The Instigator
Cerebral_Narcissist
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
badger
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Consensual Necrophilia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,846 times Debate No: 11836
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

I affirm that it should be lawful for those of the legal age of consent, whilst still living, to give and record consent for posthumous sexual acts to be performed on their bodies and for these wishes to be honoured. Or in other words, for people to will their bodies to necrophiles.

The exact terms of which could be defined in the will or contract, with regards to time limits, number of permitted partners etc.

My initial argument rests on two main principles.

1: Existing precedent
The law already accepts the right of those of the proper age to give consent to sexual acts. The law already accepts the right to write wills, dictating what should happen to their bodies, with regards funeral arrangements and organ donation. The proposal merely affirms pre-existing laws and civil liberties.

2: The State has no right to interfere in consensual sexual relationships.
I affirm that the state has no right to interfere in consensual sexual relationships. Though same sex marriage may be an issue of debate for some only backward countries seek to outlaw and regulate what happens in a bedroom between consenting adults. Few in the west would now tolerate the state outlawing private homosexual practice, or demanding that only legally permitted positions be used. The state therefore has no right to prevent consensual necrophilia.

In addition,

Such consent could be purchased, which could offset or even negate the cost of a funeral which can proof to be a serious financial burden to a family already beset by the woes of grief.
http://www.whathappensnow.com...
(As the supply of ‘consensual' corpses would be limited, potential necrophiles would likely be willing to be pay large sums).

Certain religions or cultures, do not accept that marriage is ‘till death do us part' but accept concepts such as immortal, permanent, or posthumous marriage. The state should have no right to interfere in religion, marriage and the way in which marriages are consummated.
http://en.wikipedia.org...(Chinese)
badger

Con

You're my kinda guy.

1: Existing precedent.
Laws exist for the good of everybody. None of those other rights could harm anyone else, but what you propose could. Consider this possible chain of events: You have three sons. The oldest is nineteen, the middle child is fourteen, and the youngest is ten. Now, your oldest boy likes to smoke a bit of crack cocaine, but he can't always come up with the money. He hears that you can sell the right to have sex with your dead body to necrophiles. He signs up thinking he is the luckiest man in the world. He makes a fortune and heads off to meet his local dealer. Once there the dealer shoots him in the chest and takes flight with his money. About a day or so later the wake is on and everyone is very upset over this tragic death. Nobody even seems to notice this guy [1] walking around the place asking strange questions about the departed. Later, however, this man approaches the coffin where you and your family are mourning. He tells you that it was lovely to meet the family, but that he cannot spare much more time. He presents you with the contract and lifts your son out of the coffin and throws him over his shoulder. The end of this story could play out in numerous ways that could harm those involved. For one, you might let this man take your son subjecting yourself and your family to psychological trauma. If it were me, I would probably flip out and kill the man, traumatising my already grief stricken children at the same time. It is within our best interests to have laws in place that protect us from events such as these.

[1] http://listentoleon.net...

2: The State has no right to interfere in consensual sexual relationships.
The purpose of the state is to keep us as free and as safe a people as possible, but what some people don't seem to understand is that it is for our benefit as a whole rather than individually. I'd hardly call a padded room or a jail cell free, and what you propose would undoubtedly send the likes of me into either of these facilities, and for this reason, there should be laws preveting this from happening.

"Certain religions or cultures, do not accept that marriage is ‘till death do us part' but accept concepts such as immortal, permanent, or posthumous marriage. The state should have no right to interfere in religion, marriage and the way in which marriages are consummated."

What if the religion was harmful to society?
Debate Round No. 1
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge,

1: Existing Precedent.
Ignoring the issue of crack cocaine or being murdered in a drug deal, (risks that would neither be increased or decreased either way) the above scenario would not occur for the same reason that surgeons do not turn up to funerals to harvest organs should the deceased be on a register of organ donors. Instead the news of the deceased wishes would already be revealed and met prior to the funeral. There are no reasons why a nice family funeral could not ahead afterwards. I fully accept that the family may expressed negative feelings about the wishes of the deceased, however what right do they have to dispute an adults death and funerary arrangements?

2: The State has no right to interfere in consensual sexual relationships.
Given that the above scenario of the my opponents is unrealistic his claim that, "I'd hardly call a padded room or a jail cell free, and what you propose would undoubtedly send the likes of me into either of these facilities, and for this reason, there should be laws preveting this from happening." Does not logically follow and can not be used to negate an adults right to sexual freedom.

Lastly my opponent asks,
"What if the religion was harmful to society?"

This is only relevant to the debate if my opponent can show that allowing posthumous sex is harmful to society, he has failed to do so.

My original premise has not been refuted.
badger

Con

1: Existing Precedent.
I can think of a few reasons. The funeral home employees would be out on strike. Their job is a bit morbid as it is and you wan't them to have to deal with some necrophiles sweat and semen on top of it. As well as that, the family of the deceased would probably be in no fit mental state to deal with a funeral after both losing their loved one (possibly tragically), and having to hand them over to some pervert to have his way with before the family get to bury them. I can't see religious families taking that well, or anybody really. In the interest of everyone's mental well-being what you propose should be illegal.

