Swedish Liberals want to legalise necrophilia and incest

[Nasjonal Regjering Norge]

Disgusting degenerates.

[Hladgos]

Sure, live your life, but educate on the dangers of zombie outbreak during intercourse. Keep your sisters and brothers close if that happens.

[Gauthier]

Silence means consent when it's coming from a corpse.

Dead gentlemen don't kiss and tell.

As long as someone in the lab doesn't slip and drop that vial.

[Hugohk]

Dear god , the left wants to do what ? This is just disturbing ...

I am really tired of this ignorance of political terms. Liberal really only means leftist in the United states.
The word isn't synonymous with leftist in most of europe. They want a limited government and such.

[Hyggemata]

Incest should be legalized.

Necrophilia I thought should not. It violates the principle of present consent. A dead person cannot give consent, nor can a person in a coma or asleep.

[Ifreann]

Incest should be legalized.

Necrophilia I thought should not. It violates the principle of present consent. A dead person cannot give consent, nor can a person in a coma or asleep.

So no more posthumous organ donation? Or is it only sex that can't be consented to in one's will?

[Hyggemata]

Incest should be legalized.

Necrophilia I thought should not. It violates the principle of present consent. A dead person cannot give consent, nor can a person in a coma or asleep.

So no more posthumous organ donation?

When an organ is donated posthumously, the deceased is treating his remains as just that — remains, objects, property. His property, specifically, which gives him the right to dispose of it as he pleases. This is also what permits him to choose whether his remains are to be interred or immolated.

Or is it only sex that can't be consented to in one's will?

When sex is concerned, it is an agreement between two persons. If we extend this to the case of necrophilia, that means the dead body still has a legal personality. You can't have sex with an object. That means the dead body still has certain rights and powers, which includes the right not to be violated (i.e. have sex without his expressed consent). Given the fact that a dead body cannot express his consent, I don't think necrophilia, as a matter of law, should be construed as legal. On the other hand, unless malicious, I don't think it should be a criminal offence either.

So, in my mind, this is just a matter of interpretation. You can hump stuffed animals but you can't have sex with them. So if this is phrased as "humping" instead of having sex, then I have no objection on legal grounds.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

So no more posthumous organ donation?

When an organ is donated posthumously, the deceased is treating his remains as just that — remains, objects, property. His property, specifically, which gives him the right to dispose of it as he pleases. This is also what permits him to choose whether his remains are to be interred or immolated.

Or is it only sex that can't be consented to in one's will?

When sex is concerned, it is an agreement between two persons. If we extend this to the case of necrophilia, that means the dead body still has a legal personality. You can't have sex with an object. That means the dead body still has certain rights and powers, which includes the right not to be violated (i.e. have sex without his expressed consent). Given the fact that a dead body cannot express his consent, I don't think necrophilia, as a matter of law, should be construed as legal. On the other hand, unless malicious, I don't think it should be a criminal offence either.

So, in my mind, this is just a matter of interpretation. You can hump stuffed animals but you can't have sex with them. So if this is phrased as "humping" instead of having sex, then I have no objection on legal grounds.

Your argument is based on the mistaken assumption that people cannot have sex with objects. That's actually something done very often

[Hyggemata]

When an organ is donated posthumously, the deceased is treating his remains as just that — remains, objects, property. His property, specifically, which gives him the right to dispose of it as he pleases. This is also what permits him to choose whether his remains are to be interred or immolated.

When sex is concerned, it is an agreement between two persons. If we extend this to the case of necrophilia, that means the dead body still has a legal personality. You can't have sex with an object. That means the dead body still has certain rights and powers, which includes the right not to be violated (i.e. have sex without his expressed consent). Given the fact that a dead body cannot express his consent, I don't think necrophilia, as a matter of law, should be construed as legal. On the other hand, unless malicious, I don't think it should be a criminal offence either.

So, in my mind, this is just a matter of interpretation. You can hump stuffed animals but you can't have sex with them. So if this is phrased as "humping" instead of having sex, then I have no objection on legal grounds.

Your argument is based on the mistaken assumption that people cannot have sex with objects. That's actually something done very often

The keyword here is "legalize". This is a question of law. Is having sex with objects legally recognized as sex under Swedish law?

[Ifreann]

So no more posthumous organ donation?

When an organ is donated posthumously, the deceased is treating his remains as just that — remains, objects, property. His property, specifically, which gives him the right to dispose of it as he pleases. This is also what permits him to choose whether his remains are to be interred or immolated.

Or is it only sex that can't be consented to in one's will?

