- Joined
- May 25, 2012
- Messages
- 13,822
- Reaction score
- 0
lol, I had someone tell me America was just Canada's Jorts. I haven't laughed like that in a minute, Buddy.Nah, I'm from Canada's penis, Mr. America's hat.
lol, I had someone tell me America was just Canada's Jorts. I haven't laughed like that in a minute, Buddy.Nah, I'm from Canada's penis, Mr. America's hat.
Im so tired of being disturbed and frustrated about the dire straits of humanity. Just gonna try to live my life as best I can til the shit hits the fan. The solution to the mass fuckery of it all is something I dont want to think about.
If I was given the opportunity to join a Mars colonization mission Id take it in a heartbeat, even though it would still be the hardest, most blatantly selfish decision I ever made.
I believe in the innate goodness of my species more for my own sanity than an actual belief and it requires turning off the logic switch.
You know who else says marrying cousins is negligable?
"Dr" Zaki Naik
No one with a 21st century brain says it's negligable.
No it doesn't, you're just nitpicking.If Muhammad were perfect example, why would he have exemplified a less than perfect union? And yes "a little bit" of imperfection matters.
Which is why its still legal in Europe...Marrying first cousins (or any cousins for that matter) is an example that civilization has moved on from and rightly so. Along with child marriage and thousands of other 7th century sensibilities.
I won't be watching that either. One guys opinion doesn't confirm or negate anything.
This isn't that important to me, but you replied so I gave you a little of my time.
But you can take your grievances up with the studies.
No it doesn't, you're just nitpicking.
Which is why its still legal in Europe...
The reality is its hardly a risk and mainly a taboo for the icky factor as I showed.
I posted sources. If you don't think they're credible then explain but don't pretend like they're not there. Btw here's another sourceNo one with a 21st century brain says it's negligable.
In the general population, the risk that a child will be born with a serious problem like spina bifida or cystic fibrosis is 3 percent to 4 percent; to that background risk, first cousins must add another 1.7 to 2.8 percentage points, the report said.
Although the increase represents a near doubling of the risk, the result is still not considered large enough to discourage cousins from having children, said Dr. Arno Motulsky, a professor emeritus of medicine and genome sciences at the University of Washington, and the senior author of the report.
''In terms of general risks in life it's not very high,'' Dr. Motulsky said. Even at its worst, 7 percent, he said, ''93 percent of the time, nothing is going to happen.''
I don't believe that but nothing you said makes any sense. He married his first cousin. Its an accepted practice in many communities and carries low risk and it didn't seem to effect his one child so its really, really far down the list of things he did that should make someone question the supposed perfection of his example.No I am not nitpicking. The prophet is supposed to be perfect? Above reproach? An example that isn't questioned, is emulated?
Give a break.
Lol, based on what? The fact some of us didn't just accept your poorly conceived argument?I get that there are those in here who have parents who are cousins.
You haven't posted a source to validate this, I have posted several. You're basically talking out fo your ass here but that's no surprise.Going forward, it's not a part of real medicine and science to pretend it's healthy, safe practice.
The authors found that cousin marriages and maternal age were associated with a significant increase in risk of birth defects. The Bradford study was unusual in that a large number of the children were born into Pakistani families, which traditionally encourage marriage between cousins. Accounting for other factors such as maternal age and socio-economic status, the authors calculated that 31% of all anomalies in children of Pakistani origin could be attributed to consanguinity.
Dr Muhammad Ali, a District Health Officer (DHO) at Charsadda's district hospital, says that first-cousin marriages result in children with genetic disorders. "Birth defects due to inter-family marriages is not just prevalent in Mian Kalay; this can happen anywhere in the world where there is inbreeding."
While residents are aware that off-spring of inter-family marriages are likely to have birth defects or disabilities, they continue with the practice due to cultural norms.
In fact, couples who are first cousins are estimated to have about a 1.7% to 2.8% increased risk for significant congenital defects above the population background risk. There is approximately a 4.4% increased risk for pre-reproductive mortality above the background risk, some of which includes major congenital defects (Bennett et al., 2002). The general population risk for significant birth defects varies among populations because of their varied sociodemographic characteristics and how various studies define adverse health outcomes in the first years of life
The offspring of consanguineous unions may be at increased risk for genetic disorders because of the expression of autosomal recessive gene mutations inherited from a common ancestor. The closer the biological relationship between parents, the greater is the probability that their offspring will inherit identical copies of one or more detrimental recessive genes (see table above). Offspring of consanguineous unions may also be at increased risk for disorders of multifactorial or complex inheritance; however, well-controlled studies evaluating the effect of consanguinity on multifactorial diseases of childhood and adulthood have not been conducted (Bennett et al., 2002). Chromosome anomalies do not occur more commonly in the offspring of consanguineous unions.
I posted sources. If you don't think they're credible then explain but don't pretend like they're not there. Btw here's another source
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/u...e-children-of-1st-cousins.html?pagewanted=all
There are many legitimate criticisms of Islam, we don't need your constant whining and nitpicking over every negligible little detail
If first cousins have kids, that risk goes up by 2 or 3 percent. At first this almost doubling of the risk might seem scary. But many genetic advisers argue that the increase isn't big enough to discourage marriage between first cousins.
