If a girl has a baby from her father or any close family member then that child is at a significant risk of health problems
View attachment 1671
Image above from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animals-and-us/201210/the-problem-incest
Rape victims IMO should be offered the morning after pill immediately when they file the police report. I like Georgia's law of no abortion after there is a heartbeat about 6 weeks. Alabama's seems extreme but they made it that way deliberately knowing it would be challenged and want to take it to supreme court to overturn Roe V Wade
Something needs to be done when some states are wanting to legalize after-birth abortion for harvesting of organs
That opinion piece from Psychology Today is very suspect as I pulled the meta-study referenced. Either the author of the opinion piece doesn't know how to read clearly-worded analysis or simply cherry-picked the information they thought would best support their opinion. Here's what the peer-reviewed academic study actually says:
Given the almost universal cross-cultural stigma, social disapproval, and legal
sanctions to incestuous unions, there is a paucity of data regarding adverse medi-
cal outcomes in the offspring of incestuous unions. Published studies are fraught
with significant ascertainment biases. These biases, such as lack of paternity
documentation, young maternal age, possible parental disease and/or intellectual
impairment, parental socioeconomic status (or lack of report of this variable), and
complications of unsuccessful attempted pregnancy termination (Bittles, in press).
Table IV summarizes the four most comprehensive published studies of incest
(Adams and Neel, 1967; Baird and McGillivray, 1982; Carter, 1967; Seemanova,
1971). Three of these studies were retrospective, and the controls for matched
nonincestuous pregnancies were highly variable (Baird and McGillivray, 1982;
Carter, 1967; Seemanova, 1971). These studies are also limited in the number
of years that the incestuous progeny were followed. Although the highest risk
for morbidity and mortality would be expected in the first year of life, moderate
medical problems and mental retardation would not be evident until later.
By combining the four sets of data in Table IV, and selecting the cases of
specific autosomal recessive disorders recorded (n = 25), plus major congenital
malformations (n = 34), and nonspecific severe intellectual handicap (n = 25),
84 of 213 (39.4%) of the progeny of incestuous unions had died or were im-
paired (Bittles, in press). This analysis does not control for nongenetic variables.
In the two studies for which nonconsanguineous reference groups were available,
8.0% of the control children (9 of 113) died or had a serious defect (Carter, 1967;
Seemanova, 1971). Thus, the excess level of death and severe defect in the off-
spring of incestuous unions (a proportion of which may have been nongenetic in
origin) was 31.4% (Bittles, in press).
An alternative method of analysis is to use the risks observed in first cousin
unions to calculate mortality and morbidity associated with incest, based on the
coefficient of inbreeding F (refer to Fig. 1). This assumes that risks for mortality
and birth defects are directly scalable with F, which may not be an accurate
assumption, particularly for disorders with complex inheritance. If the excess pre-
reproductive mortality rate among first cousin offspring (who have an F value of
1/16) is 4.4%, then one would predict an excess death rate of approximately 17.6%
for offspring of incestuous unions (with an F value of 1/4). Likewise if the offspring
of first cousin unions are estimated to be at 1.7–2.8% risk above the background
(Table III), then the predicted risk to the offspring of first-degree relatives would
be at 6.8–11.2% risk above the population background for significant birth defects.
[/URL]
In no way do I want this to be construed as defending something as sickening and vile as incest. I agree that victims of incest ARE more likely to suffer excess mortality and morbidity (especially the more consanguineous the relationship happens to be e.g. 1st degree relatives having the highest risk), but it isn't anything near a 50% risk of serious health problems, and the meta-study the opinion piece author twisted to achieve their desired conclusion shows this.
Sheesh, I mean incest is revolting and horrible enough and has plenty of psychological trauma and health risks as it is -- I don't see why the author of the opinion piece felt the need to over-exaggerate the already substantial health risks. The main point of the meta-study is that non-genetic health-risks are not controlled for nor are biases like socio-economic status, maternal age, pre-existing disease, or intellectual impairments. I don't think anyone has to guess that people who engage in 1st degree incest (sibling or parental) are much more likely to have intellectual impairments, come from a poor socio-economic background, have other health issues, etc.
I feel disgusted (not with you apocalyptic) by this entire subject. Incest and rape are two of the most vile things that humanity has to offer and combining the two is just nauseating to a degree that I seriously do feel like vomiting.
At the end of the day we need to protect life. Incest is so incredibly rare as an actual reason for abortion that I truly do not think it even merits this much discussion. Most states that report such data have single digit cases or no reported cases in their abortion data each year. Those who want to continue the practice of abortion will continue to use such marginal examples because they are well aware most Americans don't support elective abortion and aren't aware how rare rape/incest abortions actually are.
