>> |
Anonymous
If I were a betting man I'd say that it wasn't legally incest. If anything, It's more like 'incest by proxy', which I'd guess has few if any statutes specifically outlawing it -- it's not like your average congress critter and his lawyer pals are thinking up of scenarios along OP's lines to legislate against. I have no doubt that upon finding out about it that such operations would probably be outlawed.
On a related note, I remember a case where a married couple couldn't have children because their genes were so similar that the fertilised embryo wasn't recognised or some-such. (It was in Woman's Day or the like, details are hazy after all this time, and I can't remember exactly what caused the constant miscarriages, but their genes being far closer than brother or sister was pinpointed as the cause.) Didn't seem to concern doctors to help them conceive despite the fact that the couple might as well have been the same person they were that genetically similar, with the exception of the whole XX/XY thing of course.
Considering that Australian grandfather and his daughter the doctor's attitudes in this case really shouldn't surprise anyone. (inb4 someone corrects me about it being Austria, someone mentions Tazmania, gb2/b/, etc.)
tl;dr: legally, no, but that legal distinction wouldn't last long.
|