The Instigator
MonochromeEffigy
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jammie
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Necrophilia should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 709 times Debate No: 102080
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

MonochromeEffigy

Pro

I strongly believe that necrophilia ought to be legal. I will admit, I am a necrophiliac, so I am somewhat biased regarding this subject. I've heard the arguments against the legalization of necrophilia, and I've heard the proposed solutions to the problems. I'm going to expound upon what I believe to be the ideal system in which to practice necrophilia.

To begin with, allow people the option to leave their body to necrophilia. Once someone has decided to leave their body to necrophilia, they receive a form to fill out, further specifying what they're okay with concerning their body's exact usage (for example, some people might be perfectly fine with having someone make love to their body, but not with having someone mutilate it). Then, when the person dies, their body is sent to a facility where it's checked for diseases that could potentially be transferred to the living and properly cared for. The body is then put into an online database (kind of like online dating for necrophiliacs), including the information from the form that the deceased filled out, the results of the tests to check for diseases (which means that it's informed consent for the necrophiliacs) and a current photograph (because we want to know how long our prospective lovers have been dead, regardless of whether we like them fresh or not so fresh). When a necrophiliac finds a body that suits their needs and preferences, it's transported to them.

Thus, this system would eliminate the issues of consent (the person consented to precisely what is happening to their body) and sanitation (the body's are kept in a sanitary environment, and the necrophiliac is informed of the risks before beginning their endeavor), the two biggest real arguments against necrophilia.
Jammie

Con

At first I thought you were joking, but I am starting to think you are genuine. I will try to avoid very emotional responses as much as possible, and try to abstain from personal insults. Instead let's try to have a polite debate.

I would like to start of by saying that people's depraved fantasies should remain exactly that, fantasies. Just because someone wants to do something doesn't mean the government has an obligation to legalise it. Let's take the example of paedophilia. If you had started a debate saying 'Paedophilia should be legal' and then swapped 'necrophilia' to 'paedophilia' in your opening argument, would that be okay? I'm going to assume that you think paedophilia is also acceptable, purely on the basis that you think the government should legitimise your fetish, so why not other fetishes?

If necrophilia was legalised then it would encourage people to do it without the government's permission. What if the demand for bodies outweighs the supply? Then people would be performing disgusting acts in graveyards full of the public's friends, parents etc.

The problem with necrophilia is that it encourages a lifestyle devoid of respect and decency, as well as sanitation. Now, I know you have come up with your little system so everything's right as rain, but the reality will be very different. If someone genuinely wanted to have sexual relations with a corpse, then why would they stop there? I am trying not to think of all the grotesque acts which would be okay if necrophilia was allowed. But maybe you are for unlimited sexual liberation, in which I ask you why? Why do you actually want to have sex with a corpse? (I am speaking from the view point of a genuinely confused member of the public. By 'you' I was referring to necrophiliacs in general. Of course what you personally disclose is entirely up to you, but I am honestly confused and so enlighten me. Let me see the world from your viewpoint.)
Debate Round No. 1
MonochromeEffigy

