Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Consensual Necrophilia?

wordy
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 11:48:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hi! I'm new here :D I know this must be confusing to read, so I'll explain. What I mean by consensual necrophilia is that people, before their death, are able to choose whether or not some can have sex with their lifeless corpse.
I know this might seem like a flippant question, but it goes well beyond necrophilia. Should a person be allowed to grant any access they choose to their corpse following death? We already deal in organ donation following death, as well as donations to scientific studies. Should there be a limit on what's available to do with one's corpse, and if so, where should the line be drawn?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 12:26:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 11:48:51 AM, wordy wrote:
Hi! I'm new here :D I know this must be confusing to read, so I'll explain. What I mean by consensual necrophilia is that people, before their death, are able to choose whether or not some can have sex with their lifeless corpse.
I know this might seem like a flippant question, but it goes well beyond necrophilia. Should a person be allowed to grant any access they choose to their corpse following death? We already deal in organ donation following death, as well as donations to scientific studies. Should there be a limit on what's available to do with one's corpse, and if so, where should the line be drawn?

Well, if they can use their will to donate their body to medical science and have other aspect of what to do with their body post-death. Providing consent for sexual favors should be one of them.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wordy
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 1:21:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If people are allowed to keep corpses around, should there be limitations on duration?And should their usage of the corpse be restricted such that they must ensure that they don't get any diseases associated with necrophilia?
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 7:09:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 1:21:07 PM, wordy wrote:
If people are allowed to keep corpses around, should there be limitations on duration?And should their usage of the corpse be restricted such that they must ensure that they don't get any diseases associated with necrophilia?

Good Lord yes.

There should be like a 36 hour limit on if you could keep a body if such a thing was allowed.

Bodies go bad pretty quickly.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 7:57:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 11:48:51 AM, wordy wrote:
Hi! I'm new here :D I know this must be confusing to read, so I'll explain. What I mean by consensual necrophilia is that people, before their death, are able to choose whether or not some can have sex with their lifeless corpse.
I know this might seem like a flippant question, but it goes well beyond necrophilia. Should a person be allowed to grant any access they choose to their corpse following death?

I believe so.

We already deal in organ donation following death, as well as donations to scientific studies. Should there be a limit on what's available to do with one's corpse, and if so, where should the line be drawn?

I personally think there should essentially be no limits, except for perhaps someone wishing to not have their body moved ever after death or something that would cause a biohazard against other people's will.

However, the issue of how much control we have over our bodies after we die reminds me of this really interesting Vsauce video: "Why Don't We Taxidermy Humans?" One of the things it points out is that no one can legally OWN a body after death. Maybe that's a sign of how much we value self-sovereignty, even though we disallow crazier things like taxidermy.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 8:13:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 11:48:51 AM, wordy wrote:
Hi! I'm new here :D I know this must be confusing to read, so I'll explain. What I mean by consensual necrophilia is that people, before their death, are able to choose whether or not some can have sex with their lifeless corpse.
I know this might seem like a flippant question, but it goes well beyond necrophilia. Should a person be allowed to grant any access they choose to their corpse following death? We already deal in organ donation following death, as well as donations to scientific studies. Should there be a limit on what's available to do with one's corpse, and if so, where should the line be drawn?

This is beyond creepy, I really hope you are trolling.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 9:13:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/7/2013 8:13:04 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/7/2013 11:48:51 AM, wordy wrote:
Hi! I'm new here :D I know this must be confusing to read, so I'll explain. What I mean by consensual necrophilia is that people, before their death, are able to choose whether or not some can have sex with their lifeless corpse.
I know this might seem like a flippant question, but it goes well beyond necrophilia. Should a person be allowed to grant any access they choose to their corpse following death? We already deal in organ donation following death, as well as donations to scientific studies. Should there be a limit on what's available to do with one's corpse, and if so, where should the line be drawn?

This is beyond creepy, I really hope you are trolling.

This is a legit interest for some people.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 12:19:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Should a person be allowed to grant any access they choose to their corpse following death?"

Yes.

