson.
Eric at December 28, 2008 9:15 AM
I don't care what you say in anger, you'll always be a brother to me...
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 28, 2008 9:20 AM
I haven't cried like this since Old Yeller.
Eric at December 28, 2008 10:02 AM
Momof3 said "Killing a baby instead of letting it live and (no doubt) experiencing pain is the weirdest, least logical argument I have ever heard."
There are worse things than dying, and some birth defects are in that category. Yes Momof3, pain is part of life, but there is a point at which life isn't worth living any more. I don't want to make that decision for other people. I horrifies me to think about making that decision for someone else, so I'm glad I never had to, but if my ex had been pregnant with a fetus with a severe birth defect that would have left it in constant pain and a life expectancy of a year; I think both of us would have preferred abortion.
So, according to Crid I'm an asshole. I'll take that as a compliment coming from you. Yes, there is always a risk of birth defects. I don't know what the risk is for the general population. I don't know if even doubling the risk makes it too high to chance. I know that if I had the percentages and I wanted another child but the chance of me fathering a child with a sever defect was say 10%, I wouldn't take that chance.
Thanks Chrissy.
William at December 28, 2008 10:07 AM
> I haven't cried like this since
SeewutImeen? Bill Murray was right! It's funny when it's facetious ...
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 28, 2008 10:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/12/27/if_women_over_4.html#comment-1617202">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail]I haven't cried like this since SeewutImeen?
Crid, are you speaking in tongues again?
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2008 10:28 AM
It's more funner.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 28, 2008 10:44 AM
Crid, I forgot to mention another thing. I don't know if you differentiate between selfish and self centered, but I do. To me, every one is selfish, and most if not all things we do are selfish. The woman who volunteers at the homeless shelter and the philanthropist who gives millions to charity do so because it make them feel better and tends to make those that are aware of their actions like them more (there have been studies done that show that these behaviors are much less likely if it is anonymous).
Self centered on the other hand is doing something with no regard to how it affects the rest of the planet.
Having a child is selfish. Having one which will be a constant drain on society when you can't afford the costs yourself is self centered.
William at December 28, 2008 11:14 AM
> I don't know if you differentiate
> between selfish and self centered
About as often as between wicked and sinister, which as you've seen above, is not helpful. Precious wordplay helps no one, and I need to break the habit.
And I'd rather not worry to much about motives, especially the gooey, emotional, interior kind. It's easier just to judge people on how they behave.
(On the other hand, I regard Keating as doubly –and perhaps triply– damned on account of his hypocracy.)
I'm not a religious guy, and am far from Jewish in any case. But Judaism has brought us much clarity. The discussion of Quiet v. Noisy philanthropy in the middle of this piece was very instructive.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 28, 2008 12:09 PM
Aslo, I want to tie up Eric's cousin, and check out her Blue Lagoon, or what's between her Calvins, or whatever
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 28, 2008 12:11 PM
According to Mark Steyn, upwards of 75% of Pakistani Muslims in some communities in Great Britain are married to their first cousins: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmI0YzI1ZmExODMzZjE0YTA1MGE5Y2ZjYzI0N2FhYWU=
Robert W. (Vancouver) at December 29, 2008 1:12 AM
I love Steyn, but "75% of some" is a weird number. Britain is certainly not the integration/immigration genius that we are. But it's at least possible that this is happening because that's how it works. All the urban American settings that took all those immigrants a century ago (+/-) were dealing with just this kind of problem. Hillbillies move to city, and only then develop sophisticated attitudes.
It's been noted noted that the United States is (has been) particularly good at attracting this best and the brightest minds from the third world. The hillbillies move to Paris and London.
I'm not saying don't panic, I'm just saying let's not bite down on the cyanide capsules just yet. (Keep them conveniently tucked between cheek & gum)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 29, 2008 6:23 AM
why is no one focusing on cousin marriage is incest and plain disgusting!!!! There are billions of people in the world, why would someone marry a family member.
Nina at December 29, 2008 6:50 AM
There's a roundup of data on Pakistanis & cousin marriage in the UK here:
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003976.html
In brief, 55 % of ALL British Pakistanis are married to their first cousins, and while Pakistanis currently account for only 3.4 % of all births in the UK, they account for 30 % of all British children born with serious birth defects.
Martin at December 29, 2008 9:52 AM
I have a 2nd cousin that I didn't grow up with. We got to know each other as teens and both admitted we'd have dated if not for the fact that our mothers are first cousins. I'm fine with cousin marriage, but the Catholic church bans even 2nd cousins from marrying and many states have such bans as well.
Beth at December 29, 2008 4:42 PM
i met mi wife 7 years ago. we have two kids and just found out that we are 4th cousins. it realy freeked her out. i just wanted to know how everybody felt about that.
jason at January 28, 2009 9:13 PM
Leave a comment