Incest Baby
⚡ ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Incest Baby
Published on October 29, 2018 12:47 PM
PEOPLE is part of the Dotdash Meredith publishing family.
We've updated our Privacy Policy, which will go in to effect on September 1, 2022. Review our Privacy Policy
A South Carolina father and his daughter face charges of incest following the birth of the baby authorities say is theirs, according to the Laurens County Sheriff’s Office.
Katlyn Lauren Edwards, 20, “had given birth to a child after being impregnated by her biological father,” the sheriff’s office alleged in an October 26 press release.
The child later died at a medical facility in Charleston, South Carolina. “I can’t confirm the baby died from complications related to incest, however we wonder if that’s the case,” said Sheriff Don Reynolds in the release.
Edwards and her father, James Travis Brown, 38, were allegedly in a “consensual and mutual” relationship, according to the sheriff’s office.
“Investigators also found other evidence to support their claim that the relationship was consensual,” according to the release.
• Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Click here to get breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases in the True Crime Newsletter.
Edwards was arrested on October 22 and was taken to the Johnson Detention Center, where she was booked on the charge of incest, police say.
Brown is currently incarcerated in another county on unrelated charges. He will be transferred to Johnson Detention Center to face charges in Laurens County for incest when he is released.
The alleged relationship came to light after investigators received a South Carolina Department of Social Services intake report of an alleged sexual abuse incident, says the sheriff’s office.
A call placed to the sheriff’s office for additional information was not immediately returned.
According to an administrative assistant with the Laurens County solicitor’s office, neither suspect has entered a plea and it was not clear if either suspect had retained legal counsel. The administrative assistant says the office has not yet gotten the case for prosecution.
“It is beyond my comprehension how this could take place between a father and daughter,” Reynolds says in the statement.
Therapists
:
Login
|
Sign Up
United States
Austin, TX
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Denver, CO
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Mental Health
Addiction
Anxiety
ADHD
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Depression
Eating Disorders
Personality
Passive Aggression
Personality
Shyness
Personal Growth
Goal Setting
Happiness
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Relationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Sex
Family Life
Child Development
Parenting
Talk to Someone
Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
Trending Topics
Coronavirus Disease 2019
Narcissism
Dementia
Bias
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience
Key points
Humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest.
Anti-incest mechanisms guard against the high chance that one's offspring from such an encounter will be born with a serious birth defect.
The argument to deny abortion even in cases of first-degree relative incest to protect the sanctity of life is an example of foolish consistency.
Are you a Therapist?
Get Listed Today
Get Help
Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
Members
Login
Sign Up
United States
Austin, TX
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Denver, CO
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Mental Health
Addiction
Anxiety
ADHD
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Depression
Eating Disorders
Personality
Passive Aggression
Personality
Shyness
Personal Growth
Goal Setting
Happiness
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Relationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Sex
Family Life
Child Development
Parenting
Talk to Someone
Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
Trending Topics
Coronavirus Disease 2019
Narcissism
Dementia
Bias
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience
The question is not whether you’ll change; you will. Research clearly shows that everyone’s personality traits shift over the years, often for the better. But who we end up becoming and how much we like that person are more in our control than we tend to think they are.
Posted October 11, 2012
|
Reviewed by Lybi Ma
Mr. James Russell of Cashiers, North Carolina, recently justified meat-eating in the pages of Asheville Citizen-Times by arguing that humans are biologically classified as carnivores. His reasoning was simple. The consumption of animal flesh is morally right because it is natural.
Unfortunately, Mr. Russell got his facts wrong. Zoologists place humans in the order Primate (family Hominidea ), not in the order Carnivora . Furthermore, like rats, humans are omnivores, not carnivores. But more troubling is Mr. Russell’s belief that humans should look to nature for moral guidance. He justifies meat-eating in humans on the grounds that other animals eat one another. I suspect, however, that he does not approve of gang rape, adultery , cannibalism, and the consumption of feces, all of which are practiced in nature by our four-legged brethren. While moral codes exist in other species, humans have the capacity—and, indeed, the responsibility—to operate on a higher ethical plane.
