Multan’s six sisters tie the knot with six brothers

[Trango Towers]

Anecdotal evidence, how impressive.

Here are the facts;

The risk of a child with a genetic based disease is 3% in a non cousin marriage.

If you marry your cousin this risk doubles to 6%.

Marriage between first cousins doubles risk of birth defects, say researchers

Study of 13,500 babies born in Bradford concludes cultural practice in Pakistani community outweighs effects of deprivation

www.theguardian.com

The inverse of that is also true.

If you don't marry your cousin the chance of a baby without genetic disorder is 97%.

If you do marry your cousin the chance of a baby without genetic disorder is 94%.

Yes that is a reduction but 94% of children born in cousin marriages have no genetic issues.

So let's not twist facts because by twisting facts and using anecdotes etc we lead the argument away from the important part.

What is the important part? That marrying your cousin doubles your chance of a kid with genetic defects.

It is still a small risk (6%) but still double that of a non cousin marriage. This risk is multipled if your parents are related too.


If you present cousin marriage as a guarantee of disabled children people will rightly mock your argument stating the hundreds of successful examples they know of.

So let's stick to facts so we can help curb it, rather than exaggeration.

I think you are married to your cousin and hence sensitive and very much into keep it in the family...enjoy

Let's see how u will cope of you end up with a child with disabilities (God forbid). People like you are what stops progress.

6% chance of a deformed baby is small.
That's 6 in every hundred

So 220 million Pakistanis the chance is 13.2 million deformed... not much really.
Compare that to population of Libya
Population of UAE
even London

 

[Menace2Society]

Barbaric

 

[313ghazi]

What bigger 6 or 94.

I stopped reading there...I think you have aturnip for a brain and that's the precise reason why cousin marriages are not good.
Mommy and daddy 1st cousins were they?

You have made it to the dumbo list

You're the one reading selectively and I'm the dumbo.

Typical arrogant burger Pakistani. I'm just surprised you haven't told me how important you are yet.

 

[kingQamaR]

Very risky this

If one marriage in this group gets in to difficultly others will be effected by it to ?

 

[PurpleButcher]

If each of the couple has six children... just imagine the possibilities few decades later... 18 girls marrying 18 boys....

 

[SQ8]

Keeping wealth in the same family along with any genetic disabilities - ah ye old subcontinent tribal decisions.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Anecdotal evidence, how impressive.

Here are the facts;

The risk of a child with a genetic based disease is 3% in a non cousin marriage.

If you marry your cousin this risk doubles to 6%.

Marriage between first cousins doubles risk of birth defects, say researchers

Study of 13,500 babies born in Bradford concludes cultural practice in Pakistani community outweighs effects of deprivation

www.theguardian.com

The inverse of that is also true.

If you don't marry your cousin the chance of a baby without genetic disorder is 97%.

If you do marry your cousin the chance of a baby without genetic disorder is 94%.

Yes that is a reduction but 94% of children born in cousin marriages have no genetic issues.

So let's not twist facts because by twisting facts and using anecdotes etc we lead the argument away from the important part.

What is the important part? That marrying your cousin doubles your chance of a kid with genetic defects.

It is still a small risk (6%) but still double that of a non cousin marriage. This risk is multipled if your parents are related too.


If you present cousin marriage as a guarantee of disabled children people will rightly mock your argument stating the hundreds of successful examples they know of.

So let's stick to facts so we can help curb it, rather than exaggeration.

Sure, it seems marginal, but twice as likely is pretty serious. And think what that likelihood becomes after generations of interbreeding. That percentage must go up.

And from the perspective of a society and of governments, do we really want to foster an unnecessary culture that ensures at least twice the likelihood, or twice the number of children born with disabilities? Imagine also what it does to the collective gene pool of the country to have these practises rife, ever shrinking gene pool diversity and ever increasing disease causing homogeneity.

