Swedish Liberals want to legalise necrophilia and incest

[Skyvania]

Uh well I'm never going to Sweden.
Do whatever, just keep me out of it.

[Italios]

But that's no reason to prohibit abortions.

I didn't say I want to prohibit abortions, but you people are taking the entire issue way too lightly. There are going to be many women who want to keep their children, which is going to result in the fact that we will have children born out of incest with a very high chance of having genetic disorders. You can also just force them to take an abortion but I'm not really someone who wants to that upon people.

I've said about three times that if the appropriate measures are taken, the need for abortions will be reduced greatly. Hopefully this will also mean impregnated women will be fine with getting an abortion if the fetus is found to have a genetic disorder. Banning pregnancies from incest is a good idea too, this is about the sex, not pregnancy.

[Reagan-land]

Is their even a logical argument for this? Is this even real?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

But that's no reason to prohibit abortions.

I didn't say I want to prohibit abortions, but you people are taking the entire issue way too lightly. There are going to be many women who want to keep their children, which is going to result in the fact that we will have children born out of incest with a very high chance of having genetic disorders. You can also just force them to take an abortion but I'm not really someone who wants to that upon people.

I don't think you've answered this question yet:

Since your opposition is all about the offspring, are you okay with same-sex incest, or straight incest with a woman post-menopause? Are you in favour of making it illegal for cystic fibrosis sufferers and carriers to have sex?

[Italios]

Is their even a logical argument for this? Is this even real?

Yes, and how convenient you've ignored it.

[Korouse]

I don't see why this is such a big deal. Necrophiliacs are a pretty niche demographic, as are people who wanna fuck their siblings (I'm guessing in Sweden at least). Plus it's all consenting.

[New confederate ramenia]

I don't see why this is such a big deal. Necrophiliacs are a pretty niche demographic, as are people who wanna fuck their siblings (I'm guessing in Sweden at least). Plus it's all consenting.

It's Sweden. Both are probably pretty large demographics.

[Republic of Wreptzle]

I keep seeing "why not?" posted here, so I figure I might as well answer the one question everybody here wants to know.

With Necrophilia, it's not as simple as what does the dead person want to have happen to their body.

It's very unhealthy and dangerous for the live person having sex with the corpse. The body immediately begins digesting itself just minutes after dying, creating the potential for the living to cause harm to themselves. The muscles of the body also will become very stiff, making intercourse virtually impossible between a live man and a dead woman. But more importantly than both of these complications is the pretense of harmful bacteria and viruses that take over the body. With no immune system to keep the "bugs" at bay, the body quickly becomes a container stuffed to the brim with diseases and sicknesses that can make the living partner sick along with anyone else that the partner comes in contact with. (Click this if you want to know more about what happens to a person after they die.)

Building off that last point mentioned above, what happens if a person who dies from a dangerous disease wants to allow their partner to have sex with their body? Consent is provided, the partner is willing, and the law allows them to conduct the act. Why not?

The problem with incest is, as you can already guess, inbreeding.

I'm sure we all know already just how damaging it can be for a child who's parents are closely related. There's no need to delve too deep into that aspect of the topic.

But even if siblings have sex without the intent of having children, it still doesn't mean they should be allowed. There's already plenty of instances when contraception methods fail, so there's every reason to expect the same potential here. What happens when sis gets pregnant by chance? Abortion? But if she's unwilling to get an abortion done, she's going to have a child with significant risk of defect. In this instance, we can't simply say, "Well that's too bad for her and the kid." The legal ramifications could see her brought up on child abuse charges. If a pregnant woman who drinks/smokes/rides a super cool rollercoaster while being pregnant can be brought up on these charges, then another mom-to-be who knowingly had unsafe sex with her brother can have the same done to her for her own negligence.

----- ----- -----

I'm all for imposing as few restrictions on people as necessary, but legalizing necrophilia and incest? There's plenty of reasons not to do it.