When sex is concerned, it is an agreement between two persons. If we extend this to the case of necrophilia, that means the dead body still has a legal personality. You can't have sex with an object. That means the dead body still has certain rights and powers, which includes the right not to be violated (i.e. have sex without his expressed consent). Given the fact that a dead body cannot express his consent, I don't think necrophilia, as a matter of law, should be construed as legal. On the other hand, unless malicious, I don't think it should be a criminal offence either.

So, in my mind, this is just a matter of interpretation. You can hump stuffed animals but you can't have sex with them. So if this is phrased as "humping" instead of having sex, then I have no objection on legal grounds.

...
Don't be such a sillypants.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Are people genuinely trying to tell us sex with a dead body is "okay"?

[Chinese Peoples]

When an organ is donated posthumously, the deceased is treating his remains as just that — remains, objects, property. His property, specifically, which gives him the right to dispose of it as he pleases. This is also what permits him to choose whether his remains are to be interred or immolated.

When sex is concerned, it is an agreement between two persons. If we extend this to the case of necrophilia, that means the dead body still has a legal personality. You can't have sex with an object. That means the dead body still has certain rights and powers, which includes the right not to be violated (i.e. have sex without his expressed consent). Given the fact that a dead body cannot express his consent, I don't think necrophilia, as a matter of law, should be construed as legal. On the other hand, unless malicious, I don't think it should be a criminal offence either.

So, in my mind, this is just a matter of interpretation. You can hump stuffed animals but you can't have sex with them. So if this is phrased as "humping" instead of having sex, then I have no objection on legal grounds.

...
Don't be such a sillypants.

There is a legal distinction to be made.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Your argument is based on the mistaken assumption that people cannot have sex with objects. That's actually something done very often

The keyword here is "legalize". This is a question of law. Is having sex with objects legally recognized as sex under Swedish law?

If not, then your idea of needing consent for SEX becomes pretty moot.

If people can consent to having their corpses sliced up for art pieces, why not this?

I'd also support legalizing it from a general opposition to victimless crimes. Why punish someone for something that harmed no one?

[Infected Mushroom]

What insanity is this? Legalize Necrophilia and incest? Are these people out of their Vulcan minds? It would never get passed by any parliament nor do i see any court ruling in favor of it.

It should be legalised. Because Freedom.

[Susria]

And every liberal reassured us that the stair-step analogy was a fallacious argument... Nice try.

[Hyggemata]

The keyword here is "legalize". This is a question of law. Is having sex with objects legally recognized as sex under Swedish law?

If not, then your idea of needing consent for SEX becomes pretty moot.

My idea of what sex is isn't relevant. It's the definition under Swedish law that is under controversy here.

If people can consent to having their corpses sliced up for art pieces, why not this?

Because it's different. The legal relationship between that and two persons having sex is different. Cf. my original post.

I'd also support legalizing it from a general opposition to victimless crimes. Why punish someone for something that harmed no one?

I said I support decriminalizing it. Decriminalized = no criminal punishment.

[Greater Istanistan]

Honestly, this harms nobody and should basically be up to the individuals involved. I see no reason other than the gut squick factor why either necrophilia or sibling incest above the age of consent should be forbidden, so long as the government puts on free Game of Thrones to remind us why incest babies are bad. Neither one would be something I'd do, but at the same time I see no reason why others shouldn't be allowed to make adult decisions about their private lives.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

If not, then your idea of needing consent for SEX becomes pretty moot.

My idea of what sex is isn't relevant. It's the definition under Swedish law that is under controversy here.

Incorrect. We weren't discussing the current law, but what the law should be.

If people can consent to having their corpses sliced up for art pieces, why not this?

Because it's different. The legal relationship between that and two persons having sex is different. Cf. my original post.

"Because it's different" isn't a real answer any more than "because I said so". The legal relationship is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. The topic at hand is about changing the law, not 'what is the current law'

I'd also support legalizing it from a general opposition to victimless crimes. Why punish someone for something that harmed no one?

I said I support decriminalizing it. Decriminalized = no criminal punishment.

You stated that you are opposed to it being legal, which means you support having a law against it. What's the point of a law against something if there is going to be nothing done about it?

[Hyggemata]

My idea of what sex is isn't relevant. It's the definition under Swedish law that is under controversy here.

Incorrect. We weren't discussing the current law, but what the law should be.

The question here pertains to "legalization of necrophilia", not changing the legal definition of what sex is. Unless another law is passed to change the legal definition of sex, it stays where it is.

Because it's different. The legal relationship between that and two persons having sex is different. Cf. my original post.

