cutie patootie

for one thing, the reality of the statistics of consang procreation is that the vast majority of offspring produced by consanguinamorous couples are born healthy and able-bodied. you probably know somebody that is some degree of inbred without even knowing it. this is because congenital disorders in consang offspring are often the results of external circumstances such as the presence of inheritable genetic conditions or toxins in the parent like any other offspring. the comparatively few congenital conditions that are a direct result of consanguinity tend to occur due to multiple consecutive generations of it, which is something that is vanishingly rare in modern times.

a single generation of consang procreation also rapidly dilutes into the broader gene pool with the introduction of new blood into a family tree, limiting the chance of congenital disorders. the chance of consang love creating genetic "damage" as seen in medieval royal families such as the habsburgs and the ptolemies is therefore largely a myth in the present, meaning the offspring of the vast majority of consanguinamorous couples are overwhelmingly likely to be born as healthy as any other offspring.

additionally, the argument against reproductive rights for consanguinamorous couples is, as previously mentioned, deeply rooted in ableism and eugenics. according to the usamerican national institute of health, eugenics is broadly defined as selective breeding applied to humans so as to "genetically improve" the species. of particular relevance for this discussion are two core components of eugenics theory - that people can supposedly be ranked based on the perceived "quality" of their genetics, and that action should be taken to increase said quality of the human species at large. taken together, these ideas suggest that the disabled are necessarily inferior and must be prevented from being born according to eugenics. this is reflected in eugenicist praxis, with the disabled often targeted by the movement with forced sterilization, abortions, and even murder throughout history.

this ableist perspective is mirrored in how consanguiphobes speak on the subject of consang procreation. in opposing incest on the basis of the mere possibility of congenital conditions, one not only falls into eugenicist thought by implying that the disabled are somehow lesser, but also asserts that the state has the right to determine who may or may not reproduce - a very dangerous and reactionary sentiment to hold. there is nothing wrong with having a disability or other inheritable conditions, and therefore there is no reason to bar consang people from procreation.

there are also a number of different ways that disabled people are born, not just consang reproduction. even if preventing disability were the noble objective consanguiphobes seem to think it is, restricting the reproductive rights of an extremely small fraction of the population does little to accomplish that. easily inheritable genetic conditions and myriad of other factors produce far more disabled offspring than consanguinamorous parents ever could, yet receive far less stigma and societal scrutiny, thus exposing the hypocrisy of the argument and by extension the consanguiphobe.

moreover, there are large swathes of the consang community that are voluntarily child-free for countless reasons. in view of this, it is plainly ridiculous to advocate for the continued oppression of consanguinamorous couples as a whole on the basis of anything to do with offspring - many don't even attempt to conceive, making the "risks" nonapplicable. that said, this truth does not justify discrimination against those that do intend to conceive.