In this life, all we have are our bodies. They serve as means of transportation for us to do whatever we may choose in our time on earth. After we die, our souls, which are really what we are, leave our bodies, making them useless. Wouldn't it be gratifying to know that after you die, your body is being used to save the less fortunate from an untimely death? From beyond the grave, your legacy can shine on because it was you who donated your body to be used as a food source to help the less fortunate. Instead of allowing bodies to decompose and be burnt as a way to "respect" the dead, preserving lives would be a much more beneficial use. What makes the body animate is gone, so why not feed the hungry?
On this earth, all we have are our bodies. They serve as our means of transportation around the world to do whatever we may choose to. After we die, the bodies become useless, as they are just vessels that harbor our souls during our stay on the planet. Wouldn't it be gratifying to know that your body was helping humanity after you were to leave this life? There is absolutely nothing you can do to benefit society after dying, so donating your body to feed the less fortunate would not only save lives, but it would provide the donor with an ongoing legacy. After what we really are leave our bodies, does it really matter if the body decomposes or is burnt?
Dead bodies are just in the ground rotting. There could be many more uses for the body. You could send the meat to starving people in third world countries. We are not murdering people to eat them. We would just use dead bodies. I don't see why we couldn't use the bodies of people if they are just going to be buried in the ground for hundreds of years or burned to ashes. And, if we have all of this wonderful technology and agriculture, why aren't we using it to help starving people?
It seems to me that if eating other animals isn't condemned as wrong by mass populations, why not humans. Additionally, if organ donning is giving your body to others to help the, is cannibalism not the same? Overall, I hope this method is implemented more often in humanitarian aid programs.
There are better ways! We have agriculture and are not barbaric cave people. We also have all kinds of technology available at our fingertips. There are resources that do not involve murdering other people. I would not like a plot out of a horror movie to be considered as a solution to anything. Also, kuru would become a widespread disease, rather than being confined only to a cannibalistic tribe in Papua New Guinea. Kuru means a horrible agonizing death. It's like the human version of mad cow. Cannibalism among cows was what created mad cow disease in the first place. There are parts of cow brains and spinal tissue that are given to other cows in their feed. We are civilized and intelligent, and do not want to become diseased barbarians. If we eat each other, there will ultimately be none of us left, leading to the extinction of the human race. No good can come of this.
Cannabilism is never a good idea. Mainly because being a practicing cannibal
requires eating large amounts of human flesh.
Cannibalism is morally wrong. I
believe that the practice of cannibalism will always eventually lead to murder. Murder is the only way that practicing
cannibals will be able to obtain the amount of human flesh they require.
Not only is it morally wrong to eat a person, it is illegal. Even if you have some to donate their body after death, you would have to find people who morally word. Also, the person who donates their body is some body's loved one. I wouldn't want anyone to eat my grandmother.