The issues in regards to your argument against necrophillia are a) that necessary steps can be taken to minimise the risk of disease, b) if we are going to ban all forms of sex that have the high potential to spread disease we have a LOOONG list of fetishes to deal with, and c) we already don't prevent people from having sex with people with diseases (except in the case of extremely contagious ones, in which case such a corpse would likely not be made available), so that threat already exists.

The issue in regards to your argument against incest is that it becomes a much more difficult argument to square by simply replacing incest with "sex where one or both individuals have genetics that will likely result in a mentally or physically handicapped child". If you think sex, particular sex with the intent to reproduce, should be banned for incestious couples due to these reasons then surely you logically support a ban on sex where one or both individuals have genetics that will likely result in a mentally or physically handicapped child? Indeed surely then you would propose an even stricter ban based on the level of genetic predisposition to physical or mental handicap?

You're taking my arguments to a bit of an extreme.

Compare necrophilia with public health codes that outlaw spitting on the ground in public. Sex with a dead body carries a higher chance of catching and spreading diseases to others than having sex with a living partner. Similarly, spitting in public carries an increased chance of getting others sick as compared to simply spitting into a trash can. These limits are put in place in order to improve and maintain good public health.

The purpose of outlawing necrophilia is not for the sake of stopping diseases spreading through sex altogether, but rather to reduce the total number of diseases being spread by not allowing one of the more dangerous forms that it can happen.

It's the same case with incest. The purpose of outlawing it is not for the sake of stopping genetic defects altogether, but rather to greatly reduce the rate at which such defects occur in the population.

[San Eulogio]

I don't see why this is such a big deal. Necrophiliacs are a pretty niche demographic, as are people who wanna fuck their siblings (I'm guessing in Sweden at least). Plus it's all consenting.

Ever been to Malmö?

I didn't say I want to prohibit abortions, but you people are taking the entire issue way too lightly. There are going to be many women who want to keep their children, which is going to result in the fact that we will have children born out of incest with a very high chance of having genetic disorders. You can also just force them to take an abortion but I'm not really someone who wants to that upon people.

I don't think you've answered this question yet:

Since your opposition is all about the offspring, are you okay with same-sex incest, or straight incest with a woman post-menopause? Are you in favour of making it illegal for cystic fibrosis sufferers and carriers to have sex?

Homosexuals having children =/= incest. Incest solely refers to having sexual intercourse with people closely related to you.

Homosexual children are still offspring of a man and a woman, which poses no increased danger of genetic disorders. I'm generally against people with inheritable diseases or in an age where genetic disorders in offspring is increased to have children.

I didn't say I want to prohibit abortions, but you people are taking the entire issue way too lightly. There are going to be many women who want to keep their children, which is going to result in the fact that we will have children born out of incest with a very high chance of having genetic disorders. You can also just force them to take an abortion but I'm not really someone who wants to that upon people.

I've said about three times that if the appropriate measures are taken, the need for abortions will be reduced greatly. Hopefully this will also mean impregnated women will be fine with getting an abortion if the fetus is found to have a genetic disorder. Banning pregnancies from incest is a good idea too, this is about the sex, not pregnancy.

That doesn't rule out it's not going to happen. We have loads of policies up to make sure child pregnancies don't happen but you can see it's still clearly happening.

[Korouse]

I don't see why this is such a big deal. Necrophiliacs are a pretty niche demographic, as are people who wanna fuck their siblings (I'm guessing in Sweden at least). Plus it's all consenting.

It's Sweden. Both are probably pretty large demographics.

Do you reckon that this is also the fault of all those muslims?

[Luziyca]

A corpse does not have the ability to consent, not even if it agreed to do so in a well. As for the latter part, the last time we did that, we ended up with Charles II of Spain.

[San Eulogio]

It's Sweden. Both are probably pretty large demographics.

Do you reckon that this is also the fault of all those muslims?

