DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Not many things shock me but.....
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 27, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/30/2010 06:53:58 PM · #1
...this has...

Granny, 72, Having A Baby With Her Grandson
04/30/2010 07:10:35 PM · #2
So he will be father and nephew, she will be mother and great grandmother......right.
04/30/2010 07:12:35 PM · #3
Crazy world !

04/30/2010 07:13:04 PM · #4
Originally posted by alans_world:

So he will be father and nephew, she will be mother and great grandmother......right.


He will also be brother to his father or mother?
04/30/2010 07:44:37 PM · #5
many adjectives i could use here: disgusting,depraved,sick....many more i am sure, wish i hadn't even read it
04/30/2010 07:46:54 PM · #6
grand-mother-f**ker.

:-D

04/30/2010 07:48:42 PM · #7
Originally posted by smardaz:

many adjectives i could use here: disgusting,depraved,sick....many more i am sure, wish i hadn't even read it


Werd ... WTF!!!!!!!

:-O
04/30/2010 07:51:42 PM · #8
ick
04/30/2010 08:04:39 PM · #9
Originally posted by smardaz:

many adjectives i could use here: disgusting,depraved,sick....many more i am sure, wish i hadn't even read it


They were the things I thought before reading it. After reading it I still thought those things but one more important thing " Dumbass".
I was totally surprised to read it was in the States? Don't you have laws for this kind of thing?
04/30/2010 08:24:35 PM · #10
....here comes lunch
04/30/2010 08:41:22 PM · #11
My money is on this being a fake story. I just don't believe it.

Family reunions would be interesting tho!
04/30/2010 08:54:27 PM · #12
Originally posted by colorcarnival:

My money is on this being a fake story. I just don't believe it.

Family reunions would be interesting tho!


I agree Michelle. The regular news media would have picked up on this story if it were legit so I'm guessing they made it up. And if it's not made up - YUCK! Sure does leave a bad visual image. :-(
04/30/2010 08:59:15 PM · #13
Certainly not to say that I advocate their choice.. But it is their choice.

--
One of the most interesting conversations I ever had while in college was with (one of my favorite profs) who is an ecologist. We somehow got on the subject on inbreeding, and I was under the impression that it was always a bad thing. She however enlightened me as to the potentially beneficial genetic consequences.

Essentially, the idea is that inbreeding can remove unhealthy genes from a population, leading to greater stability in the long run, and a greater chance that the successful individuals will pass on their genes (remember, the genes from an inbred offspring will be much more uniform than a non-inbred offspring).. This now means that the successful individuals have a much lower "bad" load of genes, and a prepotency that is much higher than it would be in a non-inbred individual.. Now this is a fine approach for, say, something like a pig that might have many, many offspring, but is a poor bet when it comes to humans, as we often have very few offspring.

Have a read of this article (deals with swine).. There is plenty more out there if you care to do a bit of looking...

Once again, I'm certainly not advocating their choice, simply sharing a fascinating and very little known genetic fact with my friends..

Message edited by author 2010-04-30 21:02:18.
04/30/2010 09:01:16 PM · #14
Originally posted by CJinCA:


The regular news media would have picked up on this story if it were legit so I'm guessing they made it up. And if it's not made up - YUCK! Sure does leave a bad visual image. :-(


Have a look here...
04/30/2010 09:09:47 PM · #15
Originally posted by coryboehne:

Certainly not to say that I advocate their choice.. But it is their choice.

--
One of the most interesting conversations I ever had while in college was with (one of my favorite profs) who is an ecologist. We somehow got on the subject on inbreeding, and I was under the impression that it was always a bad thing. She however enlightened me as to the potentially beneficial genetic consequences.

Essentially, the idea is that inbreeding can remove unhealthy genes from a population, leading to greater stability in the long run, and a greater chance that the successful individuals will pass on their genes (remember, the genes from an inbred offspring will be much more uniform than a non-inbred offspring).. This now means that the successful individuals have a much lower "bad" load of genes, and a prepotency that is much higher than it would be in a non-inbred individual.. Now this is a fine approach for, say, something like a pig that might have many, many offspring, but is a poor bet when it comes to humans, as we often have very few offspring.

Have a read of this article (deals with swine).. There is plenty more out there if you care to do a bit of looking...

Once again, I'm certainly not advocating their choice, simply sharing a fascinating and very little known genetic fact with my friends..


The logic of inbreeding works well with plants, where a deformity is easily discarded. However, for humans, if there are any rare recessive genes that lead to disease and disorder, that will not be beneficial to the population.

But, that being said, this is not true inbreeding. It involved a donated egg, so the child will not be half granny and half grandson... but rather half egg donor, half grandson.
04/30/2010 09:14:23 PM · #16
Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Certainly not to say that I advocate their choice.. But it is their choice.

