By now I think most people will have seen this article or another like 
it in the media


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/11/ntwins111.xml


________________________________________


<quote>

Lord Alton said: "They were never told they were twins. They met later 
in life and felt an inevitable attraction, and the judge had to deal 
with the consequences of their marriage that they entered into, and all 
the issues of their separation.

"The right for children to know the identity of their biological parents 
is a human right.

"There will be more cases like this if children are not given access to 
the truth. The needs of the child must always be paramount.

"If you start trying to conceal someone's identity, sooner or later the 
truth will out.

"And if you don't know you are biologically related someone, you may 
become attracted to them and tragedies like this may occur."

The Government has faced stiff opposition over changes to fertility laws 
in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

The changes, which are being debated in the House of Lords, would relax 
rules on who can have fertility treatment, with fertility clinics unable 
to bar single women and same-sex couples from having treatment.

Critics say the Bill removes the need for fathers and will make it more 
difficult for children to find out about their biological parents.

Ministers have already been forced to rewrite the bill following 
objections by peers to the original wording.

It had said children born through fertility treatment needed a "social 
network", not a father and mother.

The Lords will vote on the revised bill on Tuesday.



<end quote>

________________________________________


Isn't it the case that problem with incestuous marriage and inherited 
health problems tends to be more of an issue in endogamic communities or 
groups where it happens over and over again within the same family, e.g. 
the European Royal families

In exogamous cultures such as ours the problem is the social stigma that 
traditionally surrounds incest even when it is accidental incest as a 
result of the parties involved, not knowing that they are within the 
prohibited degree of consanguinity


That adoption is still set up in such a way that it is possible for 
people to marry not knowing that they are brother and sister is an 
absolute disgrace in modern Britain. I wrote to Alan Milburn the then 
Secretary of State for Health and Social Services about this via my MP, 
at the time of the Adoption and Children Bill. He signed the Bill off as 
conforming to the Human Rights Act, which of course in this respect, it 
does not. We did not get an answer from Milburn. Jacquie Smith the 
health minister overseeing the second Bill was equally unconcerned at 
the time


The problem with issues such as this and getting the law changed is that 
it needs more than just a few people at a time to express their concern


In the recent Sexual Offences Bill some people involved in the post 
adoption field tried to get the law changed so that it would no longer 
be a criminal offence where incest took place between two people who had 
a relationship as result of unknowingly being of the prohibited degree 
of consanguinity. I believe their attempts at changing the law were 
unsuccessful and that incest between adoptees is still criminal offence 
once they become aware of their relationship. Though quite unlikely to 
be prosecuted, it seems


Under the 1956 Act


10 Incest by a man

(1)It is an offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman 
whom he knows to be his grand-daughter, daughter, sister or mother.

(2)In the foregoing subsection “sister” includes half-sister, and for 
the purposes of that subsection any expression importing a relationship 
between two people shall be taken to apply notwithstanding that the 
relationship is not traced through lawful wedlock.

11 Incest by a woman

(1)It is an offence for a woman of the age of sixteen or over to permit 
a man whom she knows to be her grandfather, father, brother or son to 
have sexual intercourse with her by her consent.

(2)In the foregoing subsection “brother” includes half-brother, and for 
the purposes of that subsection any expression importing a relationship 
between two people shall be taken to apply notwithstanding that the 
relationship is not traced through lawful wedlock.


So therefore although they may have lived a normal married live and have 
perfectly happy healthy children, not knowing them selves to be brother 
and sister, once they discover their genetic relationship, any kind of 
normal married life between them becomes a criminal offence!


At least this case and the publicity that it has attracted in the media 
across the world may help to get the adoption laws changed and the 
necessary amendment to Sexual Offences Act to ensure that no one is ever 
prosecuted for accidental incest


So from the point of view of legality, if you are a couple in that 
situation, in many ways it's best not to know


However if you were born to a mother or father who is a carrier of an 
inherited disease, it is quit important that you do know. You can then 
at least have a chance to have early foetal tests to decide whether to 
continue a pregnancy. If you have religious or ethical objections to 
termination of pregnancy you can be tested yourself and avoid having 
children if you are positive and don't want to risk having a child who 
is affected


Of course what is so for adoptees in this respect, is also so for those 
born as a result of gamete donation. We all need to know who our genetic 
parents are, that is surely a basic human right



Robin Harritt
http://harritt.eu


*

On 13/1/08 09:10, in article fmckho$hhk$2@aioe.org, "Robin Harritt"
 wrote:

