POFUsers.com - Plenty of Fish Users Forum

But did anyone ask the child how they feel about this?'

Apparently so, ...the article clearly states: "surveyed by..."

Humphrey Osmond wrote:

But did anyone ask the child how they feel about this?'

Apparently so, ...the article clearly states: "surveyed by..."

But wasn't the commentator implying that the child should have been asked before conception how they would feel about donor semen... Results from a survey after the event is a tad too late...

Should i leave now?

Actually - how sure are these "children" that it was a Petri dish and not the medical equivalent of a turkey-baster that was the instrument of conception? Just wondering.

Louise Brown, the first UK "test-tube baby", seems to have no problems with the nature of her conception. Could this be because she was aware of it from a very early age? (Or is my memory faulty and it was not a third-party donor?)

.

belinda wrote:

Humphrey Osmond wrote:

But did anyone ask the child how they feel about this?'

Apparently so, ...the article clearly states: "surveyed by..."

But wasn't the commentator implying that the child should have been asked before conception how they would feel about donor semen...

Are you suggesting that he's delusional enough to think questioning someone before conception is actually a realistic possibility?

Humphrey Osmond wrote:Are you suggesting that he's delusional enough to think questioning someone before conception is actually a realistic possibility?

Moi? Would i do such a thing?

i was actually referencing the "ethics expert" in the original article:

last word goes to ethics expert Josephine Quintavalle: 'All the time legislation is moving to accommodate the interests of the adult who wants a child, but the child's interests are most important.
'In the interests of political correctness, our society has decided that a father can be anyone or nobody. But did anyone ask the child how they feel about this?'

Just playing with semantics...

belinda wrote:

Humphrey Osmond wrote:Are you suggesting that he's delusional enough to think questioning someone before conception is actually a realistic possibility?

Moi? Would i do such a thing?

i was actually referencing the "ethics expert" in the original article:

last word goes to ethics expert Josephine Quintavalle: 'All the time legislation is moving to accommodate the interests of the adult who wants a child, but the child's interests are most important.
'In the interests of political correctness, our society has decided that a father can be anyone or nobody. But did anyone ask the child how they feel about this?'

Just playing with semantics...

Ms. Quintavalle is quite obviously delusional, I suppose the repetition of such a delusion can be written of as mere confirmation bias.

So wot yer saying is "I know some clever words wot t'mak t' derail this thread"?

saddle-tramp wrote:So wot yer saying is "I know some clever words wot t'mak t' derail this thread"?

Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that, ...if it helps.

Humphrey Osmond wrote:

saddle-tramp wrote:So wot yer saying is "I know some clever words wot t'mak t' derail this thread"?

Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that, ...if it helps.

Someone said something about waffle and tossing (something?) elswhere...

belinda wrote:.
As an aside, i believe that birth defects seldom manifest in the first generation of first-cousin "breeding", only after a second such inter-familial liaison. And i also believe that although incest is taboo because of such problems, there is something about pheremones that usually tend to dissuade us from falling for those with the same pedigree - we tend to go for those whose genetic make-up is complementary, not similar, to our own to increase the likelihood of a child of the union having a greater chance of immunity to disease.

The studies I have seen and done data gathering on would suggest otherwise. It was not so long ago that isolated areas of North America had a big problem with this due to lack of transportation out of those communities. Travel was highly limited until this past century, and even then there are certain breeds of folks that prefer to stay in one limited geographic region to mate and raise families. I don't think scientists quite understand yet why people tend to be drawn to mates that live in or originate from close geographic proximities. I have seen papers talking about how pheromones develop according to local environmental factors, and that is the bigger sub-concious factor with many mating selections. The open border concept of the modern world making testing that theory somewhat difficult.

Physical deformities are more common amongst inbredding after several generations, but it is the genetic based diseases that are most common early on. Blood disorders in particular, but other genetic driven disorders are the most common. An example of this is the high incidents of hemophilia and hemocramotosis that you find in eastern canada. Much of it originates from people whose parents were members of small closed communities.

The environmental factors such as metals in local drinking water can also be a factor. Given modern plumbing standards there has been a drop in some related disease associated with this. Hi levels of arsenic, cadium, and uranium in some eastern Canadian drinking supplies is believed to be a higher effective mutagen for the high incidents of certain cancers in this region, and not inbreeding as was first suggested twenty years ago.

Of course one could study the royal bloodlines of Europe to have the best study group on incest, but I doubt it would be permitted for political correctness reasons.

[quote] Of course one could study the royal bloodlines of Europe to have the best study group on incest, but I doubt it would be permitted for political correctness reasons.[/quote}

I don't know eye, I just read several historical books written by the British Historian Alison Weir...regarding royal marrriages and offspring and genealogy trees...and the fact that they intermarried and all roal european bloodlines descended from John Of Gaunt and Elizabeth Swynford from the 1300's on ( and six American Presidents ( including the Bushes..surprsie, surprise..lol) , and Winston Churchill)...was discussed quite frankly..it's no big secret, also, most of the reasons why are discussed too...primarily preserving bloodlines and arranged marriages...

I don't know why anyone would think there is anything politically incorrect about it..as far a i have been reading about history , it's always been discussed...