Good thread.... though I kinda doubt many will oppose this. A dead body is an inanimate object so.... who cares?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 12:27:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 12:19:07 AM, Oryus wrote:
"Should a person be allowed to grant any access they choose to their corpse following death?"

Yes.

Good thread.... though I kinda doubt many will oppose this. A dead body is an inanimate object so.... who cares?

Public health might be an issue. Though ultimately there's just a social unease (for whatever reason) with the entire issue.
Debate.org Moderator
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 12:31:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 12:27:07 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/8/2013 12:19:07 AM, Oryus wrote:
"Should a person be allowed to grant any access they choose to their corpse following death?"

Yes.

Good thread.... though I kinda doubt many will oppose this. A dead body is an inanimate object so.... who cares?

Public health might be an issue.

How?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 12:36:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 12:31:22 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 7/8/2013 12:27:07 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/8/2013 12:19:07 AM, Oryus wrote:
"Should a person be allowed to grant any access they choose to their corpse following death?"

Yes.

Good thread.... though I kinda doubt many will oppose this. A dead body is an inanimate object so.... who cares?

Public health might be an issue.

How?

Well if everyone is toting around bodies as sex toys some are bound to rot.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 12:42:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 12:36:39 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/8/2013 12:31:22 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 7/8/2013 12:27:07 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/8/2013 12:19:07 AM, Oryus wrote:
"Should a person be allowed to grant any access they choose to their corpse following death?"

Yes.

Good thread.... though I kinda doubt many will oppose this. A dead body is an inanimate object so.... who cares?

Public health might be an issue.

How?

Well if everyone is toting around bodies as sex toys some are bound to rot.

Still, things rot all the time and they're dealt with... why not human bodies?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 1:07:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 12:42:06 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 7/8/2013 12:36:39 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/8/2013 12:31:22 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 7/8/2013 12:27:07 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/8/2013 12:19:07 AM, Oryus wrote:
"Should a person be allowed to grant any access they choose to their corpse following death?"

Yes.

Good thread.... though I kinda doubt many will oppose this. A dead body is an inanimate object so.... who cares?

Public health might be an issue.

How?

Well if everyone is toting around bodies as sex toys some are bound to rot.

Still, things rot all the time and they're dealt with... why not human bodies?

The more I think about it the more I believe it may be overstated. Though anyone should have a big fridge around to prevent bacteria and other nasty elements from manifesting in their living area, which could be a problem.

There's also a mental health issue associated with necrophilia, though it'd be difficult to objectively say what is a normal "fetish" and what goes beyond that. Certainly some we could define as mentally unbalanced, Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dhamer for example, had necrophilia as part of their motivations. But beyond that I'm not sure I'd be easy to say there is an inherent problem with it otherwise.

There are plenty of psychiatrists and psychologists who have written much on the topic, and there isn't a consensus on how we should view it socially. Obviously there is a natural stigma to it, but that seems to be from religious/spiritual aspects, and are certainly not objective nor take into account any modern scientific view on the matter.

So ultimately i don't know what to think about it, or know if I have any direct objection to it. I'll have to give it some more thought.
Debate.org Moderator
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 2:36:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The position one takes on this issue of the "rights" of the dead (assuming, of course, that the person in question is consistent and does not contradict themselves) is no different than the position one would take on the rights of the living. If one recognizes that man has the right to make decisions that affect his own property (but not the property of others, lest the person committing this violation of property rights has his own rights stripped away from him), one recognizes the right for man to form contracts; he must allow a man to form bonds based on mutually agreed upon terms. These contracts do not have to involve life at all, except for the life within the two agreeing to the contract. There is no reason to distinguish between living and nonliving things, as long as any living things involved do not have their rights violated by the actions that would directly result from the contract.

Death results in the shutdown of all mental activities within the brain, including those that are required in order to have rights. Thus, if a dead man did not specify what he wanted to do with the body after death, the choice of the course of action should be left up to someone who is capable of making the decision (not necessarily family, as once the child reaches the age at which he can rationally consent to contracts he is no longer property (though he may reinstate the ties to his family if he so desires)). The man, had he not made plans, essentially consented to whatever others desired, as dead men cannot claim to have rights (in cases when a living man makes plans for what will happen after his death, the dead man still has no rights. It is only the will of the cadaver as it was in its living state that would prevent others from doing as they please, not anything inherent to the body itself.)