Pro

I am completely genuine, and I am very grateful for your politeness (to be honest, I was halfway expecting incoherent emotional babble from whoever took up this debate).
You said ‘depraved fantasies’. The definition of depraved is morally corrupt. It seems to me that a good deal of your argument relies heavily on your perception of what is moral and what is not. What would give you the right to hold everyone else to your personal moral standards?
You proceeded to make the (incorrect) assumption that I would also like to see pedophilia legalized. There are two big differences between necrophilia and pedophilia, when it comes to legal arguments. One, the practice of necrophilia causes harm to no one, while the practice of pedophilia can harm the child involved physically, emotionally and psychologically. Two, in my system, the people whose bodies are to be used in necrophilic acts gave their written consent for such to happen, while a child cannot legally give their consent for someone to have sex with them. As such, their parent would have to sign for this, and no self respecting parent would do that to their child.
The best solution I could think of (and I thought of several) to avoid there being a higher demand for bodies than supply, is to simply have people return them when they’re done. The bodies would be sent back to the facility, where they would once again be checked for diseases and placed back in storage. In addition, I did not suggest legalizing going to the graveyard and having sex with any corpse one takes a liking to. Someone who did that could (and should) be prosecuted for destruction of someone else's property, theft, rape and public sex. They should not, however, be prosecuted for necrophilia.
‘If someone genuinely wanted to have sexual relations with a corpse, then why would they stop there?’ If what you mean by this is ‘why wouldn’t they do something which I deem to be even worse?’, please refer back to my previous statement on moral standards. If what you mean is ‘why would they stop at what’s in the system?’, if they didn’t they’d most likely have broken some other law, and could be prosecuted for that.
I’m not for entirely unlimited sexual liberation, as I stated above. However, I do think that there should be significantly less laws concerning sexual acts, because, to put it bluntly, it’s really none of the government's business.
Now it’s time for the fun question: ‘Why do you actually want to have sex with a corpse?’ Now, I’ve gotten questions similar to this before, usually accompanied by a look of disgust and a suggestion that I immediately see a mental health professional. My normal response is along the lines of ‘Why not?’, seeing as those people have likely already made up their mind about necrophilia and why anyone would practice it, as evidenced by their suggestion, and therefore it would be a complete waste of my time to explain anything to them. Since you asked as someone who actually wants to know, I’ll attempt to give you a satisfactory answer (though I may disclose some details you don’t necessarily want to know, because I’m pretty much open to discussing the topic as far as any genuinely curious person wants to discuss it). The first thing that I would like to say is that I cannot speak for necrophiliacs in general, because there are several different reasons why someone might want to practice necrophilia. I can only speak for myself, and I, personally, want to have sex with a corpse because I am literally sexually attracted to corpses. The reason I’m sexually attracted to corpses is the same reason those who are not necrophiliacs (I tend to call them biophiliacs) are attracted to living men or women. It’s an innate desire, and while it is not helpful for reproduction, neither is homosexuality, another innate desire (and one that is, in fact, legal). In addition, as I am a Class X necrophiliac, I can’t have sex other than with a corpse. I’ve tried with both genders and different ages (above the legal age of consent, before you jump on that), and the results have been the same. I am physically incapable of having sex with the living. I hope that answers your question.
Jammie

Con

How can you say this:

'What would give you the right to hold everyone else to your personal moral standards?'

While at the same time say this:

'...while a child cannot legally give their consent for someone to have sex with them.'

It seems that you are holding me accountable for me holding everyone else to my moral standards, yet here you are holding paedophiles to your moral standard. Who are you to say that a child cannot give their consent? (Disclaimer! I am against paedophilia in all of its forms. What I am trying to do is use the scenario of a paedophile attempting to justify his actions based on your logic). So, if your moral standard can be law, i.e. children can't give consent, then why can't my morale standard be law, i.e. necrophilia is wrong?

You mention your solution to the supply and demand issue, namely being reuse of corpses, yet still I ask you what if the demand was even higher than that? Desire for sex is an innate human drive, so if everyone had sexual preferences such as yourself, what's to stop them going into graveyards? They can't have sex with living people, and their drive needs to be satisfied. It's human nature.

'If what you mean is "why would they stop at what"s in the system?", if they didn't they'd most likely have broken some other law, and could be prosecuted for that.'

Fair enough, but then the people who want sexual relations with animals, child etc would say:
'Hey! How come the necrophiliacs get to bone bones? (Excuse the pun) I want to have sex with my pet! If he can have sex with a corpse, why can't I have sex with my pet, that's not fair!'
Having this double standard in regards to sexual relations that society deem ordinary can't exist, as otherwise that makes you a hypocrite. What I'm trying to say is that legalised necrophilia will open the floodgates to a whole world of things that both you and I would consider unacceptable.

I will try to be as civilised and polite as possible, because there is no point in being rude or insulting just because you disagree with someone's views. But I want to ask you the question do you think you are living a healthy lifestyle? And should your lifestyle be encouraged?(I perceive legalisation to be the same as encouragement, as it would push people who would have thought about it, but wouldn't have wanted to break the law into actually doing it).
So again, should your lifestyle be encouraged?

If no, then why not? You are a necrophiliac, so why can't other people? You can't say 'I can be a necrophiliac, but you shouldn't' It's hypocritical.

