Lol, that's some bs... incest means the same EVERYWHERE.. it's a universal term
No, no it is not.
Incest is not black and white and is very broad and is not really something that should be as villified as people like you think it should be.
For one, whether you go the scientific route or the religious Christian route, our ancestors in one form or another practiced incest and were all related simply because there were very few of them back then and that to keep our species running, it had to be done.
Hell, it wasn't even that long ago that cousins could and would marry each other.
The only reason we are cautious of it now is because Science has progressed enough that we have noticed the biological dangers of incest but much of the "disadvantages" of it are purely superficial due to how weirdly the community looks at it and how dummbbb people like you can't understand facts and are too lazy to read the fine print and that the real danger only really appears a few generations down the line if incest is practiced on a generational scale.
An example of this would be many of the "royalties" we know of today like the Victorians, Cleopatra's bloodline and many more especially when said bloodlines like to "keep it pure".
So yes, it is weird to say it but there really isn't anything inherently wrong with "incest" just as long as you don't directly fckkk your direct family (i.e. your mom, dad, brother or sister).
Direct to first degree cousins are pushing it as well but isn't inherently wrong but just frowned upon.
But anything beyond that like 2nd degree cousins or in this case a non-direct blood related woman and her daughter isn't much of an issue since the baby would, most likely than not, be born healthy.
Hell, this story shouldn't really be called incest at all.