> 
> 
> By now I think most people will have seen this article or another like
> it in the media
> 
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/11/ntwins111.xml
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> 
> 
> <quote>
> 
> Lord Alton said: "They were never told they were twins. They met later
> in life and felt an inevitable attraction, and the judge had to deal
> with the consequences of their marriage that they entered into, and all
> the issues of their separation.
> 
> "The right for children to know the identity of their biological parents
> is a human right.
> 
> "There will be more cases like this if children are not given access to
> the truth. The needs of the child must always be paramount.
> 
> "If you start trying to conceal someone's identity, sooner or later the
> truth will out.
> 
> "And if you don't know you are biologically related someone, you may
> become attracted to them and tragedies like this may occur."
> 
> The Government has faced stiff opposition over changes to fertility laws
> in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
> 
> The changes, which are being debated in the House of Lords, would relax
> rules on who can have fertility treatment, with fertility clinics unable
> to bar single women and same-sex couples from having treatment.
> 
> Critics say the Bill removes the need for fathers and will make it more
> difficult for children to find out about their biological parents.
> 
> Ministers have already been forced to rewrite the bill following
> objections by peers to the original wording.
> 
> It had said children born through fertility treatment needed a "social
> network", not a father and mother.
> 
> The Lords will vote on the revised bill on Tuesday.
> 
> 
> 
> <end quote>
> 
> ________________________________________
> 
> 
> Isn't it the case that problem with incestuous marriage and inherited
> health problems tends to be more of an issue in endogamic communities or
> groups where it happens over and over again within the same family, e.g.
> the European Royal families
> 
> In exogamous cultures such as ours the problem is the social stigma that
> traditionally surrounds incest even when it is accidental incest as a
> result of the parties involved, not knowing that they are within the
> prohibited degree of consanguinity
> 
> 
> That adoption is still set up in such a way that it is possible for
> people to marry not knowing that they are brother and sister is an
> absolute disgrace in modern Britain. I wrote to Alan Milburn the then
> Secretary of State for Health and Social Services about this via my MP,
> at the time of the Adoption and Children Bill. He signed the Bill off as
> conforming to the Human Rights Act, which of course in this respect, it
> does not. We did not get an answer from Milburn. Jacquie Smith the
> health minister overseeing the second Bill was equally unconcerned at
> the time
> 
> 
> The problem with issues such as this and getting the law changed is that
> it needs more than just a few people at a time to express their concern
> 
> 
> In the recent Sexual Offences Bill some people involved in the post
> adoption field tried to get the law changed so that it would no longer
> be a criminal offence where incest took place between two people who had
> a relationship as result of unknowingly being of the prohibited degree
> of consanguinity. I believe their attempts at changing the law were
> unsuccessful and that incest between adoptees is still criminal offence
> once they become aware of their relationship. Though quite unlikely to
> be prosecuted, it seems
> 
> 
> Under the 1956 Act
> 
> 
> 10 Incest by a man
> 
> (1)It is an offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman
> whom he knows to be his grand-daughter, daughter, sister or mother.
> 
> (2)In the foregoing subsection ³sister² includes half-sister, and for
> the purposes of that subsection any expression importing a relationship
> between two people shall be taken to apply notwithstanding that the
> relationship is not traced through lawful wedlock.
> 
> 11 Incest by a woman
> 
> (1)It is an offence for a woman of the age of sixteen or over to permit
> a man whom she knows to be her grandfather, father, brother or son to
> have sexual intercourse with her by her consent.
> 
> (2)In the foregoing subsection ³brother² includes half-brother, and for
> the purposes of that subsection any expression importing a relationship
> between two people shall be taken to apply notwithstanding that the
> relationship is not traced through lawful wedlock.
> 
> 
> So therefore although they may have lived a normal married live and have
> perfectly happy healthy children, not knowing them selves to be brother
> and sister, once they discover their genetic relationship, any kind of
> normal married life between them becomes a criminal offence!
> 
> 
> At least this case and the publicity that it has attracted in the media
> across the world may help to get the adoption laws changed and the
> necessary amendment to Sexual Offences Act to ensure that no one is ever
> prosecuted for accidental incest
> 
> 
> So from the point of view of legality, if you are a couple in that
> situation, in many ways it's best not to know
> 
> 
> However if you were born to a mother or father who is a carrier of an
> inherited disease, it is quit important that you do know. You can then
> at least have a chance to have early foetal tests to decide whether to
> continue a pregnancy. If you have religious or ethical objections to
> termination of pregnancy you can be tested yourself and avoid having
> children if you are positive and don't want to risk having a child who
> is affected
> 
> 
> Of course what is so for adoptees in this respect, is also so for those
> born as a result of gamete donation. We all need to know who our genetic
> parents are, that is surely a basic human right
> 
> 
> 
> Robin Harritt
> http://harritt.eu
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 


