Twins parted at birth met and married in Britain; marriage annulled when the biological relationship was discovered
A biological brother and sister – actually, twins – who were parted at birth and adopted by different families, and who were never told that they had a sibling let alone a twin, met as adults entirely by chance and, still unaware of the relationship, fell in love and got married.
They found out after their marriage that they were brother and sister. Imagine the shock, what they must have felt. A judge annulled their marriage because of the biological relationship – they are not siblings at law but they are siblings in biological fact.
This illustrates the fundamental truth, which various lobby-groups and wishful-thinkers insist on trying to deny, that the scientific reality of conception and birth are irrelevant in the modern age, that adopted parents are the same as biological parents, that your adopted children are your real children, that two mummies can be registered as the parents of a child on its BIRTH certificate, and that donated sperm is just sperm and not the genetic package of a real, live father that makes this man the child’s biological parent whatever the law, personal states of denial and self-persuasion might say.
Nothing illustrates the point more forcefully that it is science that takes precedence over the ‘law’ than the annulment of the marriage of two people who the law declares not to be siblings but completely unrelated to each other, but who science and birth and adoption records know to be biological siblings in fact.
What are the chances of this kind of thing happening? If the individuals live in the same area and are likely to meet, the chances that they will be attracted to each other are very high indeed. They will be attracted to the familiarity of the other person without knowing that this is because of shared genes which make the individuals similar to each other and so attractive to each other, and think that it is because they are ‘made for each other’ and ‘soul mates’.
The BBC report on this news story quotes Pam Hodgkins, chief executive officer of the charity Adults Affected by Adoption, who said there had been previous cases of separated siblings being attracted to each other.
“We have a resistance, a very strong incest taboo where we are aware that someone is a biological relative,” she said.
“But when we are unaware of that relationship, we are naturally drawn to people who are quite similar to ourselves.
“And of course there is unlikely to be anyone more similar to any individual than their sibling.”
I
7 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7182817.stm
“The fundamental truth, which various lobby-groups and wishful-thinkers insist on trying to deny, that…. that your adopted children are your real children”
Are you mad? Adopted children aren’t really your own children? So what are they, just children you happen to be taking care of? A charity case? No, you are their parents and they are your children. There is a missing genetic link but nothing more, they still are your parents in the truest sense.
[Daphne – I find dealing with illogical people really tiresome. Adopted children acquire the legal status of legitimate children of the adopters, and the adopters acquire the legal status of their parents, but there are rare and isolated instances in which things come down to the crunch, and this is one such. The test of whether adopted children are the ‘real’ children of their adoptive parents is in whether marriage between biological siblings adopted by different families is possible/valid/permissible/desirable. That was the point. Marriage between siblings is banned not because they grew up in the same family but because they are biological siblings.]
Oh please, this is pure scare-mongering.
When I made a comment on what nature has meant mankind to be like I was told by another person in reply to leave nature out of this debate.
Extremely bad choice of words in the headline, Daphne. Using the word ‘twins’, conjures up two identical people. You could at least have said ‘fraternal twins’ (who are no more than ordinary siblings born on the same day and not really twins at all).
[Daphne – It was the BBC that used ‘twins’ in the headline, Chris, because twins is exactly what they are. The word ‘marry’ tells you immediately they are not identical – Britain doesn’t have same-sex marriage but only civil unions. Also, it would be rather strange if identical twins who met in adulthood for the first time failed to realize they were related, wouldn’t it. But as an identical twin yourself, you jest, surely.]
Biological tracing is now done for animals and not for the human race.
The logic of it all. How advanced we’ve become. Modern, liberal, what have you.
It is all about nature. Even weeds will out, no matter the effort to suppress them.
http://27esimaora.corriere.it/articolo/padri-e-figli-che-si-scoprono-estranei-quando-il-dna-divide-le-famiglie/
You will all find this a very interesting read. This is the extent of the madness we are creating. Also, I do not see it as fair that men who are discovered not to be the biological father of their wife/girlfriend’s child are legally forced to take on the obligations as if they were.
The lawyer Anna Galizia Danovi who is the President of the Centre for the Reform of Family Law even has the cheek to state that the man ‘knows’ or had reason to suspect that he was not the real father, so he can’t possibly complain. How retrogade. So next time our wives go out for half an hour we should immediately suspect that she has been impregnated by another man. The folly of it all.
[Daphne – The law, like almost all others which balance the rights/needs of the child with the rights/needs of the parents, is designed to protect the rights/needs of the child and puts those first. Children should not suddenly end up abandoned just because X has found out he is not the father after all. Our law is exactly the same. I believe it should be interpreted more sensibly, but in the main the thinking is sound. Imagine a situation in which Julia and Jesmond, who are married, have a son, John. John grows up happy and provided for and then, when he is 10, Jesmond on a whim carries out a DNA test and discovers that John is not his. He wishes to abandon and disown John, to stop providing him and to sue Julia for the all the money he spent raising him. The law does not allow him to do it. Why? Because of the child.]