"Because it's different" isn't a real answer any more than "because I said so". The legal relationship is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. The topic at hand is about changing the law, not 'what is the current law'

The legal relationship is perfectly relevant to the discussion. How can you say that the legal relationship between the two persons isn't relevant when they are about to enter a consensual relationship? That both parties are consenting adults is the foundation of modern sexual norms. If you believe that a person who cannot legally give consent should be having sex, then go right ahead. People in coma will thank you for it.

I said I support decriminalizing it. Decriminalized = no criminal punishment.

You stated that you are opposed to it being legal, which means you support having a law against it. What's the point of a law against something if there is going to be nothing done about it?

Something that is not criminal can still be against civil law, in case you didn't know. Furthermore, I am not *opposed* to its becoming legal. I am only stating that even if the specific offence called necrophilia were to become abolished, it might still remain criminal under articles penalizing other sexual offences.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Incorrect. We weren't discussing the current law, but what the law should be.

The question here pertains to "legalization of necrophilia", not changing the legal definition of what sex is. Unless another law is passed to change the legal definition of sex, it stays where it is.

And despite your claim, it is not the controversy being discussed. The issue at hand is about legalizing acts of incest and necrophilia.

"Because it's different" isn't a real answer any more than "because I said so". The legal relationship is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. The topic at hand is about changing the law, not 'what is the current law'

The legal relationship is perfectly relevant to the discussion. How can you say that the legal relationship between the two persons isn't relevant when they are about to enter a consensual relationship? That both parties are consenting adults is the foundation of modern sexual norms. If you believe that a person who cannot legally give consent should be having sex, then go right ahead. People in coma will thank you for it.

The legal relationship would be the same: consenting adults making consensual decisions. We already know that people can legally consent for things after their death.

You stated that you are opposed to it being legal, which means you support having a law against it. What's the point of a law against something if there is going to be nothing done about it?

Something that is not criminal can still be against civil law, in case you didn't know.

No criminal punishment =/= no punishment. Obviously there wouldn't be any point to having it against civil law: no one would be in a position to seek redress under such a law given the fact that they would be dead.

Furthermore, I am not *opposed* to its becoming legal.

That directly contradicts your own statements about it.

Incest should be legalized.

Necrophilia I thought should not.

I am only stating that even if the specific offence called necrophilia were to become abolished, it might still remain criminal under articles penalizing other sexual offences.

No, you were stating that you don't think it should be legalized. Then you said it wasn't about criminal law, but about civil law. Now you just seem kind of confused about what you mean




Here, let's try a straightforward question: Why, in your mind, should the government keep a consensual, victimless act illegal?

[Hyggemata]

The question here pertains to "legalization of necrophilia", not changing the legal definition of what sex is. Unless another law is passed to change the legal definition of sex, it stays where it is.

And despite your claim, it is not the controversy being discussed. The issue at hand is about legalizing acts of incest and necrophilia.

I have controverted it. It is a material subject at hand given the topic of this thread.

The legal relationship is perfectly relevant to the discussion. How can you say that the legal relationship between the two persons isn't relevant when they are about to enter a consensual relationship? That both parties are consenting adults is the foundation of modern sexual norms. If you believe that a person who cannot legally give consent should be having sex, then go right ahead. People in coma will thank you for it.

The legal relationship would be the same: consenting adults making consensual decisions. We already know that people can legally consent for things after their death.

Do you realize what are the differences between a consent to sex and a contractual obligation? Please go find out before coming back to me. A dead person is no longer an "adult capable of giving consent", unless you somehow make it speak. Consent cannot be delivered by testament.

Something that is not criminal can still be against civil law, in case you didn't know.

No criminal punishment =/= no punishment. Obviously there wouldn't be any point to having it against civil law: no one would be in a position to seek redress under such a law given the fact that they would be dead.

I don't argue whether there is a point to this, and that is another reason why necrophilia should not be considered sex if one is disposed to doing it. As long as the specific act is decriminalized and the law does not otherwise regard it as sex, it would be legal. <— This has been my point the entire time.

Furthermore, I am not *opposed* to its becoming legal.

That directly contradicts your own statements about it.

Incest should be legalized.

Necrophilia I thought should not.

That is not the same as saying that I oppose it. I thought it should not be legalized because at this point all they are proposing is decriminalization, which is not the same as legalization. The decriminalized law still opposes it, not I.

I am only stating that even if the specific offence called necrophilia were to become abolished, it might still remain criminal under articles penalizing other sexual offences.

No, you were stating that you don't think it should be legalized. Then you said it wasn't about criminal law, but about civil law. Now you just seem kind of confused about what you mean

I'm not confused about what I mean. My point has been one and the same throughout, and it was you who insisted on splitting hairs with my posts.