Here in  England were the story too place, there is I hope no
"baby selling", but this is what the government said in 2001 in
connection with the Adoption and Children Bill

<quote from John Hutton MP minister with responsibility for adoption in
2001>

     "The Draft National Adoption Standards make clear that the child's
safety, welfare and wishes are the most important concern when deciding
about contact. No child should be put at risk or made to see people they
do not want to see. Of course, in some cases it may be in the child's
best interest to maintain contact with their birth family. Where it
isn't, birth families should be able to give the agency up-to-date
information about themselves and their situation so that this can be
passed on to the child when he or she wishes to have it. Birth parents
can, of course, use the contact register to try and contact their
children, if their children wish to contact them. Furthermore, the Draft
National Standards require that birth family's views about adoption and
contact will be recorded to enable these to be made available to the
child at an appropriate age."

<end quote>


Although that was changed a little before the Bill became law, it looks
to me as if attitudes have improved very little since the Adoption and
Children Act came in to force in 2005, though some recent adoptees will
be kept in touch with their natural parent it is not they who will be at
risk of unknowingly having a relationship with their siblings but those
who were adopted in the past. Unfortunately openness about who an adopted
persons relatives are was not made retrospective


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmadopt/431/431iv
09.htm


I believe it is time our laws were reviewed yet again here in the UK.
I'm in my 50s now so perhaps a bit past caring about the incest side of
things, but I am still meeting with resistance in finding information
about siblings on my father's side from the agency involved, Barnardo's
(or Barnardos for the sake of search engines). My guess is that younger
adoptees would not find it that much easier to obtain their full
information from that agency and like me they will have been lied to
about what information exists in the files. There need to be a law
requiring agencies to exercise a 'duty of candour' on heath and welfare
grounds. At least we are perhaps a wee bit closer to that than most of
the USA



Robin Harritt

http://harritt.eu

*

But it has such, so that nothing is more
ridiculous. How great it is in its nature! How vile it is in its defects!

But what is this thought? How foolish it is!

366. The mind of this sovereign judge of the world is not so independent
that it is not liable to be disturbed by the first din about it. The noise
of a cannon is not necessary to hinder its thoughts; it needs only the
creaking of a weathercock or pulley. Do not wonder if at present it does not
reason well; a fly is buzzing in its ears; that is enough to render it
incapable of good judgement. If you wish it to be able to reach the truth,
chase away that animal which holds its reason in check and disturbs that
powerful intellect which rules towns and kingdoms. Here is a comical god! O
ridicolosissimo eroe!

367. The power of flies; they win battles, hinder our soul from acting, eat
our body.

368. When it is said that heat is only the motions of certain molecules, and
light the conatus recedendi which we feel, it astonishes us. What! Is
pleasure only the ballet of our spirits? We have conceived so different an
idea of it! And these sensations seem so removed from those others which we
say are the same as those with which we compare them! The sensation from the
fire, that warmth which affects us in a manner wholly different from touch,
the reception of sound and light, all this appears to us mysterious, and yet
it is material like the blow of a stone. It is true that the smallness of
the spirits which enter into the pores touches other nerves, but there are
always some nerves touched.

369. Memory is necessary for all the operations of reason.

370. Chance gives rise to thoughts, and chance removes them; no art can keep
or acquire them.

A thought has escaped me. I wanted to write it down. I write instead that it
has escaped me.

371. When I was s

most to keep me from the knowledge
of religion, have led me most quickly to the true one.

                     SECTION VII: MORALITY AND DOCTRINE

425. Second part.--That man without faith cannot know the true good, nor
justice.

All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means
they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and
of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different
views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the
motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.

And yet, after such a great number of years, no one without faith has
reached the point to which all continually look. All complain, princes and
subjects, noblemen and commoners, old and young, strong and weak, learned
and ignorant, healthy and sick, of all countries, all times, all ages, and
all conditions.

A trial so long, so continuous, and so uniform, should certainly convince us
of our inability to reach the good by our own efforts. But example teaches
us little. No resemblance is ever so perfect that there is not some slight
difference; and hence we expect that our hope will not be deceived on this
occasion as before. And thus, while the present never satisfies us,
experience dupes us and, from misfortune to misfortune, leads us to death,
their eternal crown.

What is it, then, that this desire and this inability proclaim to us, but
that there was once in man a true happiness of which there now remain to him
only the mark and empty trace, which he in vain tries to fill from all his
surroundings, seeking from things ab