|
Manorfire,
You're absolutely right. Firstly, most of the mutations that cause these diseases are very old in the human species and having the disease is by no means an indication that the person is the product of incestual union. A couple with extremely distant common ancestry can still produce a child who is homozygous for the mutation, it's just that the chances are staggeringly higher in couples that are closely related. So this is one very simple reason for such people not to be shunned.
Addressing your main point is more complex. I completely emulate your appreciation for the inherent worth of every individual, regardless of their genetics and biochemistry. The reason I think of the issue as complex is because I can't ignore the horrifying symptoms of some of these diseases and also ignore the link to the underlying genetic mutation. For this reason I've come to attach the worth of the person to what I call their soul, rather than their flesh and bones and genes. A lot of people feel uncomfortable talking about the distinction, and that's why I think it's a delicate subject, and it's also off the topic of the thread so I won't go into it any further. However, I often forget that the explanation of genetics like this can come off as particularly insensitive without an explanation of the difference between defective genes and defective people. Thanks for raising that point.
|