--
One of the most interesting conversations I ever had while in college was with (one of my favorite profs) who is an ecologist. We somehow got on the subject on inbreeding, and I was under the impression that it was always a bad thing. She however enlightened me as to the potentially beneficial genetic consequences.

Essentially, the idea is that inbreeding can remove unhealthy genes from a population, leading to greater stability in the long run, and a greater chance that the successful individuals will pass on their genes (remember, the genes from an inbred offspring will be much more uniform than a non-inbred offspring).. This now means that the successful individuals have a much lower "bad" load of genes, and a prepotency that is much higher than it would be in a non-inbred individual.. Now this is a fine approach for, say, something like a pig that might have many, many offspring, but is a poor bet when it comes to humans, as we often have very few offspring.

Have a read of this article (deals with swine).. There is plenty more out there if you care to do a bit of looking...

Once again, I'm certainly not advocating their choice, simply sharing a fascinating and very little known genetic fact with my friends..


The logic of inbreeding works well with plants, where a deformity is easily discarded. However, for humans, if there are any rare recessive genes that lead to disease and disorder, that will not be beneficial to the population.

But, that being said, this is not true inbreeding. It involved a donated egg, so the child will not be half granny and half grandson... but rather half egg donor, half grandson.


Indeed it does.. I had missed the donor egg part and only seen the surrogate mother bit..
04/30/2010 09:28:45 PM · #17
OY VEY
04/30/2010 09:52:25 PM · #18
Originally posted by coryboehne:

Certainly not to say that I advocate their choice.. But it is their choice.

--
One of the most interesting conversations I ever had while in college was with (one of my favorite profs) who is an ecologist. We somehow got on the subject on inbreeding, and I was under the impression that it was always a bad thing. She however enlightened me as to the potentially beneficial genetic consequences.

Essentially, the idea is that inbreeding can remove unhealthy genes from a population, leading to greater stability in the long run, and a greater chance that the successful individuals will pass on their genes (remember, the genes from an inbred offspring will be much more uniform than a non-inbred offspring).. This now means that the successful individuals have a much lower "bad" load of genes, and a prepotency that is much higher than it would be in a non-inbred individual.. Now this is a fine approach for, say, something like a pig that might have many, many offspring, but is a poor bet when it comes to humans, as we often have very few offspring.

Have a read of this article (deals with swine).. There is plenty more out there if you care to do a bit of looking...

Once again, I'm certainly not advocating their choice, simply sharing a fascinating and very little known genetic fact with my friends..


That's assuming that it's selective inbreeding for that purpose. It requires intelligent oversight and informed choices. Unfortunately, this is not normally the case with inbreeding.
04/30/2010 10:24:25 PM · #19
Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Certainly not to say that I advocate their choice.. But it is their choice.

--
One of the most interesting conversations I ever had while in college was with (one of my favorite profs) who is an ecologist. We somehow got on the subject on inbreeding, and I was under the impression that it was always a bad thing. She however enlightened me as to the potentially beneficial genetic consequences.

Essentially, the idea is that inbreeding can remove unhealthy genes from a population, leading to greater stability in the long run, and a greater chance that the successful individuals will pass on their genes (remember, the genes from an inbred offspring will be much more uniform than a non-inbred offspring).. This now means that the successful individuals have a much lower "bad" load of genes, and a prepotency that is much higher than it would be in a non-inbred individual.. Now this is a fine approach for, say, something like a pig that might have many, many offspring, but is a poor bet when it comes to humans, as we often have very few offspring.

Have a read of this article (deals with swine).. There is plenty more out there if you care to do a bit of looking...

Once again, I'm certainly not advocating their choice, simply sharing a fascinating and very little known genetic fact with my friends..


That's assuming that it's selective inbreeding for that purpose. It requires intelligent oversight and informed choices. Unfortunately, this is not normally the case with inbreeding.


I'm pretty sure I remember reading somewhere that in Europe in the 30s & 40s they tried breeding a 'master race'....wonder how that turned out?

Message edited by author 2010-04-30 22:25:00.
04/30/2010 11:08:00 PM · #20
Originally posted by MichaelC:


I'm pretty sure I remember reading somewhere that in Europe in the 30s & 40s they tried breeding a 'master race'....wonder how that turned out?


I'm not sure... But I suspect they all moved to Iceland.. At least that's what it looks like from a DPC standpoint.. :)
04/30/2010 11:18:16 PM · #21
It never ceases to amaze me how these people who claim to be all about these incredible strong relationships of true love never think one whit of the heartache, miseruy, and grief they'll put a child through because of their self-centered, twisted ideas.

