Marriage to first cousins--and genetic birth defects--rising exponentially in U.K.; pols scared to criticize it

Western doctors and geneticists have known for, oh, a century or so that marriage between people who are closely-related greatly increases the chance of genetic defects in the couple's children.  And in the West, marriage between first-cousins is usually prohibited.

In the once-great U.K. cousin marriage is still legal, mostly due to the fact that the kings and queens of past centuries often married cousins, so everyone was afraid to criticize the practice, despite some offspring with genetic problems.  But most people have accepted that cousin marriage is dangerous to kids.

But amazingly, cousin marriage in the U.K. has increased exponentially in the last ten years, with a corresponding surge in birth defects.  In fact an average of two children in the U.K. die every week due to genetic defects--545 children born to closely related couples have died in the past five years, according to the U.K's Department for Education, which is charged with examining the deaths of  children under 18. 

Thousands more children of cousin marriages survive, but with appalling physical or mental problems including blindness, deafness, blood ailments, heart or kidney failure, lung or liver problems and a myriad of often incurable and complex neurological or brain disorders.  In one smallish town alone--Oldham--20 babies a year are born with genetic defects due to cousin marriage.  But no one is allowed to criticize the practice.

Reason is simple:  According to the Health and Wellbeing Board--which happens to be overseen by the Oldham council -- cousin marriage is an "integral part of cultural and social life."

Say what??  What so-called "culture" finds this vital and necessary?

Liberals and Democrats counter that dumb city councils in the U.S. made stupid statements too, so this one by the Oldham council is probably meaningless.  Okay, then consider that even that august U.N. body amusingly named the "World Health Organization" astonishingly insists that efforts to stop marriages between first cousins are "undesirable and inappropriate."

"Wait, wait...are you saying the f'n World Health Organization -- a body you'd think would be all about, um...health...would rather inflict genetic birth defects on innocent kids than try to educate people not to marry their cousins?"

You got it.  That's exactly the position of that craven, politically-correct piece of shit organization.

And why in the world would an outfit supposedly concerned with "health" take that position, in the face of overwhelming evidence of damage?  Because one group of people actually encourages marriage between cousins.  And every single politician and official in the entire world is scared to death [how appropriate] to cross 'em.

For example, in the U.K's Pakistani community roughly 60 per cent of women are married to their cousins.  And British Pakistanis are far more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population.  How much more?  Twice the risk, maybe?  Triple?

Turns out the official records show that children of marriages to first cousins have over TEN times the risk of serious genetic problems.

In Birmingham half of women of Pakistani origin are married to a close relative.  These marriages account for about three percent of births, but 33 percent of children born with serious genetic ailments.

Now, you don't live in the U.K. and probably don't plan to marry your first cousin, so why should this story be of any interest to you?  Because it shows how those people think--or don't.  Let's look at the possible explanations:

One could speculate that perhaps they're just too f'n stupid to interpret the totally unequivocal data.  I suspect they would dispute this quite strongly.  But if they're not too stupid to make the risk connection, the alternative is far worse, IMHO:  It's that they do know the risk, but will marry their cousins anyway--accepting the ten-fold increase in serious genetic problems in their kids--because their culture encourages it. 

Think on that for a bit.

Oh, and as a very minor aside:  When a child is born with devastating, life-long genetic defects, who do you think ends up paying for life-long care?  Again, compared to the pain and harm inflicted on the innocent children, this is minor.  But with enough victims the cost becomes huge.

But of course this couldn't happen here, because...oh wait...the Democrats constantly tell us that "All cultures are equal."  Meaning they'll try to prosecute you for hate speech if you dare to criticize a harmful practice by a protected culture.

Hard to believe, right?  But go back up the page and re-read where the damn World Health Organization itself refused to call for an end to marriage of first-cousins, on the grounds that the practice is "an integral part of  cultural and social life."  They don't say what culture or society, of course.  Cuz that might cause trouble for The Narrative.