Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

sweden... the best country

legalize necrophilia incest

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Fikri

Fikri
  • submissive


  • 4433 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2016 - 11:06 AM

Necrophilia and incest should be legal, says Swedish Liberal party youth wing

 

The youth wing of the Swedish Liberal party has filed a motion to legalize necrophilia and incest.

Liberal Youth of Sweden said that just because it is 'viewed as unusual and disgusting', does not mean that the deprived sexual acts should be illegal.

They want to legalize sex between two consenting siblings over the age of 15, and sex with a corpse if there is a written permission made before the person died.

 'We don't like morality laws in general, and this legislation is not protecting anyone right now,'  Cecilia Johnsson, Liberal Youth chairperson in Stockholm told Aftonbladet.

 

15EC17D9000005DC-3458702-image-a-2_14561

'We are a youth wing and one of our tasks is to think one step further.

'I understand that it [necrophilia and incest] can be seen as unusual and disgusting by legislation can not be based on it being disgusting.'  

The youth wing of the Liberals in Sweden voted to support legalisation incest and necrophilia at their annual meeting last weekend.

The suggested motion stated that two siblings, over the age of 15, who both consent, should be allowed to have sex.

It also said that if a person has stated in a written will that they consent to someone having sex with their corpse, this should also be legal.

'It should be your own decision what happens with your body after you die, and if that happens to be that you want to bequeath your remains to a museum or to science, or if you want to bequeath your remains to someone to sleep with them, then that should be ok,' Ms Johnsson adds.

The controversial announcement was quickly criticised by the Liberals, and several senior figures within the mother party.

Former Liberal MP Carl B Hamilton lashed out at the youth wing, calling them 'nitwits', accusing them of craving publicity over politics.

'Liberal Youth of Sweden focuses on publicity, but hardly the issues that determines our, and Sweden's future,' he wrote on a Facebook group for Liberal party members.

'Surely, you must understand that people are lauging at your liberalism, you nitwits?

'And what other challenges facing society is on the top 100-list for Stockholm's Liberal Youth? Sex with hippos?'

 

 

 

source: http://www.dailymail...rty-senior.html
 



#2 Coops

Coops
  • 🌧️🌩️🌧️


  • 4009 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2016 - 11:43 AM

Hmm. I'm not sure how I feel about this. 

In general, I tend to disagree with morality laws as well because morals are how you treat your neighbors, or the people you know. Morality is far more subjective and relative, and ethics are more the foundation for how you treat everyone in a society, in a sense that is fair and decent to the autonomy of all people.

I'm going to give this some serious thought and come back to it.



#3 Honchkrow

Honchkrow
  • 908 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2016 - 12:02 PM

I thought incest laws were there to prevent inbreeding? 



#4 KaibaSama

KaibaSama
  • Weeaboo


  • 5640 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2016 - 01:01 PM

I thought incest laws were there to prevent inbreeding? 

I thought this too.

 

Warning: Bio Major Answer Here. 

TL:DR: Inbreeding has horrible consequences for potential children created through it. They can have weaker immune systems and have a greater chance of getting horrible diseases like cystic fibrosis.

 

With inbreeding, the genes/DNA are incredibly close, which can cause problems for future children. If both parents cary the same copy of an allele for something like cystic fibrosis, which is very common with family members, it can easily be passed to the child. In normal breeding, this can happen, however with inbreeding it's more likely the parents each cary the same copies of the bad gene (in this case the one that causes cystic fibrosis). Basically with normal breeding, the child has a better chance of inheriting a backup for a broken gene.  With inbreeding its much more likely that the child wont have that backup. 

 

Say a woman is a carrier for cystic fibrosis (Cc), and she marries. The man is homozygous dominant for the cystic fibrosis gene (CC), so all he can give a child would be a C. The child would then either be homozygous dominant (CC) or heterozygous (Cc). Either way the child will not have cystic fibrosis.

 

With inbreeding it's more likely that the parents both carry a broken copy of the gene. In this example, both would be heterozygous (Cc), due to the fact that their genes are incredibly close together because they're related, so it's more likely they both carry the broken gene ©.

 

Their child then has a 25% chance of getting cystic fibrosis, when compared with the other couple who didn't inbreed whose child has 0% chance of getting cystic fibrosis. While it is possible that a woman may marry a man who is heterozygous (Cc), who she isn't related to at all, and end up having a child with cystic fibrosis, it's much rarer than if the parents were related. 