You wanna have your tri-generational incestuous relatyionship and ride off, in love, into the sunset, fine, but don't do that to a poor innocent kid who has no say in the abuse they *will* have to tolerate.
04/30/2010 11:28:52 PM · #22
The pic of Obama(left margin beside the article) says it all!
05/01/2010 12:26:43 AM · #23
Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Certainly not to say that I advocate their choice.. But it is their choice.

--
One of the most interesting conversations I ever had while in college was with (one of my favorite profs) who is an ecologist. We somehow got on the subject on inbreeding, and I was under the impression that it was always a bad thing. She however enlightened me as to the potentially beneficial genetic consequences.

Essentially, the idea is that inbreeding can remove unhealthy genes from a population, leading to greater stability in the long run, and a greater chance that the successful individuals will pass on their genes (remember, the genes from an inbred offspring will be much more uniform than a non-inbred offspring).. This now means that the successful individuals have a much lower "bad" load of genes, and a prepotency that is much higher than it would be in a non-inbred individual.. Now this is a fine approach for, say, something like a pig that might have many, many offspring, but is a poor bet when it comes to humans, as we often have very few offspring.

Have a read of this article (deals with swine).. There is plenty more out there if you care to do a bit of looking...

Once again, I'm certainly not advocating their choice, simply sharing a fascinating and very little known genetic fact with my friends..


That's assuming that it's selective inbreeding for that purpose. It requires intelligent oversight and informed choices. Unfortunately, this is not normally the case with inbreeding.


In the 70s my husband and I bred Irish setters. We bought our dog and bitch from reputable breeders who not only bred show dogs, but also guide dogs (Labradors). Our two puppies had overlapping pedigrees and the dog puppy's father was also his grandfather. This was explained to us as 'linebreeding' and was for the purpose of ensuring quality by using good genes from a controlled gene pool. However when we bred them together we got an incidence of approximately 1 in 8 (on average one per litter) of a condition called esophageal dilation, a ballooning of the esophagus and a consequent spill of milk out through the puppies' noses instead of it entering their stomachs. Our vet said that both parents were contributing a recessive gene. Not a good outcome. Just imagine if humans were allowed to breed incestuously just on the whim of attraction. Luckily as well as laws we have the ick factor and these attractions are not all that common.
Having said all that, I also have a suspicion that the story might be rubbish.
05/01/2010 07:54:05 AM · #24
Originally posted by jomari:

In the 70s my husband and I bred Irish setters. We bought our dog and bitch from reputable breeders who not only bred show dogs, but also guide dogs (Labradors). Our two puppies had overlapping pedigrees and the dog puppy's father was also his grandfather. This was explained to us as 'linebreeding' and was for the purpose of ensuring quality by using good genes from a controlled gene pool. However when we bred them together we got an incidence of approximately 1 in 8 (on average one per litter) of a condition called esophageal dilation, a ballooning of the esophagus and a consequent spill of milk out through the puppies' noses instead of it entering their stomachs. Our vet said that both parents were contributing a recessive gene. Not a good outcome. Just imagine if humans were allowed to breed incestuously just on the whim of attraction. Luckily as well as laws we have the ick factor and these attractions are not all that common.


Until there are genetic tests to find those recessive genes any breeding is something of a crapshoot. Dominant bad genes are somewhat easier to breed out if there is a test to ID affecteds, so for those sorts of things inbreeding/linebreeding (they're closely related) can be a good thing.

As I get older and start exhibiting symptoms of more and more annoying little health issues which are most likely genetic I realize I probably never should have been allowed to reproduce ;-) But my kids are wonderful human beings, so maybe that makes up for them having bad vision and allergies and assorted other physical imperfections.

And as far as having a baby at the grandmother's age ... that's crazy! WAY too much stress and strain for someone of that age, IMO.
05/01/2010 12:43:26 PM · #25
She looks darn good to be 72!

They don't have the normal "incest taboo" that kind of forms naturally when you live as a family. A stepbrother and sister that had no blood connection but were raised together from a young age would most likely consider it wrong to have a physical relationship. But in this case, where there was no contact at all until they were adults, such a "repulsion bond" didn't form.

I gave up a daughter at birth 26 years ago. Closed adoption. So if she were to meet my 24 year old son, there would be no way for them to know that they were blood relatives, and nothing to stop them from forming a romantic relationship. Other than the extreme age difference, this is no different.

And since they are using a donated egg, the chances of an inbred genetic disorder is much lessened. Like Mary says, that doesn't mean that something else genetic won't crop up.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/31/2020 12:32:07 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 10/31/2020 12:32:07 PM EDT.