Legalize Cannibalism

[Lullaby Chainer]

There is nothing wrong with eating another dead human being if he or she:

-Gives prior permission
-Is not crime scene evidence

Laws should not be created just because some people think it's gross.

[Captain Cardio]

Lol.. that debate title sure grabs attention

I think you've got an excellent point there, could there be health implications for cannibalism though?

EDIT: Religious people might be offended by the notion of cannibalism to, even if it doesn't affect them personally, kind of like their objection to gay marriages

[SoylentGreen]

ICaptain Cardio think you've got an excellent point there, could there be health implications for cannibalism though?

Yes its called kuru disease or the laughing sickness. Comes from new guinea.
Similar to mad cow disease but in humans and is passed on through cannabilism and eating the brain
However I detest eating brain so I would stick with liver, kidney and muscle.
Lullaby are you planning on giving any interesting new recipes with this thread?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer There is nothing wrong with eating another dead human being if he or she: -Gives prior permission -Is not crime scene evidence Laws should not be created just because some people think it's gross.

There's a lot more to it just being gross, mainly health issues.... but before I get into those details..... do you see a benifit or actual practicallity for allowing people to eat other people? If not.. then who cares if it's illegal or not?

But here's one perspective that came to mind:

Someone dies..... someone eats the body..... or at least has a drum stick.... now their family comes along to put their body in the ground, based on their beliefs, etc..... only to find their family member got turned into a Bucket of Extra Crispy......

I don't think it's just because it's gross to many.... I think it boils down to too many cultures tend to have the upmost respect for the dead and their bodies.....

spiked-life | Article | Cannibalism is not a lifestyle choice

^ Perhaps this might shed some light on some of the reasoning:

Cannibalism is not a lifestyle choice Killing and eating somebody is murder - whether the victim wanted it or not. Armin Meiwes, the German cannibal who killed, dismembered and ate another man, has escaped with a conviction of manslaughter. With good behaviour in prison, this could mean that he is out in a mere four-and-a-half years. Meiwes has been somewhat indulged outside as well as inside the court. His story has been reported with a macabre curiosity, rather than straight reprobation. We've been painted a picture of an intelligent and polite man - a 'gentleman' - and reflections on his personal history and motivations have packed the papers. Meiwes is reportedly enjoying the publicity his case has gained, and is writing his memoirs in prison. Legal experts have said that this case is unprecedented - crucially, because Meiwes' victim wanted to be eaten. Meiwes advertised on the internet seeking a fit man 'for slaughter'; he received dozens of replies, but only one - Bernd Juergen Brandes - was serious about going through with it. The two agreed between them the methods by which Brandes would be butchered. As Professor Arthur Kreuzer of the Institute of Criminology at Glessen University said: 'This will make legal history…. The killer sought out his victim and the victim sought out his killer.' (1). The manslaughter verdict seems to have been something of a fudge. The prosecution wanted murder, arguing that Meiwes killed in pursuit of sexual pleasure; they are now appealing. The defence had argued that it was illegal euthanasia, a 'killing on request'. Manslaughter normally refers to the state of mind of the murderer (the victim's reluctance to die is assumed) - in this case, it seems to have been chosen as a halfway house. Lawyers will no doubt debate the legal ins and outs of this case. Yet both the case itself and the response to it present issues of broader relevance. Among other things, the grisly trial of Mr Meiwes has brought to light society's confusion about social morality and criminal responsibility. Behind this case lay extreme social dysfunction. Meiwes was a loner, who had few ties aside from his (now deceased) domineering mother. He claims that his desire to eat somebody was born from the younger brother that he never had - 'I always wanted someone to be part of me', he said. He described the act as 'like taking communion': 'with every piece of flesh I ate I remembered him.' (2) For his part, Brandes wanted to be eaten: 'my nipples look forward to your stomach', he told Meiwes in an email (3). What should have been an emotional bond between two people apparently became a gruesome one-way meal.

[tinybear]

This is old stuff. I started a thread on this at least a year ago ( I think).

However, since you've brought this up...I disagree with you. The law can and does prohibit activities which the majority of people in the community find gross.

(whilst you're at it, why not mention necrophilia?)