 

With the immune system, there's something known as the MHC region (Major Histocompatability Complex region). This region is made of genes that help fight of any diseases you may get. It works much better when you have more variation in your genes, which doesn't exactly happen to much with children from the result of inbreeding. It's sort of like a lock and key system. Each MHC gene is good at fighting a specific set of diseases, those genes act like keys, while the disease they are the key for acts as a lock. The more variety in your genes, the better off the MHC region is, as it would have many different keys to help unlock diseases and destroy them. 

 

 

It's not that the law is saying you can't inbreed because we who made it don't like inbreeding and think you're weird and wrong. It's saying that since inbreeding has terrible consequences, people shouldn't be allowed to place that sort of harm onto an innocent child created through the inbreeding. It's basically protecting future children, in my opinion. 



#5 DonValentino

DonValentino
  • Neocodex Handegg League Champion/Daddy

  • 2482 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2016 - 01:02 PM

I'm all for giving citizens as much personal freedom as possible, but these laws are in place for the well-being of society. Incest can lead to disabilities in offspring, and necrophilia can (I imagine) lead to some medical issues, as well as being emotionally unhealthy (sleeping with a dead spouse, what have you). If you really want to have sex with your brother in the privacy of your own home, go for it, we do plenty of illegal things in private. Laws come into place when those acts effect others, such as having a child with your brother. 

Their argument that these things are illegal because they're disgusting is wrong, they're illegal because they (can, and most likely will) have severe detrimental impacts to society. 



#6 Elindoril

Elindoril
  • Weeaboo Trash

  • 9253 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2016 - 01:15 PM

Why is it that when a hot girl dies it's suddenly wrong to have sex with her? All I'm saying is when I'm walking down the street and I see a hot chick and she's dead...

Game on.

#7 Padme

Padme
  • Tofu Tatas

  • 1687 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2016 - 01:21 PM

I thought incest laws were there to prevent inbreeding? 

 

This is widely variable on what country you live in. In Hong Kong for example, it isn't implicit that same-sex incestuous relationships are illegal. Or In New Zealand where it is illegal to have an incestuous relationship with a grown child that you fostered, were the ward of or adopted. 

 

In general it is/was about inbreeding but has a LOT of moral implications that guide it as well.

 

I think a lot of places, incest is being tied in with rape and trauma. The thinking being that, in general one of the members of the relationship probably has an 'upper hand' and it could be seen as coercion (i.e. a parent & child.) 



#8 Guest_Kate_*

Guest_Kate_*

Posted 23 February 2016 - 04:26 PM

Why is it that when a hot girl dies it's suddenly wrong to have sex with her? All I'm saying is when I'm walking down the street and I see a hot chick and she's dead...
Game on.


I'm telling @Turnip !!

#9 Elindoril

Elindoril
  • Weeaboo Trash

  • 9253 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 February 2016 - 04:30 PM

I'm telling @Turnip !!


Turnip already knows the reference. :p

#10 Cass

Cass
  • Stronteigenwijs

  • 1560 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 February 2016 - 12:33 AM

What would pewdiepie say about this

#11 Swar

Swar
  • retired cheater

  • 9280 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 February 2016 - 02:32 AM

"and sex with a corpse if there is a written permission made before the person died."

Imagine writing a testament. "To my brother, I'll give grandma's watch. To my mids, the house and my savings. And to my husband: the permission to fuck my dead corpse."

#12 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1767 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 March 2016 - 07:58 PM

Can a younger sibling necessarily give true consent? The older sibling holds somewhat of a position of power over the younger. If not, definitely the ability to "guilt" a sibling into having sex. I feel like that is kinda sketchy, like why prisoners can't consent to having sex with guards, or students with their teachers.

Also, yes, inbreeding increases homozygosity, which can be really bad for certain diseases. Maybe there will be genetic counseling and laws against procreation? I think there are some European countries that screen for certain blood disorders and the couples that are both heterozygous for a autosomal recessive disease, they can't have kids. I think...

Also, I have gotten so used to my medical dictionary added to spell check for Microsoft office, I was convinced I spelled some of these words wrong because they were underlined red...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users