Here, let's try a straightforward question: Why, in your mind, should the government keep a consensual, victimless act illegal?

There is no reason, and I don't dispute that. I am saying that necrophilia, even if decriminalized, may remain illegal if regarded as sex, and I justified my argument on legal grounds. It's not an argument about right or wrong, it's about legal and illegal. I hope you will be able to see the difference between these two notions.

[Lamaredia]

Your argument is based on the mistaken assumption that people cannot have sex with objects. That's actually something done very often

The keyword here is "legalize". This is a question of law. Is having sex with objects legally recognized as sex under Swedish law?

If we were to consider the human body an object as such, then it would be no different than using a fleshlight.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

The legal relationship would be the same: consenting adults making consensual decisions. We already know that people can legally consent for things after their death.

Do you realize what are the differences between a consent to sex and a contractual obligation? Please go find out before coming back to me. A dead person is no longer an "adult capable of giving consent", unless you somehow make it speak. Consent cannot be delivered by testament.

Consent can be made before death. That's already a legal reality. Otherwise you would have no legal say in how your remains are handled/disposed.

Furthermore, I am not *opposed* to its becoming legal.

That directly contradicts your own statements about it.

Incest should be legalized.

Necrophilia I thought should not.

That is not the same as saying that I oppose it. I thought it should not be legalized because at this point all they are proposing is decriminalization, which is not the same as legalization. The decriminalized law still opposes it, not I.

That is, in fact, a statement of opposition to it. You quite clearly stated that you think it should NOT be legalized.

No, you were stating that you don't think it should be legalized. Then you said it wasn't about criminal law, but about civil law. Now you just seem kind of confused about what you mean

I'm not confused about what I mean. My point has been one and the same throughout, and it was you who insisted on splitting hairs with my posts.

You're the one contradicting yourself. That's not my fault

Here, let's try a straightforward question: Why, in your mind, should the government keep a consensual, victimless act illegal?

There is no reason, and I don't dispute that. I am saying that necrophilia, even if decriminalized, may remain illegal if regarded as sex, and I justified my argument on legal grounds. It's not an argument about right or wrong, it's about legal and illegal. I hope you will be able to see the difference between these two notions.

So what you're saying is that you fully intend to avoid the question rather than answer it. The fact is that you stated support for keeping it illegal. I'm just asking you why

[Threlizdun]

Sure consensual sexual activity should always be legal, and if someone gives written consent to let others fuck their corpses after death I really don't give a shit. It creeps me the hell out, but that's not a legitimate objection. If there's no harm in it, it shouldn't be illegal.

[Enfaru]

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... enior.html
Since it is from the Daily Mail I shall post from swedish mainstream media because it was the only english source I could find: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article22305329.ab

I personally do not agree with this and think it is to bit far. So, what the NSG audience say about this proposal? Should necropfilia and incest be legalised?

Disgusting probably but apart from the eek factor. What's the problem?

Turns out children produced by incest have a similar rate of problems to those born to parents over the age of 40. In other words if your argument is down to, "Oh but they won't produce viable offspring." Then that's something not borne out by facts. They will and in some cases, they could be more viable than couples who delay having children for up to three decades. Assuming both are over the age of 18 and are mentally capable of making informed decisions and both can be independent should they wish to be, then I don't see a problem. Sure, it's yucky to me, but it's not my bedroom so I'm staying out of it. If it becomes a problem later then the government can review the situation.

Necrophilia is...just downright weird. However. Dead thing is dead and now an inanimate object. You could try taxidermy and suddenly you have a relatively life like partner that doesn't get drunk, isn't abusive, doesn't cheat... and doesn't require feeding and checking that they have everything they need for their job. Suddenly, it doesn't seem like such a bad hobby. If and I mean IF we take "religiousness" out of the equation for the moment and assume the human body isn't somehow divine. I mean, properly sterilized and cared for then... there isn't *really* a problem here. Include religiousness and well, now we have Armageddon.

Both issues are as I said early...yucky, but I can't see of any "health grounds" that say it's a bad idea. I mean, they haven't changed for centuries, the difference now is that we have condoms, family planning clinics, treatments for various diseases etcetera. We can cure quite a lot of the defects in children pre-natal through being born to either older parents or incest. We can even pick and choose which embryos are carried to term.

I'm not sure about you, but when I pick a partner, I don't ask for the health details of their parents, grand parents and great grand parents, aunts, uncles and cousins to check for problems. Of course if I choose to have a child with any of these people I run a distinct risk of the family being a "carrier" of certain problems and having a defective child. In some cases, with incest, where you know what you're getting...

Nope. Can't see a problem.