If one wished, before death, that his body should be given to a certain person for certain purposes, it would be no different than one stating that he will hand money over if he dies. This can be broken down into the following form: If he does, in fact, die, he should give the entity he is dealing with the money that was agreed upon (through means other than the corpse rising to deliver the money, obviously). If he does not die, he is not obligated to give that entity anything (unless, of course, a separate contract was signed). Since the owner of the property with which the contract would be dealing with was able to consent and did do so, that consent is unwavering. It does not dissipate as soon as he dies. The present state of things does not change what the state of things was in the past, when the contract was agreed upon. Just as a log is not living, a corpse is not living, but the contracts signed by the rightful owner of these objects are not affected by that fact.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 2:49:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Certainly some we could define as mentally unbalanced, Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dhamer for example, had necrophilia as part of their motivations. But beyond that I'm not sure I'd be easy to say there is an inherent problem with it otherwise.

They both ate food, too. That must make the consumption of food immoral.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 3:02:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 2:49:34 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Certainly some we could define as mentally unbalanced, Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dhamer for example, had necrophilia as part of their motivations. But beyond that I'm not sure I'd be easy to say there is an inherent problem with it otherwise.

They both ate food, too. That must make the consumption of food immoral.

haha I don't think I mentioned anything about morality. I was simply alluding to the possibility of necrophilia and other anti-social behavior, and questioning the mental stability of its regular adherents. Though I also pointed out there was no consensus among scientists regarding it, so tempered what anyone should take from that.

Even in what you quoted me on I said that it wouldn't be easy to say there was an inherent problem with it. I simply pointed to two sociopaths who suffered from severe mental illness and who partook in necrophilia, that's all.

There just aren't enough case studies on the behavior that I know of, and well known necrophiliacs tend to be psychopaths like the above. This doesn't mean anything, like I said, just that beyond looking at this from a "rights issue" as you have, it is probably also important for us as a society to take a look at it from a mental health perspective, of which I am not qualified to speak on.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 3:05:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 2:49:34 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Certainly some we could define as mentally unbalanced, Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dhamer for example, had necrophilia as part of their motivations. But beyond that I'm not sure I'd be easy to say there is an inherent problem with it otherwise.

They both ate food, too. That must make the consumption of food immoral.

Also you made the assumption that I would assume their behavior in general was immoral. I don't think I have ever made an "argument from morality" once in the forums. I've said many time before that morality is so entirely subjective as to be meaningless as a method to argue from.
Debate.org Moderator
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 3:12:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 3:02:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/8/2013 2:49:34 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Certainly some we could define as mentally unbalanced, Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dhamer for example, had necrophilia as part of their motivations. But beyond that I'm not sure I'd be easy to say there is an inherent problem with it otherwise.

They both ate food, too. That must make the consumption of food immoral.

haha I don't think I mentioned anything about morality. I was simply alluding to the possibility of necrophilia and other anti-social behavior, and questioning the mental stability of its regular adherents. Though I also pointed out there was no consensus among scientists regarding it, so tempered what anyone should take from that.

Even in what you quoted me on I said that it wouldn't be easy to say there was an inherent problem with it. I simply pointed to two sociopaths who suffered from severe mental illness and who partook in necrophilia, that's all.

I must have misinterpreted the bolded as you claiming that there was an inherent problem with necrophillia because of the two people you mentioned.

There just aren't enough case studies on the behavior that I know of, and well known necrophiliacs tend to be psychopaths like the above. This doesn't mean anything, like I said, just that beyond looking at this from a "rights issue" as you have, it is probably also important for us as a society to take a look at it from a mental health perspective, of which I am not qualified to speak on.

What do you mean by this?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 3:16:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 3:05:54 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/8/2013 2:49:34 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Certainly some we could define as mentally unbalanced, Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dhamer for example, had necrophilia as part of their motivations. But beyond that I'm not sure I'd be easy to say there is an inherent problem with it otherwise.

They both ate food, too. That must make the consumption of food immoral.

