Cannibalism
There are lots of things that some people have a problem with that don’t bother me at all, even though I wouldn’t do them myself: gay sex, body piercing, first-trimester abortion, smoking marijuana, and promiscuity with careful protection, for instance. There are lots of things that I don’t personally approve of but don’t think should be illegal, such as heroin use, cigarette smoking, extreme body modification, Abrahamic religion, and S&M. There are even things involving death that fall into the latter category for me, such as suicide and properly documented euthanasia. I think the resources of society should be extended to help these people, should they want it, but in the end I believe people have a right to their own bodies and minds. But surely — surely — we have to have a law against one man offering himself for sacrifice and another man killing and eating him. Right? I mean — right?
Problem is, I can’t figure out how to justify this. If suicide is OK, and meat-eating is OK, and hurting and killing another person with his or her consent is OK, why is this behaviour different? Why am I so viciously opposed to this? Some people will surely claim this points to a failure of a life lived without a God-given moral code, so if you want to post and say something like this, that’s fine, go ahead. If you want to post a non-answer, such as “How can you approve of those things in the first list?” or “How can you oppose the things in the second list?” that’s fine, too. But I’m really hoping some fellow extreme lefties among my readers (Dave? Becca?) will help me tackle this. Is there something unique about human slaughter and human cannibalism among “consenting adults” (let’s be really clear here, there’s no way we’re not talking about severely fucked-up people with significant mental health problems) that makes it worthy of legislation, or do I need to bite the bullet and say that if people are free to their own bodies, they’re free to do this as well?
Email subscription
