Some spend their entire lives searching in vain for that special someone with whom to share their life. But, sometimes, fate steps in and there they are ... your soulmate.
It's love at first sight. You find that you have similar interests, share a similar background - both of you having been adopted, and the attraction is undeniable. You feel as if you have known each other your entire lives.
Twins who were separated at birth and raised by different families met later and married but were forced to break up when they discovered their true identities, a British legislator said on Friday.
"It's a tragedy for the couple who are involved, a terrible tragedy. Everyone's hearts will go out to people caught up quite unwittingly in a case of incest of this kind," David Alton, a member of Britain's upper House of Lords, told BBC radio.
Wait ... what?
Sounds like the plot of a Lifetime movie of the week, doesn't it?
"When they did come to know their true identities it led to their having to separate and also to a lot of heartbreak," Alton said on Friday. News reports said their marriage was annulled.
Some feel that this one-in-a-million occurrence could happen with greater regularity due in part to both the increasing frequency of births through in vitro fertilization, and a proposed law in Britain that would allow for the father's name to be omitted from the birth certificate.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, now working its way through the British parliament, recognises same-sex couples as legal parents of children conceived through the use of donated sperm, eggs or embryos.
"The government ... have not accepted the argument that you should have the right to know who your biological father is on the birth certificate," Alton said.
"It would be a terrible act of deception, with the state colluding in that deception, to remove the biological identity of your father from the birth certificate," he added.
I suppose love at first sight isn't always all it's cracked up to be.
crispy almost titled this piece "Who's Your Daddy?"
My boyfriend sent me this story at work today, and I almost cried. I can't even imagine the devastating confusion and heartbreak involved. How do you even go on?
_DictionaryGirl_ said:
My boyfriend sent me this story at work today, and I almost cried. I can't even imagine the devastating confusion and heartbreak involved. How do you even go on?
You make sure you wear a condom so you don't have any mutant babies.
_DictionaryGirl_ said:
My boyfriend sent me this story at work today, and I almost cried. I can't even imagine the devastating confusion and heartbreak involved. How do you even go on?
Something to the tune of going on a six month bender, I'd imagine.
That sounds like some shit that would happen to me, I'de fucking jump of a cliff and die, honestly one searches so long for something, anything that makes one happy, and then to just give it up like that! maybe they'll meet in another life, when they're both cats, then incest wont matter all that much.
Hmm. That *is* sad, but as far as I can tell, what's worst about it is it's an unnecessary split. They love each other, no? Provided they don't reproduce, why should there be a problem (other than the cultural taboo, I mean)? It's not like the traditional incest scenario, where there's fucked-up power dynamics going on and quite possibly some sort of coercion...
(Edit: All of which providing that they were real - the almost total lack of information does kinda lend credence to Admiral_Pants' suggestion.)
It's a cultural taboo and one that is quite anachronistic, I believe.
Let's disregard the cases where abuse is involved, because that's not really what this is about.
Kids who grow up together, whether they be siblings or not usually will not fall in love with each other. Siblings who meet later in life can. The taboo involved with this stems from the fact that children out of such pairings are more likely to have genetic defects. But the same can be said about non-related couples that have known genetic defects that they are likely to pass on to their children. Yet very few people would argue that these couples should be prohibited from having children. That would infringe on their basic human rights.
There is this story from Germany which has garnered quite some media attention:
Patrick, who is 30 years old, was adopted and, as a child, he lived in Potsdam.
He did not meet his mother and biological family until he was 23. He travelled to Leipzig with a friend in 2000, determined to make contact with his other relatives.
He met his sister Susan for the first time, and according to the couple, after their mother died, they fell in love.
"When I was younger, I didn't know that I had a brother. I met Patrick and I was so surprised," said Susan, who is 22.
(...)
Patrick and Susan have been living together for the last six years, and they now have four children.
The authorities placed their first son, Eric, in the care of a foster family, and two other children were also placed in care.
(...)
Incest is a criminal offence in Germany. Patrick Stuebing has already served a two-year sentence for committing incest and there is another jail term looming if paragraph 173 of the legal code is not overturned.
The couple's lawyer, Endrik Wilhelm, has lodged an appeal with Germany's highest judicial body, the federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, in order to overturn the country's ban on incest.
"Under Germany's criminal code, which dates back to 1871, it is a crime for close relatives to have sex and it's punishable by up to three years in prison. This law is out of date and it breaches the couple's civil rights," Dr Wilhelm said.
"Why are disabled parents allowed to have children, or people with hereditary diseases or women over 40? No-one says that is a crime.
"This couple are not harming anyone. It is discrimination. And besides, we must not forget that every child is so valuable," said Dr Wilhelm.
If they are happy with each other, let them be. Should they have children together? Probably not. But I don't think that's for me or anybody else to say. Should their children be taken away from them? Fuck no.
OK, maybe I'm just a cynical bastard but weren't there some kind of signs involved? I mean, I'll admit, I don't know the first thing about separated twins but shouldn't each have some major scars or stories, maybe when the laid together for the first time....hmmm, "it sure is weird that your scar and my scar match soooo perfectly together" kind of thing? This one is hard to get my head around! I could see the sperm donor kids, but this? Either way, I feel for them because its sad but damn.
3qtrtime said:
OK, maybe I'm just a cynical bastard but weren't there some kind of signs involved? I mean, I'll admit, I don't know the first thing about separated twins but shouldn't each have some major scars or stories, maybe when the laid together for the first time....hmmm, "it sure is weird that your scar and my scar match soooo perfectly together" kind of thing? This one is hard to get my head around! I could see the sperm donor kids, but this? Either way, I feel for them because its sad but damn.
There would be no reason for twins to have matching scars.
Or why two babies separated at birth would have similar life stories.
Or why fraternal twins would have any birthmarks or features in common.
PantherNesmith said:
Just six months? I'd have to soak my lady bits in everclear for at least eight to feel some what close to clean.
In all fairness I'd be drinking until I saw red about every night for that entire six months. If I managed to survive that, I'd take a couple trips to the doctors and get a status check on my vitals and then start thinking about where to go from there. Get a house deep in the woods somewhere and punch a bear in the face.
3qtrtime said:
OK, maybe I'm just a cynical bastard but weren't there some kind of signs involved? I mean, I'll admit, I don't know the first thing about separated twins but shouldn't each have some major scars or stories, maybe when the laid together for the first time....hmmm, "it sure is weird that your scar and my scar match soooo perfectly together" kind of thing? This one is hard to get my head around! I could see the sperm donor kids, but this? Either way, I feel for them because its sad but damn.
You do realize that not all twins are conjoined, right?
aah, I see where my mistake came in...I briefly caught this yesterday and was mistaken by the sensationlist picture of conjourned twins...not just separated. This is where the "scar and stories" part comes in...(bows head in disgrace from trying to recall from memory) thanks for correcting.
I'd say screw society. Maybe don't have kids so as not to mess up the genepool, but I'm sure they'd be willing to adopt, having been adopted themselves.
The weirdness of incest, to me, comes more from having grown up together and lived most of your life together in a non-sexual relationship. That sort of family bond does not lend itself to sex, especially when one person is older and there's a sort of assumed dominance . But I don't think there's anything inherently wrong on a physiological level about having sex with someone you're biologically related to, as long as that non-sexual, familial bond doesn't already exist in your relationship. Granted, a case involving twins is pretty weird. But I don't think the state has any business stepping in here.
crispy
NEWSWIRE
Philadelphia, PA
JAN 11, 2008 07:57 PM