If yes, then how could society function on a populous obsessed with necrophilia? Society would break down, the population would be wiped out and there wouldn't be an untouched corpse anywhere on the planet!
Debate Round No. 2
MonochromeEffigy

Pro

It seems you misunderstood my statement on children giving their consent. The age of consent laws that are already in place prohibit children from giving their consent. So then, it’s not my moral standard that says children can’t give their consent, it’s the law. This particular law is very sensible, in that it protects children from potentially life-altering experiences. Laws that prohibit necrophilia protect no one but the perpetrator of the act, who frankly should be allowed to make their own decision on the matter. 
‘…what if the demand was even higher than that?’ If the supply of corpses was still too low to satisfy the demand, I would suggest utilizing a waiting list. Also, if everyone shared my sexual preferences, there would likely be no graveyards, as it would be a normal, accepted thing for all corpses to be used in necrophilia (at which point there would be debates about the legalization of biophilia, as it would then be considered sexual deviancy).
‘…both you and I would consider unacceptable.’ Once again, you assume that I share your moral standards. In actuality, the only reason that I oppose pedophilia is the negative effect that it has on the child involved, and I do not, in fact, consider bestiality unacceptable (though I wouldn’t personally participate in such an act), so long as the animal involved is physically able to handle such an act. So you see, I do not have a double standard in this regard. As long as no one is harmed in a particular act, I see no reason why it shouldn’t be legal.
‘…do you think you are living a healthy lifestyle?’ Not in particular, but then again, neither are many people who practice perfectly legal, ‘normal’ sex. The only unhealthy thing about having sex with a corpse is the chance of contracting a disease, which is also a very real possibility when having sex with a living person. Under the system I originally proposed, the person choosing to live this lifestyle would be informed of the risks ahead of time, which is more than one can guarantee when discussing sex with living people, as living people are capable of lying about their status in regards to sexually transmitted diseases.
‘…should your lifestyle be encouraged?’ I wouldn't say that it should be encouraged, exactly, but it should be left open as an option. It’s the same as with any other ‘deviant’ sexuality. No one should be pressured into trying it if they have no interest whatsoever, but for those who are interested in trying it, it shouldn’t be such a taboo subject that they’re afraid to even mention it.
‘…how could society function on a populous obsessed with necrophilia?’ I don’t perceive this ever becoming an issue. At worst, a large amount of the populace would try it out, decide it’s not for them, and return to their old sexual habits, having sufficiently sated their curiosity. A few would likely realize that they are necrophiliacs, but those few would hardly have an effect on the world’s overall population. In addition, I fail to see how a massive growth in the population of necrophiliacs would cause society to break down, so I would appreciate it if you could explain your thoughts.
Jammie

Con

' The age of consent laws that are already in place prohibit children from giving their consent. So then, it"s not my moral standard that says children can"t give their consent, it"s the law. This particular law is very sensible, in that it protects children from potentially life-altering experiences. Laws that prohibit necrophilia protect no one but the perpetrator of the act, who frankly should be allowed to make their own decision on the matter. '

But you are still not answering the question I posed in the previous round. Both of us happen to agree that paedophilia should be illegal, yet we differ on whether necrophilia should be legal. You have asked me before, 'What would give you the right to hold everyone else to your personal moral standards?' and yet at the same time you want to make paedophilia illegal, as you say it protects them from potentially life altering experiences, and by doing this are holding paedophiles to your moral standards.

Let's say I supported legalisation of paedophilia, and you supported banning paedophilia. You can make all the arguments you want, yet I might disagree with you still. In that situation you would be holding me to your moral standards, namely your standard that paedophilia is wrong.

When I posed the hypothetical scenario of a populous obsessed with necrophilia, I meant it in just that way, a hypothetical scenario. So the actuality isn't relevant. For example, your system of necrophilia would never be implemented in our society,yet here we are debating it. So saying that people would try it and then return to their old habits makes no sense, you don't know how people think. Focus on the hypothetical, otherwise this debate would have started with 'There's no way this would ever be legal. Good day!'

'In addition, I fail to see how a massive growth in the population of necrophiliacs would cause society to break down, so I would appreciate it if you could explain your thoughts.'