From your first link
Marrying your cousin increases birth defect risk, but only slightly
Associate Professor Andrew Shelling, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences , University of Auckland, comments:
“Cousin marriages (consanguinity) raise a number of different responses among medical researchers and specialists. This study confirms what has previously been known, that babies born to couples that are related, definitely leads to increased rates of babies born with health problems. The increased rate of problems is relatively small, and in cousins, it is not much different to those babies born to unrelated individuals.
“For some ethnicities, cousin marriage is relatively common, and we have seen increasing numbers of these communities living in New Zealand who will have a long standing tradition of consanguinity. While these increased risks should be clearly communicated to all couples, just as we discuss other potential medical issues for parents, this will need to be done carefully and with cultural sensitively.
“In an interesting twist, and possibly a social comment, this study shows that the risk is about the same as older women (defined as having babies over 34) having babies.”
Prof Hamish Spencer, Director of the Allan Wilson Centre for Molecular Ecology and Evolution, and Professor of Zoology at the University of Otago, has previously researched consanguineous marriage. He comments:
“The risk of birth defects in children whose parents are first cousins is often exaggerated in the public’s mind. Most such babies will be fine. All the same, there is an increased occurrence of birth defects in such babies.
“This new study, looking at babies born in Bradford, England, between 2007 and 2011, confirms that the risk is approximately twice that of the background risk (i.e., the risk to children of unrelated parents) and shows that it is not affected by poor living conditions. I would say that this increase can sound large (“twice the risk”) or small (“an increase of only about 3%”) depending on your viewpoint. One can also note that the increased risk is comparable to that to children of older mothers, something that concerns society much less.
When 80% -90% of marriages are consanguineous in a highly populated region of the world you're bound to run into some cases. The Jewish community also has a higher rate of genetic disorders because of how insulated they are.Quoting the National Coalition for Health and Professional Education, Dr Kashif Ali Khan, a medical officer at the paediatric unit of LRH, says children born to first-cousin parents have a 5.1 – 11.2pc risk of serious birth defects as compared to the general population risk of 3-4pc. He adds that an estimated 80-90% of marriages in the Charsadda village area are consanguineous.
Dr Khan says pre-existing defects in a child such as hypoplastic heart (a condition where the child's left ventricle is underdeveloped), agenesis of kidney (a defect where a child's one or both kidney(s) fail after few years of birth), blindness and neurodegenerative conditions also lead to deformities.
He further says that iodine deficiency in parents can also cause defects in new-borns. "Children born to couples who have low levels of iodine would be flaccid and weak."
"When to-be mothers have a deficiency of iodine, they make up for it by taking thyroid medication. Effects of such medications impact the baby in the womb. Following birth, the baby may be at risk of developing birth defects because either the medication may stop or the infant does not have the capacity to take it on his/her own."
Asked why there was low level of iodine in expectant mothers, he says a team of health experts would have to investigate the food, water, salt and other living standards of the village in order to determine the cause.
Which doesn't contradict what I said earlier. At worst there's a 93% that the baby will come out fine. Some advice, actually read your sources before posting them.In fact, couples who are first cousins are estimated to have about a 1.7% to 2.8% increased risk for significant congenital defects above the population background risk. There is approximately a 4.4% increased risk for pre-reproductive mortality above the background risk, some of which includes major congenital defects (Bennett et al., 2002). The general population risk for significant birth defects varies among populations because of their varied sociodemographic characteristics and how various studies define adverse health outcomes in the first years of life.
The offspring of consanguineous unions may be at increased risk for genetic disorders because of the expression of autosomal recessive gene mutations inherited from a common ancestor. The closer the biological relationship between parents, the greater is the probability that their offspring will inherit identical copies of one or more detrimental recessive genes (see table above). Offspring of consanguineous unions may also be at increased risk for disorders of multifactorial or complex inheritance; however, well-controlled studies evaluating the effect of consanguinity on multifactorial diseases of childhood and adulthood have not been conducted (Bennett et al., 2002). Chromosome anomalies do not occur more commonly in the offspring of consanguineous unions.
I never said that, I saidThese articles don't support the proposition that 1st cousin marriages = unrelated parents in risk factor.
Pay attention.I don't see the big deal. First cousin marriages are legally recognized in plenty of states across the US. and its legal in pretty much the entirety of Europe IIRC. The increased genetic risk that results from first cousins marrying isn't that great
It's because he used the word negligable. He's a Muslim pseudo-scholar and pseudo-Doctor. So you had quite the choice of words. Interdasting.
And it is not negligable.
From your first link
From the second
When 80% -90% of marriages are consanguineous in a highly populated region of the world you're bound to run into some cases. The Jewish community also has a higher rate of genetic disorders because of how insulated they are.
According to this the worst odds are 89% chance of a healthy baby. Again, these odds are comparable to older women having children.
Your third link
Which doesn't contradict what I said earlier. At worst there's a 93% that the baby will come out fine. Some advice, actually read your sources before posting them.
You know who else says marrying cousins is negligable?
"Dr" Zaki Naik
No one with a 21st century brain says it's negligable.
Yeah I would've been on the phone to the FBI immediately.
I'm not getting shot up at shitty work by some relic from the Mos Eisley cantina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jews#Ashkenazi_diseasesBut are they marrying and having handicapable babies?