Also you made the assumption that I would assume their behavior in general was immoral. I don't think I have ever made an "argument from morality" once in the forums. I've said many time before that morality is so entirely subjective as to be meaningless as a method to argue from.

It seemed like you were implying that, if certain things about necrophilia would cause problems, it shouldn't be allowed. What basis can claims about what should and should not be allowed rest on, other than morality? After all, if you do not believe that necrophilia is right or wrong, why would the implications of its practice and legal status be of concern?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 3:23:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I really don't see why Necrophilia should be criminalized in the first place.

What right does a person have to say what is and isn't done to their lifeless corpse after they die? The person is no longer a person. They aren't even a living being. They deserve no more rights than a chair, candlestick, or a cooking pot. Or a dildo/blowup sex doll.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 3:25:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 3:12:22 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 7/8/2013 3:02:38 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/8/2013 2:49:34 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Certainly some we could define as mentally unbalanced, Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dhamer for example, had necrophilia as part of their motivations. But beyond that I'm not sure I'd be easy to say there is an inherent problem with it otherwise.

They both ate food, too. That must make the consumption of food immoral.

haha I don't think I mentioned anything about morality. I was simply alluding to the possibility of necrophilia and other anti-social behavior, and questioning the mental stability of its regular adherents. Though I also pointed out there was no consensus among scientists regarding it, so tempered what anyone should take from that.

Even in what you quoted me on I said that it wouldn't be easy to say there was an inherent problem with it. I simply pointed to two sociopaths who suffered from severe mental illness and who partook in necrophilia, that's all.

I must have misinterpreted the bolded as you claiming that there was an inherent problem with necrophillia because of the two people you mentioned.

I don't think I was clear, so it's understandable.

There just aren't enough case studies on the behavior that I know of, and well known necrophiliacs tend to be psychopaths like the above. This doesn't mean anything, like I said, just that beyond looking at this from a "rights issue" as you have, it is probably also important for us as a society to take a look at it from a mental health perspective, of which I am not qualified to speak on.

What do you mean by this?

I say this with a lack of understanding in the general field, so bear with me. There are certain sexual activities we can dismiss as simple fetishes that have no consequence to the individual exploring them and delving deeper into them. Fetishes in which there are no greater psychological implications that imply something possibly "wrong" with the individual. These things are just a preference and add perfectly healthy additional stimuli to other perfectly healthy behavior.

On the other hand, there are "fetishes" that come from instances of "psychological damage". Having a fetish for young children most would agree would be a problem that we should discourage. By socially allowing individuals to explore this "fetish" and delve deeper into it there are problems it creates both within society and psychologically for that individual. I'm not making any judgement on any particular "fetish", but if someone has a fetish for murdering people and then cooking them and eating them we should probably discourage that. By not doing so, this type of person may not seek treatment for something "abnormal" by many standards.

Things like that don't just manifest over night though. They often come from the continuing exploration of particular "fetishes" until they get to that point. So while something can be innocent enough at first, they can materialize into something more sinister. I'd say with a lack of clear understanding of it that this is possible with sexuality related to pain, or causing pain to others. If someone in the latter situation is encouraged by society to do this outside the consent and privacy of their own home, it may manifest itself to the point of extreme anti-social behavior.

So while I am not yet condoning or condemning necrophilia in any way, I think before society deems it something we should accept as simply the "fetish" of another, we should explore the root causes of such a desire and determine if making it a social norm could have detrimental effects on the psyche of those who are pursuing it.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 3:28:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 3:16:06 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 7/8/2013 3:05:54 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/8/2013 2:49:34 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Certainly some we could define as mentally unbalanced, Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dhamer for example, had necrophilia as part of their motivations. But beyond that I'm not sure I'd be easy to say there is an inherent problem with it otherwise.

They both ate food, too. That must make the consumption of food immoral.

Also you made the assumption that I would assume their behavior in general was immoral. I don't think I have ever made an "argument from morality" once in the forums. I've said many time before that morality is so entirely subjective as to be meaningless as a method to argue from.