On matters of morality , I generally agree with Katherine Hepburn who quipped to Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen , "Nature is what we are put in this world to rise above." There is, however, an exception to my contention that humans should not turn to nature for moral guidance. It is the rule that says: “Don’t have sex with first-degree relatives.” First-degree relatives are the individuals you share 50 percent of your genes with—your parents, children, and siblings. Indeed, non-human animals have evolved a host of strategies to prevent incest ( here ). Even plants possess anti-incest mechanisms ( here ).
As University of Miami psychologists Debra Lieberman and Adam Smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science , humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. With very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. The primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. Even the idea of sex with mom or dad or bro or sis is upsetting to most people. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancy ( here ).
This raises an interesting question: Just what’s so bad about incest? Sure, having sex with your dad or your sister seems gross. But why? Some anthropologists have argued that incest taboos are learned social conventions. This explanation, however, doesn’t make sense to me as it does not explain the widespread existence of anti-incest mechanisms in creatures ranging from cockroaches to chimpanzees ( here ). Second, the incest taboo is about as close to a universal law as human moral rules get.
Why should mechanisms for avoiding incest be so widespread both in nature and across human societies? The answer is simple. The problem with having sex with close relatives is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect. Take the results:
Percent of children with severe birth defects.
Source: A study of Czechoslovakian children whose fathers were first-degree relatives. Fewer than half of the children who were the product of incestuous unions were completely healthy. Forty-two percent of them were born with severe birth defects or suffered early death and another 11 percent mildly impaired mentally. This study is particularly instructive as it included a unique control group—the offspring of the same mothers but whose fathers were not the mothers’ relatives. When the same women were impregnated by a non-relative, only 7 percent of their children were born with a birth defect (Figure 1).
A group of genetic counselors reviewed the research on the biological consequences of sex between relatives (consanguineous relationships) ( here ). They found a surprisingly small increase (about 4 percent) in birth defects among the children of married cousins. Incest between first-degree relatives, however, was a different story. The researchers examined four studies (including the Czech research) on the effects of first-degree incest on the health of the offspring. Forty percent of the children were born with either autosomal recessive disorders, congenital physical malformations, or severe intellectual deficits. And another 14 percent of them had mild mental disabilities. In short, the odds that a newborn child who is the product of brother-sister or father-daughter incest will suffer an early death, a severe birth defect, or some mental deficiently approaches 50 percent.
The profound negative effects of incest on unborn children raise the issues of moral consistency and of abortion politics . I understand the pro-life argument. If you believe that human life begins at the moment sperm meets egg, it is perfectly logical to oppose abortion. But at what point do reasonable people temper logical consistency with compassion and common sense?
During the 2012 Republican Party convention in Tampa, the Platform Committee struggled with an aspect of the argument against legal abortion . Just about everyone on the committee agreed that abortion should be banned. But committee members were split over whether official party doctrine should include exceptions to the abortion ban if a fetus was the result of rape or incest. In the end, ideological purity prevailed. The official Republican platform states, “We assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.” No exceptions, period. Even in cases of first-degree relative incest.
I grudgingly admit that the lack of any exception in the official Republican position on abortion is logically consistent with the party's statement on the “sanctity of all human life.” But shouldn't logic sometimes be tempered with compassion? Emerson famously wrote, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”
Forcing a woman burdened with the psychological scars of incest to bear a child who has a roughly 50:50 chance of having mental disabilities or a severe birth defect is perhaps the ultimate example of a foolish consistency that appeals to little statesmen.
Hal Herzog, Ph.D., is the author of Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard To Think Straight About Animals.
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.
Psychology Today © 2022 Sussex Publishers, LLC
The question is not whether you’ll change; you will. Research clearly shows that everyone’s personality traits shift over the years, often for the better. But who we end up becoming and how much we like that person are more in our control than we tend to think they are.