Upon review, I have to admit I was quite unspecific. What I was referring to was the issue of procreation. Society would break down as nobody would be having babies and the population would come to a grinding halt.
Debate Round No. 3
MonochromeEffigy

Pro


Morality is, when you get to the center of it, defined by culture. Every person, when they’re born, has no moral standards at all. Moral standards of some sort are forced onto them by the society they grow up in, but those moral standards are subject to change. The basest of moral standards is that it is wrong to do things that harm other people. Even if you take a historical incident of mass genocide, the targeted group had to be dehumanized in order to justify their slaughter. It is virtually impossible to deconstruct the moral standard that says harming other people is wrong, because in attempting to deconstruct said standard, one hits a massive roadblock. Namely, it’s already been deconstructed by the concept of revenge. If it’s right to harm someone because they harmed you first, then who’s to say it’s wrong to harm someone to prevent them from harming you? The only way to avoid this convoluted system of morals is to do away with morals altogether, which no one is perfectly capable of doing. That said, I’ll still attempt to come a step closer to doing just that right now: while I won’t take the first step towards seeing pedophilia legalized, I’ll support the movement when it comes up, provided a system has been developed so that all involved parties have given their informed consent.
You honestly think I meant this as a hypothetical debate? While it’s true that this debate, in and of itself, will not change the law, I am perfectly serious about trying to have such a system as I proposed at the beginning of this debate implemented. This debate is meant as a test, to expose any flaws I hadn’t seen in the system and to gauge society's readiness to accept necrophilia as a valid option, so that I can properly determine where to go from here.
‘There's no way this would ever be legal.’ All I have to say on this one is think about how many things people one hundred years ago would have said this exact thing about, which are now perfectly legal.
Jammie

Con

[In relation to paedophilia] 'I"ll support the movement when it comes up, provided a system has been developed so that all involved parties have given their informed consent.'

So you seemed to have changed your tune here. Before you said this:

[Here you are talking about law against paedophilia]'This particular law is very sensible, in that it protects children from potentially life-altering experiences.'

And this

'...the practice of pedophilia can harm the child involved physically, emotionally and psychologically.'

However, in your most recent statement you have claimed you would support legalisation of paedophilia, ONLY given that '... all involved parties have given their informed consent.' Now, we can debate the definition of 'informed' all we want, but in my opinion a child cannot give any informed consent because they are a CHILD. They are underdeveloped emotionally and intelligently, and while these debate is about necrophilia, I would very much like to see you describe a system in which children can effectively give their 'informed consent'. To me, it seems like your views on paedophilia and it's legalisation are inconsistent. Simply view the quotes above, and it is obvious why I think this way. Please explain yourself.

Secondly, let's be real here. I don't know what country you live in, but given that you have an internet connection and advanced English skills, I'm assuming you live in an English speaking western democracy, probably the USA. (I live in UK for clarification).The reason I bring this is up is that in the society that I predict you to be in, how could you ever need to '...gauge society's readiness to accept necrophilia as a valid option...', when you know perfectly well how society views necrophilia? And even if you don't live in a western democracy, pretty much everywhere in the world necrophilia is treated with disdain. In your own words:

[When telling someone you are a necrophiliac]'...accompanied by a look of disgust and a suggestion that I immediately see a mental health professional.'

So isn't society's reaction obvious? I don't see why I'm your little 'test'.

Thirdly, when I told you that there was no way necrophilia could be legalised, you responded with this:

'All I have to say on this one is think about how many things people one hundred years ago would have said this exact thing about, which are now perfectly legal.'

Unfortunately, it seems like you have missed out a word, and even more unfortunately still this word seems to be important. In your response please clarify what you intended to write, as I can't argue against something that I don't know what it is.
Debate Round No. 4
MonochromeEffigy

