She's right about the Genetic Sexual Attraction, though. Incest is not that uncommon in adoption cases where the parents do not reconnect with their children until they're adults. You're physiologically aware that the person has similar genes to you, creating that connection, but because of that unfamiliarity, it's easy to mistake that. It can have positive results where they end up happy together or disastrous where they want nothing more to do with each other.
Other than the taboo incest portion, I'm also disturbed by the fact that a 72-year old wants to be a mother. She doesn't even know if she'd live to see the child's graduation nor the energy to deal with the child's more precocious behaviors.
Stephen: It's interesting to read the comments here and over at the article. Contrary to others, I'm not the least bit creeped out by this.
Same here. Reproduction aside, I never had a problem with consensual incest. I admit I'm a bit worried by how it'll affect the child's future (social stigma is not something you can do much about), but I wish all the family good luck. And kudos to the three of them (including the surrogate mother) for having people around them question their beliefs. Taboo is dogma.
There was a show on not too long ago about these kind of relationships. I can't remember if it was on Nat'l Geo.'s Taboo series or BBCA.
I don't know if I agree with intentionally bringing a child into a taboo lifestyle. Why do they need a child? Is it to prove their love? If so, that's a selfish reason.
There is a good biological basis for the 'yuk' response. Inbreeding is genetically disadvantageous in all naturally out-crossing diploid species. So many mechanisms have evolved to diminish the probability of inbreeding, not least of which is a general preference for 'difference' in a mate. In this case, the egg came from a donor so I don't see any health risks.
I believe it is wrong to have a child with a close relative b/c of the genetic risk. Without the chance of pregnancy, "ew" is not the same as "morally wrong". So then, is it only immoral if there is a chance of pregnancy? I thought of this when someone said "what's to stop gay people from having incestuous relationships? they can't get pregnant" but I think it is the same either way and if a person has a chance of pregnancy they should take precautions. Some might say "but if you accept this, soon everyone will be having incestuous relationships" but I don't think so, the "eww" reaction is widespread.
I have no issues with this, except that they are having a child. There is nothing wrong with a union so long as both individuals are mentaly mature, and they both consent. The child goes a little bit too far because of their unusual relationship. She probably won't live to see the child succeed. I find it morally reprehensible, but they have every right to do it.
I don't know how I would rank this on my "Who Gives a Shit" list.
There is no increased genetic risk as the egg was donated by a non-relative and a surrogate is carrying the fetus.
It certainly wouldn't be my choice of a relationship - but really, is it something that's going to erode the social fabric?