Erin of Madison, South Dakota Writes:
I just noticed something while reading over the Dakota Voice site. You provide this quote from Dr. Donald Oliver in a column you wrote dated 8/2/06: "Just two months ago, I personally took care of a baby boy born to a very young teenage mother who was allegedly raped by her brother. So here we have the two scenarios brought forth most often by those on the pro-abortion side, rape and incest. This brave young lady carried her child to term and delivered a healthy normal boy. Here is an interesting fact that you may not be aware of. Just as two bad genes might pair up and lead to an unfortunate outcome, two good genes can pair up, and the infant of this incestuous relationship, may become the brightest person in the family, sometimes in the genius range of intellect. They are normal children at least 97 to 98 percent of the time. This young teenage mother that I just spoke of, when she found out she was pregnant, felt that besides herself, the only other really innocent person in this sad situation was her baby, and he certainly didn't deserve capital punishment for her brother's sins."
What this doctor is saying contradicts what you're saying in your 2/27/06 blog post titled "But They Love Each Other!" Here's your quote: "Whether these children suffered birth defects because of the close relation or not, it is a scientific fact of genetics that children of close relations have a greater risk of birth defects. That is why we have laws against incest: to protect children from unnecessary harm."
So, is incest harmful to the children who are its products or isn't it? I'd appreciate your clarification.
Thanks.
That's a good question, Erin, and one I suspected would come up. :-)
When two closely related people make a child, the child has a higher risk of birth defects because of genetic mutations. We all have problems in our genetic makeup, but those problems occur in different widely different places when comparing unrelated people. But as many traits are inherited (such as skin color, height, etc.), those genetic mutations are also often inherited. All this means that when the male and female DNA come together in the child, the problem areas aren't as likely to match up in the child if the parents aren't closely related. If they are closely related, they are far more likely to give two copies of a bad genetic area to their offspring. This is vastly simplified, but that's the gist of it.
It isn't a certainty, but it does increase the risk. So much that God forbade marriage between close relations when he gave Moses the Law.
But that's how the child Dr. Oliver mentioned managed to come out okay.
And just to clarify this in the context of Dr. Oliver's patient, what the perpetrator did to the incest victim did was wrong on a number of levels (rape, incest laws, risk to the child, etc.), we shouldn't try to erase one wrong my committing another--especially when the "wrong" being erased is a human life.
Many people with birth defects go on to have happy and productive lives. My wife and her three siblings, all of whom were born blind, are proof of that. My wife is a teacher with a master's degree in learning disabilities, and is a talented pianist. Her sister has a degree in ministry. One brother is a recording artist who plays more than 20 instruments. The other brother is a radio DJ with a degree in broadcasting.
The increased odds of birth defects is no justification to kill the unborn child. We should avoid situations that put offspring at increased risk, but once the child has been created, he or she deserves the inalienable right to life.
Just wanted to be clear on that point.
Thanks, Erin.
0 comments:
Post a Comment