I think most muslims are the voice of reason compared to most Swedes.

[Republic of Wreptzle]

I didn't say I want to prohibit abortions, but you people are taking the entire issue way too lightly. There are going to be many women who want to keep their children, which is going to result in the fact that we will have children born out of incest with a very high chance of having genetic disorders. You can also just force them to take an abortion but I'm not really someone who wants to that upon people.

I've said about three times that if the appropriate measures are taken, the need for abortions will be reduced greatly. Hopefully this will also mean impregnated women will be fine with getting an abortion if the fetus is found to have a genetic disorder. Banning pregnancies from incest is a good idea too, this is about the sex, not pregnancy.

Contraception will reduce the issue, yes, but it will not eliminate the pregnancies altogether. Besides, a significant portion of people with easy access to contraceptives still don't choose to use them. Pregnancies will occur regardless. The question is: what will happen then? Forced abortions? If the right to an abortion is based off of the mother having a choice to do what she wishes with her pregnancy, then how can you justify forcing abortion onto a woman?

[The Great Devourer of All]

A corpse does not have the ability to consent, not even if it agreed to do so in a well. As for the latter part, the last time we did that, we ended up with Charles II of Spain.

Interestingly enough, he demanded on multiple occasions that his dead parents be dug back up from the grave so he could see them. Necrophilia-incest crossover, perhaps?

[New confederate ramenia]

It's Sweden. Both are probably pretty large demographics.

Do you reckon that this is also the fault of all those muslims?

I'm joking

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I don't think you've answered this question yet:

Since your opposition is all about the offspring, are you okay with same-sex incest, or straight incest with a woman post-menopause? Are you in favour of making it illegal for cystic fibrosis sufferers and carriers to have sex?

Homosexuals having children =/= incest. Incest solely refers to having sexual intercourse with people closely related to you.

Homosexual children are still offspring of a man and a woman, which poses no increased danger of genetic disorders. I'm generally against people with inheritable diseases or in an age where genetic disorders in offspring is increased to have children.

I have no idea what post you're responding to, but it's not mine. I said nothing about gay couples having children, I asked if you found homosexual incest acceptable i.e., is it okay for a man to sleep with his brother, or a woman with her sister. Or for that matter, any incestuous pairing that can't produce children, such as a man sleeping with his menopausal sister, or his sister who is already pregnant.

If your opposition to incest is solely down to your concerns about birth defects, all of the above should be fine.

[Italios]

I don't see why this is such a big deal. Necrophiliacs are a pretty niche demographic, as are people who wanna fuck their siblings (I'm guessing in Sweden at least). Plus it's all consenting.

Ever been to Malmö?

I don't think you've answered this question yet:

Since your opposition is all about the offspring, are you okay with same-sex incest, or straight incest with a woman post-menopause? Are you in favour of making it illegal for cystic fibrosis sufferers and carriers to have sex?

Homosexuals having children =/= incest. Incest solely refers to having sexual intercourse with people closely related to you.

To clarify: that's not the question. The question is, would you allow homosexuals to have sex with relatives because they cannot produce children through that sex?

[San Eulogio]

Homosexuals having children =/= incest. Incest solely refers to having sexual intercourse with people closely related to you.

Homosexual children are still offspring of a man and a woman, which poses no increased danger of genetic disorders. I'm generally against people with inheritable diseases or in an age where genetic disorders in offspring is increased to have children.

I have no idea what post you're responding to, but it's not mine. I said nothing about gay couples having children, I asked if you found homosexual incest acceptable i.e., is it okay for a man to sleep with his brother, or a woman with her sister. Or for that matter, any incestuous pairing that can't produce children, such as a man sleeping with his menopausal sister, or his sister who is already pregnant.

If your opposition to incest is solely down to your concerns about birth defects, all of the above should be fine.