It seemed like you were implying that, if certain things about necrophilia would cause problems, it shouldn't be allowed. What basis can claims about what should and should not be allowed rest on, other than morality? After all, if you do not believe that necrophilia is right or wrong, why would the implications of its practice and legal status be of concern?

I was taking a fairly indifferent position on it. My only concern was understanding the underlying cause that attracts someone to it's practice and determining if it was healthy behavior.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 3:30:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 3:28:36 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/8/2013 3:16:06 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 7/8/2013 3:05:54 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/8/2013 2:49:34 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Certainly some we could define as mentally unbalanced, Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dhamer for example, had necrophilia as part of their motivations. But beyond that I'm not sure I'd be easy to say there is an inherent problem with it otherwise.

They both ate food, too. That must make the consumption of food immoral.

Also you made the assumption that I would assume their behavior in general was immoral. I don't think I have ever made an "argument from morality" once in the forums. I've said many time before that morality is so entirely subjective as to be meaningless as a method to argue from.

It seemed like you were implying that, if certain things about necrophilia would cause problems, it shouldn't be allowed. What basis can claims about what should and should not be allowed rest on, other than morality? After all, if you do not believe that necrophilia is right or wrong, why would the implications of its practice and legal status be of concern?

I was taking a fairly indifferent position on it. My only concern was understanding the underlying cause that attracts someone to it's practice and determining if it was healthy behavior.

I'll add that people engage in unhealthy behavior all the time and this isn't what necessarily determines legal or not, so I wasn't taking a position on the legality of it either.
Debate.org Moderator
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 5:25:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Louis CK did a joke about this, I am sure that's where this topic originated
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 12:25:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would like to put out this idea:

Do you have rights to your body after you vacate?

I mean does signing your body away to science in life really carry over after you die? I mean we respect that but is it an actual right? And if not, who does have the right to designate what happens to bodies? The family? Health organizations?

Just food for thought.
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 2:21:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 12:25:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I would like to put out this idea:

Do you have rights to your body after you vacate?

I mean does signing your body away to science in life really carry over after you die? I mean we respect that but is it an actual right? And if not, who does have the right to designate what happens to bodies? The family? Health organizations?

Just food for thought.

See my above post. I don't think it's a right at all, and I think for anyone to consider it a right to be silly. Can it be something done out of respect? Sure. But a "right"? Ridiculous.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 2:58:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 12:25:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I would like to put out this idea:

Do you have rights to your body after you vacate?

I mean does signing your body away to science in life really carry over after you die? I mean we respect that but is it an actual right? And if not, who does have the right to designate what happens to bodies? The family? Health organizations?

Just food for thought.

I think that's predicated on the idea that a person/the mind is entirely separate from his/her body, which is in and of itself an entire philosophical debate with schools on either side.

The reason why that's kind of a big deal is because if, as you say, we "vacate" our body upon death, then it would be more likely that we DON'T have a right to sovereignty over it. However, if we adopt a more compatibalist/naturalist view that either a) the mind is separate, but absolutely connected to and dependent upon the body, or b) the mind is completely a result of the physical and chemical aspects of a body, one will be more inclined to extend sovereignty past death.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 3:33:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 2:58:26 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/8/2013 12:25:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I would like to put out this idea:

Do you have rights to your body after you vacate?

I mean does signing your body away to science in life really carry over after you die? I mean we respect that but is it an actual right? And if not, who does have the right to designate what happens to bodies? The family? Health organizations?

Just food for thought.

I think that's predicated on the idea that a person/the mind is entirely separate from his/her body, which is in and of itself an entire philosophical debate with schools on either side.

The reason why that's kind of a big deal is because if, as you say, we "vacate" our body upon death, then it would be more likely that we DON'T have a right to sovereignty over it. However, if we adopt a more compatibalist/naturalist view that either a) the mind is separate, but absolutely connected to and dependent upon the body, or b) the mind is completely a result of the physical and chemical aspects of a body, one will be more inclined to extend sovereignty past death.

Good answer. I didn't realize that I had broached such a heavy topic. I forgot that there is a whole field of philosophy dedicated to relationship between mind and body.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 12:54:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I could see this turning into a business model. People get payed to have their body donated to a necro-sex-house after they die.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord