Quote:
|
Originally Posted by adysav
For the benefit of those who couldn't be bothered looking, the above quote in context reads as follows:
Swedish psychiatrist Dr. Carl Olstrom has heavy experience in the
study of fetal deformities resulting from incest, and says that "There is
no evidence to support the assumption that children resulting from
incestuous relationships [with a father or mother] run a greater risk of
being malformed than other children."
Carl Henry Olstrom, M.D. Medical World News , February 4, 1967.
However, three much smaller studies showed serious birth defects in up
to one-fourth of all children that were a product of bloodline incest, an
incidence that is about fifteen times the expected normal frequency.
Mary Meehan. "Facing the Hard Cases." Human Life Review , Summer
1983, pages 19 to 36.
|
Like I said, there hasn't been many in depth studies... if you would bother responding to what I posted. There was a testimonial, and then a citation about 3 studies. That article indicated that there hasn't been enough research on a large scale, and I said why there wouldn't be.
Quote:
|
The fact is, nature doesn't actually know the difference between good and bad traits. Suggesting that nature 'selects' just bad traits to pass on is ridiculous.
|
Nature may be indifferent to Down Syndrome, CF, and the thousands of other possibilities of what we call genetic deformities - but I'm not, and most others aren't. If society can agree that these are bad traits, then what is wrong with calling them bad traits?
Quote:
|
Maybe you should become a counsellor at your local hospital. Every time a couple arrives with a chance of their child carrying a birth defect you can tell them that the only option is to have it terminated.
|
You obviously missed the point that your second issue is absurd because the way of handling it via birth control is a Constitutional nightmare. My response showed how it was a nightmare, can you suggest a way around my scenario to address your second issue?