Graham

Yes, they can, however, is that actually a *definitive* reason?

Firstly I'd point out that whilst, yes, there is a risk of "bad genes" being re-inforced, it's *not* going to be the case that the baby is born with three heads or some such.

As I mentioned back when I started contributing to this thread, we think little of interbreeding related animals to "fix" a desired genetic trait (even if it's only black spots on a dalmatian or to get a faster race horse) and yet there are no masses of "hideous mutant animals" appearing.

Secondly, whilst we make jokes about banjos etc, the fact is that this is more the result of *repeated* inbreeding in a limited gene pool, not just a single instance of incest. As such, it doesn't really hold up the argument.

Thirdly, whilst, again, "bad genes" could be reinforced, is such a thing necessarily a good argument for preventing a couple from having a baby?

What about haemophilia, cystic fibrosis or other congenital conditions? Surely these are *more* hazardous to a potential child, but whilst I may not object to incest, you can be damned sure I'll object to Eugenics!

So, in conclusion, I don't really think that "because they can do....??" holds water as an adequate justification for banning incest.

Still, at least someone's tried to look at it logically