Pro

I have indeed changed my view on pedophilia through the course of this debate, the reason for that being, as I looked at it logically, the only objection I could find against it is rooted in morality. Since I see morality as a societal device, used to keep people under the authority of governing officials, when I see it in myself I attempt to destroy it. So, given the choice between defending my current moral standards or annihilating them, I chose to annihilate them. All I had to do was force myself to look at the world through the eyes of a pedophile, at which point I realized that I don’t really take issue with their sexual preference, as long as there is informed consent for all parties (so that if the child is harmed, they were aware of the risks beforehand). Therefore, my views on pedophilia and the legalization thereof are not inconsistent, they’re merely different than they were at the beginning of the debate.
‘…I would very much like to see you describe a system in which children can effectively give their 'informed consent'.’ I don’t feel qualified to create such a system. The legalization of necrophilia is a cause that I have devoted a lot of time and effort to researching, so I feel that I can properly organize a system in which necrophilia can be practiced with complete informed consent. I can’t say I’ve done any kind of research at all into the cause for the legalization of pedophilia, so I wouldn't know where to begin with organizing such a system. My solution is simply to leave it to the pedophiles to come up with a working informed consent system for themselves.
‘So isn't society's reaction obvious?’ Yes, society's reaction is obvious. However, I didn't say that this is a test of society's reaction to necrophilia, but rather society's readiness for necrophilia. Since, as it were, the only argument that remains against necrophilia is an argument of morality, all that's necessary to have my system implemented is a slight change in society's current moral standards. Your willingness to debate the topic, even hypothetically, proves that there are at least some people who don’t write the subject off as a complete impossibility from the start. So you see, whether I win or lose the debate I’ve gotten the information I need. As long as I proceed slowly, people will be receptive to what I have to say, and then it’s only a matter of time before necrophilia is legalized.
‘In your response please clarify what you intended to write,…’ What I meant was that there are many things that people used to say would never be legal – abortion, homosexuality, businesses open on Sunday, transgenderism, witchcraft, female voters, marijuana, etc. – but which have now been legalized.
As a conclusion to my argument, I’d like to leave you with this quote from the book Necrophilia Variations by Supervert (1):

‘Morality is made by man–so how can you really give any credence to it? Today it’s ok to love the dead in spirit but not in flesh. Tomorrow, who knows? Maybe men of the future will consider nostalgia a more contemptible perversion than necrophilia. After all, to love the dead is to live in the past, and that can’t be healthy.’

1.http://supervert.com...
Jammie

Con

This is a statement of yours:

'Therefore, my views on pedophilia and the legalization thereof are not inconsistent, they"re merely different than they were at the beginning of the debate.'

That, my new acquaintance, is almost the definition of inconsistent, and if I might add, hypocritical. Once you realised a flaw in your logic, you changed your mind.

'My solution is simply to leave it to the pedophiles to come up with a working informed consent system for themselves.'

So your solution to paedophilia is leave the crime up to the criminals? Honestly read your statement above to yourself, how can this not create the most evil and exploitable system ever devised? That's like criminals on trial being the jury and judge of their own case.

'Your willingness to debate the topic, even hypothetically, proves that there are at least some people who don"t write the subject off as a complete impossibility from the start.'

You mistake me. I do completely write the subject off from the start. Necrophilia is a sick and abhorrent act. The only reason I decided to debate you is to show you, and others, why you are wrong. I know I can't change your mind, and I'm not trying to, but do not think for one second that I do not write necrophilia off as an impossibility.

'As long as I proceed slowly, people will be receptive to what I have to say, and then it"s only a matter of time before necrophilia is legalized.'

If the matter of time you are referring to was never, than I would agree with you. Necrophilia will never be legalised. Ever.

As for your quote, we don't love the dead, we have loved them. Past tense. We respect the dead, the reason being so that people like you do not desecrate our ancestors, former lovers and former friends.

This debate has been interesting, but now it's time to put the final nail in the coffin. But knowing you, you'd probably pull it out.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Heirio 9 months ago
Heirio
Jesus.
This debate is a lot better than I expected.
Props to you.
Posted by Jammie 9 months ago
Jammie
That's fine. We can debate after the conclusion of this one. And it would help if you would define 'anarchy' as you see it. By the way, I think capitalism, government and free elections are all good things.
Posted by MonochromeEffigy 9 months ago
MonochromeEffigy
I would be willing to debate anarchy with you, but I must warn you ahead of time, I'm fairly new to the ideology, and as such I have not thoroughly completed my research.
Posted by Jammie 9 months ago
Jammie
I just noticed that on your profile you claim you are an anarchist. I would very much like to debate against anarchy with you.
No votes have been placed for this debate.