It probably would increase the chances of the crack cocaine and being murdered situation as you would be supplying very desperate people with large amounts of money (It'd surely cost a bit, having sex with dead bodies is quite the luxury). The first part was just me stoned though.

2: The State has no right to interfere in consensual sexual relationships.
My scenario is not completely unrealistic. Having to hand over your loved one's dead body to a necrophile would disturb anyone. I would certainly want to kill the individual and I'm sure the vast majority of people who read this would want the same. It would not make sense to legalise something that would cause so much destruction.

Forget about that question. I was fairly stoned yesterday, but if you and your partner want to fvck each other's dead bodies then fire away. The widow/widower would surely get some time alone with their loved one's corpse if they requested it. Why should we turn something so horrible into a market for religious people's sake when they could get away with it so easily as it is?
Debate Round No. 2
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

My opponent states that in response to such a scheme
"The funeral home employees would be out on strike. Their job is a bit morbid as it is and you wan't them to have to deal with some necrophiles sweat and semen on top of it."

The change in the law would not cause such a strike action, though the adoption of this service may do so. This would be a matter between the funeral home and their staff and does not in itself refute the resolution.

"As well as that, the family of the deceased would probably be in no fit mental state to deal with a funeral after both losing their loved one (possibly tragically), and having to hand them over to some pervert to have his way with before the family get to bury them."

The grieving family would not have to hand over anything, for the same reason that the family is not ordinarily involved in the embalming of the deceased or digging the grave. Such duties are performed by others.

"Having to hand over your loved one's dead body to a necrophile would disturb anyone. I would certainly want to kill the individual and I'm sure the vast majority of people who read this would want the same. "

Again, you would not be required to 'handle' the corpse. That would be the duty of the funeral home and the privilege of the client.

You have yet to actually address the two main planks of my arguments with regards, existing precedent and sexual content, you have merely suggested that people will be disturbed by the idea.
badger

Con

"The change in the law would not cause such a strike action, though the adoption of this service may do so. This would be a matter between the funeral home and their staff and does not in itself refute the resolution."

It doesn't refute the resolution on its own, but it's just one more bad thing that probably would happen if the law was changed.

The grieving family would not have to hand over anything, for the same reason that the family is not ordinarily involved in the embalming of the deceased or digging the grave. Such duties are performed by others.

Maybe I'm being a bit too Irish in the way that I'm writing. By "hand over" I mean that they would have no say in it as the law would be against them.

"Again, you would not be required to 'handle' the corpse. That would be the duty of the funeral home and the privilege of the client."

See above.

"You have yet to actually address the two main planks of my arguments with regards, existing precedent and sexual content, you have merely suggested that people will be disturbed by the idea."

I admit I probably haven't made myself as clear as I could have, but my argument was that introducing this law would cause more harm than good (I suppose I didn't really say that). I have shown the harm that could possiby come from changing the law and it clearly outweighs the good. You claimed it should be legalised because writing wills, making funeral arrangements, organ donation, and same sex marriages were legal, but what you propose is nothing like any of these. Writing wills benefits others and is unlikely to cause any harm, making funeral arrangements is for the benefit those that attend, organ donation benefits others, and same sex marriage has to do with love betweem two people. What love is there between a necrophile and a corpse? I doubt it compares to a junkie's love of heroin. I could have used heroin being illegal as my existing precedent. To sum all of this up: what you propose would do more harm than good and therefore should be illegal.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by yayawhatever 7 years ago
yayawhatever
I'm for necrophilia so long as the one having the sex with the dead doesnt need to trespass on and vandalize anothers property to have the encounter. It would probably also be nice if relatives of the deceased approved of the *relations*
Posted by Digamma 7 years ago
Digamma
"Such consent could be purchased, which could offset or even negate the cost of a funeral which can proof to be a serious financial burden to a family already beset by the woes of grief."

Prostitution is against the law. Why should it be allowed when someone is dead?
Posted by Joker626 7 years ago
Joker626
I really want the Con side to win on this, but his argument was ineffective.
Posted by BeautifulDisaster 7 years ago
BeautifulDisaster
Wow. Just...wow! Kinda scary though!
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
You assume I want to be the customer and not the service provider.
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
Not only likes way younger women, but dead ones too, apparently.
Posted by badger 7 years ago
badger
forgot to say cheers for the debate. someone's gonna have to tell me what a counter-argument is.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Smiled.
--
Sure why not.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Dag nammit... forgot to say 'vote pro'.

Which as badger has yet to offer a counter-argument, is the only way to go really.
Posted by blindelfie 7 years ago
blindelfie
I guess I'm not against it or for it exactly, so we'll see then, won't we. ;)

Though perhaps it is a little "disgusting."
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Digamma 7 years ago
Digamma
Cerebral_NarcissistbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by JRSolvency 7 years ago
JRSolvency
Cerebral_NarcissistbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Joker626 7 years ago
Joker626
Cerebral_NarcissistbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by BeautifulDisaster 7 years ago
BeautifulDisaster
Cerebral_NarcissistbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by twerj 7 years ago
twerj
Cerebral_NarcissistbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30