If so, is it safe for them to reproduce?
205749
In some states and they can reproduce fairly risk free but its still a risk and all cousins reproducing does is bring out reccessive genes so for all you know it could be a genius gene versus a bad gene its been known to happen
480005
yes, as long as they are good enough
223271
to be quite honest in about 99% of the species on this panet they only have sex to reproduce. only humans and a few other species have sex for pleasure. Humans especially have sex for pleasure even when reproducing is the last thing on their minds. I love it - and i'm sure there are millions around this world who do two - as long as both are consenting to this "Its Great..!"
349379
i'm afraid not. the nerve supply are not functioning well, so they cant. they also will have urine and faeces incontinence.
324190
You are very very unlikely to get pregnant, but its is just possible.\n\nIf either of you have any infections (and I'm not just talking about the big ones here, things like thrush can be transmitted too) you could share them.\n\nIts not dangerous in itself, just a bit messy. The effluent from your days is actually mildly antiseptic.
583710
yes there isnt a age for being self,,,if there goin to do it aleast they can be safe right?
655085
NO...you cant get pregnant unless the sperm gets in your cutchie hole.
363997
You actually HAVE to ASK if they're beneficial? You obviously haven't had one yet, and if you have and need to ask.....I can't even finish that statement.\nNo, they're not dangerous unless you're having them with someone who has a jealous partner. \nNo,they won't affect you medically unless you're 85 years old and have heart problems.
301180
The reason it is not legal is because of the ramifications. The results of breeding with a family member leads to severe mental reatardation and several other after effects. It is more damaging than anything. \n\nThey say being in love with a family member is some form of mental disorder.
433830
Yes, of course.  If they are not engaged or married, you may.
184140
Could be risky.  You had better ask your doctor to be sure.
76195
Maybe if it runs in their genes.
620425
A. be able to reproduce by conjugation.
217893
If a woman with AIDS gives birth to a child with AIDS isn't it unlikely the child would grow up and give birth to a third generation, and even if this happened,  wouldn't that mean that AIDS isn't a problem with the ability of the species to reproduce?\n\nIn the abstract I disagree with you.  I think the right thing to do is find cures for problems.  Like cancer, I read in US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT about how there is a cure for ovarian cancer, or some preventative treatment or whatever.  Not having ovaries I didn't read every line dripping with interest, but more a passing curiousity. \n\nAllergies are up now cause we've left the farms for cities where theres construction, pollution, and dust mites trapped in our homes by insulation.\n\nMankind will adapt to these changes in the environment.  We will evolve and in a few generations there will be a race of men with better immune systems.
131205
In theory they should, as hibernation (and most other circannual cycles) is controlled from within my 'biological clocks' (just a bunch of hormones and other stuff).\nAs long as the animal builds up to the time of hibernation properly (ie feeds lots etc) it should be ok....
610135
No, not necessary.\nAlthough they would if they're also autosexual.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autosexuality
237508
If this were possible which it is not then what you would have is spontaneous cloning.  The offspring would not only be female it would be an exact duplicate of the mother.  There is no genetic material available in human females to reproduce anything other than a clone without fertilization.