 

[313ghazi]

Sure, it seems marginal, but twice as likely is pretty serious. And think what that likelihood becomes after generations of interbreeding. That percentage must go up.

And from the perspective of a society and of governments, do we really want to foster an unnecessary culture that ensures at least twice the likelihood, or twice the number of children born with disabilities? Imagine also what it does to the collective gene pool of the country to have these practises rife, ever shrinking gene pool diversity and ever increasing disease causing homogeneity.

Bro - read my posts, where am i adcovating for this stupidity? I'm not.

I have seen the consequences of cousin marriage far too closely. I've seen situations where death would be the easier option for parents.

I'm just saying we need to be methodical in the way we refute it. I've had this discussion with too many people who've responded with "yeah but what about so and so, they're fine" or "yeah but what about so and so - they've got a disabled kid and they're not related"...

My point is that we need to make our arguement clearly and with accurate facts,

Like you said; "twice as likely is pretty serious." and "think what that likelihood becomes after generations of interbreeding". I'd like to add to this the massive personal consequences of when it does go wrong - the unlikeliness of it occuring is no comfort when you have to bury your own children, or you have to raise children that cannot suvive without extensive support around the clock.

These are the facts we should be presenting to make the case against cousin marriage. I agree with @Trango Towers entirely. I just disagreed with how he said it.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Good luck to them all, although i would advice people against marrying their first cousins, especially over multiple generations.

it was just permitted in Islam but we made it a compulsory practice.
which must stop.

 

[313ghazi]

it was just permitted in Islam but we made it a compulsory practice.
which must stop.

i agree. It's dangerous, especially when repeated over multiple generations.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

@Trango Towers towers and @313ghazi


cool down now

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Anecdotal evidence, how impressive.

Here are the facts;

The risk of a child with a genetic based disease is 3% in a non cousin marriage.

If you marry your cousin this risk doubles to 6%.

Marriage between first cousins doubles risk of birth defects, say researchers

Study of 13,500 babies born in Bradford concludes cultural practice in Pakistani community outweighs effects of deprivation

www.theguardian.com

The inverse of that is also true.

If you don't marry your cousin the chance of a baby without genetic disorder is 97%.

If you do marry your cousin the chance of a baby without genetic disorder is 94%.

Yes that is a reduction but 94% of children born in cousin marriages have no genetic issues.

So let's not twist facts because by twisting facts and using anecdotes etc we lead the argument away from the important part.

What is the important part? That marrying your cousin doubles your chance of a kid with genetic defects.

It is still a small risk (6%) but still double that of a non cousin marriage. This risk is multipled if your parents are related too.


If you present cousin marriage as a guarantee of disabled children people will rightly mock your argument stating the hundreds of successful examples they know of.

So let's stick to facts so we can help curb it, rather than exaggeration.

That 3% difference is massive in a society of 200 million. Not to mention that this does not factor in the fact how cousin marriages go on for generations within the family, exponentially increasing the risks.

 

[313ghazi]

That 3% difference is massive in a society of 200 million. Not to mention that this does not factor in the fact how cousin marriages go on for generations within the family, exponentially increasing the risks.

Can I ask your honest opinion please?

When you read my post, was the takeaway message that you got from it that I was trivialising the risk of genetic disorders through inbreeding?

 

[Trango Towers]

You're the one reading selectively and I'm the dumbo.

Typical arrogant burger Pakistani. I'm just surprised you haven't told me how important you are yet.

As you have started name calling I will reply...so u to you to stop

If I am a burger Pakistan.. I am not the one who calls his cousin a sister one day and makes her pregnant the next. Enjoy my desi .. keep it close in the family.

Ps...you can afford a burger so stick to darbari roti

 

[SecularNationalist]

Watta Satta, ensuring no one lives happily ever after.

But atleast you think twice before beating black and blue your wife ,knowing your sister will receive the same treatment on the other side. That works as a deterrent in villages. In some cases it worked better than India Pakistan nuclear deterrence