Sorry, I got confused in what you meant.
I'm actually fine with that, since that kind of sexual intercourse is as harmfull as 'ordinary' homosexual intercourse.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Those are reasonable. Sex should be left to the consenting adults involved, not some third party.

Without a victim, there's no justification for punishment

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I have no idea what post you're responding to, but it's not mine. I said nothing about gay couples having children, I asked if you found homosexual incest acceptable i.e., is it okay for a man to sleep with his brother, or a woman with her sister. Or for that matter, any incestuous pairing that can't produce children, such as a man sleeping with his menopausal sister, or his sister who is already pregnant.

If your opposition to incest is solely down to your concerns about birth defects, all of the above should be fine.

Sorry, I got confused in what you meant.
I'm actually fine with that, since that kind of sexual intercourse is as harmfull as 'ordinary' homosexual intercourse.

Huh, logical consistency. I'm surprised.

Still, that I can respect.

[The Great Devourer of All]

What about... polygamous necrophilia? Polygamous incest? Polygamous necrophiliac incest?

[Eater of Cities]

Are you saying the Swedish government will let me have sex with the dead?

Finally! I can have sex without paying or dating!

[New Socialist South Africa]

The issues in regards to your argument against necrophillia are a) that necessary steps can be taken to minimise the risk of disease, b) if we are going to ban all forms of sex that have the high potential to spread disease we have a LOOONG list of fetishes to deal with, and c) we already don't prevent people from having sex with people with diseases (except in the case of extremely contagious ones, in which case such a corpse would likely not be made available), so that threat already exists.

The issue in regards to your argument against incest is that it becomes a much more difficult argument to square by simply replacing incest with "sex where one or both individuals have genetics that will likely result in a mentally or physically handicapped child". If you think sex, particular sex with the intent to reproduce, should be banned for incestious couples due to these reasons then surely you logically support a ban on sex where one or both individuals have genetics that will likely result in a mentally or physically handicapped child? Indeed surely then you would propose an even stricter ban based on the level of genetic predisposition to physical or mental handicap?

You're taking my arguments to a bit of an extreme.

Compare necrophilia with public health codes that outlaw spitting on the ground in public. Sex with a dead body carries a higher chance of catching and spreading diseases to others than having sex with a living partner. Similarly, spitting in public carries an increased chance of getting others sick as compared to simply spitting into a trash can. These limits are put in place in order to improve and maintain good public health.

The purpose of outlawing necrophilia is not for the sake of stopping diseases spreading through sex altogether, but rather to reduce the total number of diseases being spread by not allowing one of the more dangerous forms that it can happen.

It's the same case with incest. The purpose of outlawing it is not for the sake of stopping genetic defects altogether, but rather to greatly reduce the rate at which such defects occur in the population.

The problem in regards to the argument against necrophillia is that people have far less conviction about spitting in public (which frankly where I come from is not considered a real issue outside of the most elite of circles, we have a slightly rougher view of health and safety) than they do about their sexual preferences. The problem is that if we can ban consenting necrophillia due to health concerns, should we not also consider banning scat play, etc? What is the balance between sexual freedom and public health concern?

The issues with the second argument is that it is already built on a shaky premise (what if the condom breaks through no fault of the couples own AND abortion is turned down / unavailable AND the child turns out particularly handicapped). This is compounded with a failure to really address why, if the concern for the children is really the concern, incest is worse under this view than sex between people one or both of whom have genetic predisposition to mental or physical handicaps.

[The Princes of the Universe]

The incest plan... Bad idea. The lifelong harm an oops could cause to an innocent child outweighs any short-term benefits for the siblings getting their rocks off.
As for the necrophilia consented to before death... Creepy as fuck, but it might be legally sound and no one is being violated.

[Wisconsin9]

Is their even a logical argument for this? Is this even real?

Why do we need logical arguments to expand liberties? Should it not be the other way around? Is the system not much less susceptible to abuse if we consider expansion of liberty to be the default, and require logical explanations only to tighten it?