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.
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. They are both consenting adults and there is no history of abuse between the two that would suggest a power imbalance that could affect one or the other's judgement. Granted, their judgement may be affected by the phenomenon of GSA, but so what?
And concerns about the child these two will raise is little more than moral wowserism. Note the relationship mentioned in the third last paragraph:
The couple sees 30-year-old Roxanne [the surrogate] once a month and accompany her for scans, with Pearl playing the part of a pal [to Roxanne] or the baby's grandmother [my emphasis].
Would people expressing concern about this object to a grandparent taking custody of a grandchild if the child's parents were both deceased because, horror of horrors, the grandparent might not live to see the grandchild graduate from high school or university?
Object all you want, but please do find better reasons than "it's yucky" or "why won't someone think of the children?!". Leave the faux moralising to the religiotards.
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.
I don't know if I agree with intentionally bringing a child into a taboo lifestyle.
Think about that for a minute: How many 'lifestyles' were once taboo but that we now give hardly a thought about (if we even realise such lifestyles were once taboo)?
"How dare those nudists have children! How dare they include those children in that nudist lifestyle!"
"That poor half-caste child. I don't mind if the parents want to be in a relationship, but they have no right to inflict such confusion upon the child."
"A Catholic marrying a Protestant? I don't understand why they would want to do that, but okay. Just so long as they don't have any children. I mean, won't the child resent one of their parents for being the wrong religion?"
Why do they need a child? Is it to prove their love? If so, that's a selfish reason.
Yes, let's just ban families. After all, no one really needs to have a child. And we can't have people being selfish.
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.