[Praxius]

The second half of that link:

The irony is that today's society loves petty laws That it can be explained, however, doesn't mean that this act can't be tried and condemned. If anything, it perhaps is more important for the law to condemn it all the more strongly. After all, Moors murderer Ian Brady gave piles of existential reasons for killing all those boys and girls. The fact is, Meiwes carefully planned and orchestrated the affair. He says that he knew what he was doing was wrong, and he now regrets it. Consenting to become somebody else's meal seems to be such a depraved choice as to be meaningless. The knife was in Meiwes' hands, and it was his own desires that drove him on. The failure, by a panel of three judges, to find Meiwes guilty of murder looks morally equivocal. The presiding judge, Judge Volker Mütze, concluded that Meiwes had 'no base motives' in the crime: 'There was an agreement between them. This was the killing of a person without murder.' He emphasised the victim's motivations - 'The victim offered up his body because he wanted to get the kick of his life… to be the final act, the high point of his life'. This moral equivocation was also found in some of the coverage of the case. The fact that the victim agreed to be eaten, and that Meiwes has been so calm in his explanation, has meant that it was received with macabre fascination as much as condemnation. 'It wasn't murder because the victim fully consented', said Christian Rath in Die Tageszeitung (4). Passing the murder verdict is all the harder at a time when there is growing popular - and in some countries, legal - support for assisted suicide. The idea that killing somebody can be in their best interest paves the way for concluding that cannibalism isn't murder, because it's what the victim wanted. It was a mutual agreement, goes the reasoning, and the victim got as much out of it as the killer. The fact that one of the pair ended up in the other's freezer doesn't seem to undermine this view of it as a consensual deal. The irony is that today's society loves petty laws. Everywhere we go, it seems, we are confronted by laws about what we can and cannot do. No smoking in public places, no putting your bags on a seat in the New York subway trains, no foxhunting, no growing your hedges above a certain height. Yet when it comes to the big matters of life and death, there is a disturbing uncertainty about which side to come down on.

[tinybear]

Actually what bugs me is the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Hey if I want to take the risk of dying in a car crash, that's my inalienable/God-given right, isn't it?

[SoylentGreen]

Praxius this is based on the fact that its illeagal and done against the will of the main course.
But why should it remain illeagal. Being gross is not good enough reason, most people would find picking your nose in public gross but its not illeagal.
Many past cultures practiced cannabilism as respect for the dead. Why should their culture be banned .

[tinybear]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Many past cultures practiced cannabilism as respect for the dead. Why should their culture be banned .

Because it's their culture and not ours.

In China and Korea, eating dogs is not illegal. I believe it's illegal in most, if not all, states in the USA. Why do you think that is?

[leftcider]

Quote by: tinybear Actually what bugs me is the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Hey if I want to take the risk of dying in a car crash, that's my inalienable/God-given right, isn't it?

I fully support people's right to drive unrestrained, because it makes it more likely for a fresh meat corpse to be produced.

I just saved this thread from going off topic.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tinybear This is old stuff. I started a thread on this at least a year ago ( I think).)

Cannabalism

[ZNFYRH]

For every pro-choice person who cries, "Her body, her choice!!" you would think you would find someone who gives the same cry to endorse cannibalism.

[tinybear]

Quote by: ZNFYRH For every pro-choice person who cries, "Her body, her choice!!" you would think you would find someone who gives the same cry to endorse cannibalism.

You would think...but it isn't so. :)

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Prax There's a lot more to it just being gross, mainly health issues.... but before I get into those details..... do you see a benifit or actual practicallity for allowing people to eat other people? If not.. then who cares if it's illegal or not?

There doesn’t need to be a practical reason to allow something; there needs to be a practical reason to disallow it. Freedom is the default, based simply on the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

[tinybear]

Define 'practical reason' please.

[The Bacon Guy]

A reason which is based on protecting people from non-consensual, objective, verifiable harm.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: tinybear However, since you've brought this up...I disagree with you. The law can and does prohibit activities which the majority of people in the community find gross.

I said it shouldn't. There's a difference.

Quote by: tinybear (whilst you're at it, why not mention necrophilia?)

No, this is about cannibalism.

[tinybear]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy A reason which is based on protecting people from non-consensual, objective, verifiable harm.

Ah, so according to you, if a person consents to being murdered, no crime has been committed? Interesting....

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Tiny Ah, so according to you, if a person consents to being murdered, no crime has been committed?

That's correct.

[tinybear]

Gosh, so if a guy wishes to murder me and does so and when he's arrested for my murder, all he has to do is to say I consented to being murdered, right? And since I'm dead, I can't contradict him, right? And if there's any reasonable doubt as to whether or not I gave the consent, the benefit of the doubt is given to the accused person, right?

Gee, I dunno. Isn't that a murderer's charter? :)