NYTimes
WHEN Kimberly Spring-Winters told her mother she was in love, she didn't expect a positive response — and she didn't get one.
"It's wrong, it's taboo, nobody does that," she recalled her mother saying.
But shortly after the conversation, Ms. Spring-Winters, 29, decided to marry the man she loved: her first cousin.
Shane Winters, 37, whom she now playfully refers to as her "cusband," proposed to her at a surprise birthday party in front of family and friends, and the two are now trying to have a baby. They are not concerned about genetic defects, Ms. Spring-Winters said, and their fertility doctor told them he saw no problem with having children.
WHEN Kimberly Spring-Winters told her mother she was in love, she didn't expect a positive response — and she didn't get one.
"It's wrong, it's taboo, nobody does that," she recalled her mother saying.
But shortly after the conversation, Ms. Spring-Winters, 29, decided to marry the man she loved: her first cousin.
Shane Winters, 37, whom she now playfully refers to as her "cusband," proposed to her at a surprise birthday party in front of family and friends, and the two are now trying to have a baby. They are not concerned about genetic defects, Ms. Spring-Winters said, and their fertility doctor told them he saw no problem with having children.
Common among the Chassidishe.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with inner-family marriage does not lie with first cousins marrying one time because they happened to fall in love with each other.
ReplyDeleteThe problem lies with the cultures who actively seek first-cousin marriages, as it was found with european nobility and is still found in countries like Turkey, Iran, or special population groups like the Jesides, etc.
If a family goes on marrying first cousins over a long time, the gene pool becomes restricted and this increases the risk of genetical diseases (often different diseases for different groups, since the deficient gene is not the same).
By the way, the same risk exists for populations that grow rapidely from a small "founder pool" (as it is found for cheetas in the animal world). This could be a risk that threatens some jewish groups, especially if they are very peculiar on "Yichud" (a bit the same way it affected european nobility).
“A widely disseminated study […] said that the risk of serious genetic defects like spina bifida and cystic fibrosis in the children of first cousins indeed exists but that it is rather small, 1.7 to 2.8 percentage points higher than for children of unrelated parents, who face a 3 to 4 percent risk — or about the equivalent of that in children of women giving birth in their early 40s. The study also said the risk of mortality for children of first cousins was 4.4 percentage points higher. More recent studies suggest that the risks may be even lower[: maybe] closer to 3.5 percentage points higher.”
ReplyDelete---
Thank you for posting this article. It’s very interesting. However, the evidence the article cites is hardly as unilaterally in its favor as its author pretends. Unless one reads very closely, it is difficult to recognize in the passage I just quoted that the author acknowledges a twofold increase in birth defect incidence and severalfold increase in child mortality (a fivefold increase by the article’s more conservative estimate), the base rate of which remains, curiously, entirely unreported. So just from its own cited evidence, the health risks are hardly the overblown non-concern the article’s tone would suggest that these marriages would statistically amount to. (Do be aware I am completely uninformed as to any other evidence in either direction. It is just clear that the author is obviously interested in slanting things very much; that would suggest a lack of corroborative evidence.)
Regardless, since when are births to mothers “in their early 40s” (the article’s case of analogous risk) considered to be of negligible health concern? Many people structure their lives to attempt to avoid just such risks. While it is surely desirable, and occasion for much simcha, that we see our fellows become parents at any age--say, despite some clear potential risks--it hardly makes sense to dismiss those risks lechatekhilah as statistically discountable. Makes for a nicer story, though; magazines love citing science to make mincemeat of folk wisdom, the favorite subtarget of latter category inevitably becoming, of course, any religious wisdom….
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
Marriage between uncle and his niece is a mitzva from DeOraisa (see Yevamot, 62b), many chassidic families practice that as well (the son of the Skulen rebbe comes to mind)
ReplyDeleteSatmar has disproportionately number of children with genetic diseases which is obviously the result of the inbreeding and the incest in that community.
Monsey,
ReplyDeleteWhat information do you have to back up your very serious allegation of "incest"?
Monsey, What information do you have to back up your very serious allegation of "incest"?
ReplyDeleteThe rabbi Weingarten trial is a rare glimpse into the Satmar sex life.
http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Israel+Weingarten
The fact that many (way too man ) in the community support him indicate that they do not think that having sex with your own minor child is bas as saying mi-sheberach for the IDF.
More ? tze ulmad !
I knew you would invoke the Weingarten case. Satmar supports him because of their warped ideas of covering up chilul Hashem.
ReplyDeleteIncest is rare, even among peasants from the Unterland because when arayos replaced avoda zara as the biggest yetzer hara, the sitra achara was blinded with soot so that people should at least not have a taavah for close relatives.
Your allegations are cheap sensationalism.
doesn't add up,
ReplyDelete"Regardless, since when are births to mothers “in their early 40s” (the article’s case of analogous risk) considered to be of negligible health concern? ... [I]t hardly makes sense to dismiss those risks lechatekhilah as statistically discountable."
True, but the interesting difference is that stories of women in their 40's successfully conceiving and carrying a child to term are almost always told in a very positive manner (i.e. as something to be praised), which is certainly not the case for stories of first cousins deciding to conceive a child together.
Isn't it dangerous with cousins from the Father's side because we get our blood from our father?
ReplyDelete