Updated August 25, 2022 12.9m views 13 items
Photo : Juan Carreño de Miranda / Wikimedia Commons / Public domain
Photo : Boasson and Eggler St. Petersburg Nevsky 24 / Wikimedia Commons / Public domain
Incest is a taboo in pretty much every culture around the world, but it wasn't always so. Nobles and royals used to try to keep royal blood pure by marrying people they were related to; Egyptians rulers, in particular, would often marry their siblings or even their own children. This gave us a glimpse of the serious genetic mutations that can arise from incest. But how exactly do you get genetic problems from incest?
Even if there's not always a mutation, inbreeding with someone you're related to brings up a lot of problems involving recessive traits. Because the two of you have similar genes, any recessive abnormalities you have can be passed on more easily and expressed more visibly in your offspring. This also means that, even if you don't show any signs of genetic disorders yourself, your child may show incest-related genetic mutations. It is important to note that these traits and mutations don't always arise from incest, but they can show up more frequently through incestuous breeding.
If you're still morbidly curious as to how incest affects your genes or what inbred people look like, look no further. Here are just a few of the genetic mutations that come from incest, as well as the expression of recessive genes you might never see otherwise.
This genetic condition, also called prognathism, is connected to noble families. The Spanish House of Habsburg came to power during the mid-1400s and remained there until the mid-1700s, but during that time, there was quite a bit of inbreeding . Rather than marrying outside the family, the Habsburgs arranged close marriages to protect their interests. Unfortunately, their genetics paid the price. Their children started to show long, jutting lower jaws, with severe under-bites.
The worst case of this was found in Charles II of Spain , who had an under bite so severe that he could not speak properly, could not chew, and had problems with drooling. (In addition, he was infertile and had cognitive disabilities: he learned to talk when he was 4, and to walk when he was 8.)
Even modern ancestors of this family show slight variations of this genetic problem, showing just how long-lasting the results of genetic mutations from incest can be.
If you look at many ancient Egyptian busts, you may notice that their heads look a little funny - in particular, they are often elongated in the back. This wasn't just a stylistic choice on the part of the artist; many Egyptian royalty actually had skulls shaped like that. After all, Egyptian royal customs depended heavily upon incest . Brothers married sisters; mothers married sons; and cousins often married cousins. The result was that their skulls were often deformed, though it should be noted that most royalty wrapped their heads to get that particular deformed shape as they grew, as it was also a sought-after style. King Tut, for example, suffered from such a skull deformation, in addition to "a cleft palate, a club foot (as well as missing bones in his feet), and scoliosis."
The Vadoma tribe in Zimbabwe, which exists in relative isolation and procreates largely in pairs from its small ingroup, has a high occurrence of fused limbs in their feet, giving their feet a unique, birdlike appearance. This has led to them sometimes being called "the ostrich people." Because their gene pool is small, and because the gene is both dominant and common, the trait lives on.
Several major European royal families were absolutely riddled with incest. Queen Victoria, in particular, saw the negative impact of inbreeding. During the 1850s, Victoria and Albert had a child who had trouble with his blood clotting . While that child, Leopold, did not commit incest with any of his siblings, many of his brothers and sisters did marry into the family, even indirectly, and more of their offspring started to show signs of trouble with bleeding. This is because they were carriers of hemophilia (sometimes called "the royal disease"), a recessive genetic disorder.
Hemophilia plagued the Russian royal family, the Romanovs , and it was fear for the hemophiliac Prince Alexei Romanov, Queen Victoria's grandson and heir to the Russian throne, that led his mother Alexandra to fall under the spell of Rasputin.
Hemophilia happens when the blood does not clot properly. This means that even small injuries like a simple cut, bruise, or nosebleed, can result in a serious loss of blood, and that injuries do not heal correctly. This can lead to infections and even death.
WIN
News
Porno Japanese Outdoor
Fucking Young Tube
Nfl Spreads To Bet On