FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Necrophilia Next on the Agenda - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Piazza (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Secular News, Politics, & Social Issues (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+--- Thread: Necrophilia Next on the Agenda (/showthread.php?tid=80450)

Pages: 1 2


Necrophilia Next on the Agenda - VoxClamantis - 12-07-2017

From LifeNews:




Bioethicist Says Sex With the Dead is OK, Diminishes Respect for Human Life
OPINION   WESLEY SMITH   DEC 4, 2017   |   7:55PM    WASHINGTON, DC


Opponents of human exceptionalism work overtime to normalize or OK behavior long deemed inherently wrong.


The latest example appears in Big Think, where a South African bioethicist named Tauriq Moosa argues that copulating with the dead should not be considered immoral.

Moosa correctly believes that respecting the dead flows from believing that human beings have unique value.
 
But as a denier of human exceptionalism, he doesn’t, and hence, does not think that necrophilia should be considered a big deal. From, “Is Necrophilia Wrong?”

Quote:The first opposition to necrophilia then is about, as we’ve seen, ‘abusing’ or disrespecting the dead. But the reason we ought to be upset by someone violating a dead loved one is not because it will offend the deceased, but because it offends us. Our dead loved ones become, essentially, property.

Just as we wouldn’t want someone breaking into our home and making a concubine of our toaster, we would not want the same for the bodies of our deceased loved ones.

Their memory is not violated, only the corpse which once housed their living selves, personality, or whatever. Thus, we can condemn necrophilia but we should get rid of the term and simply call it property violation. There is nothing special about a dead human body.

No. The corpse of my mother was not akin to a toaster.  It was an icon of her–expressing the truth both of who and what she was.

Using her body in disrespectful ways would have been to denigrate her as a once living being. It would be to say that her remains were of no greater meaning than that of a roadkill squirrel’s. It would also imply that her life wasn’t either.

Deconstructing moral boundaries such as the prohibition against necrophilia–often sniffed at by advocates such as Moosa as mere “taboos”–could lead to all manner of degrading and perverted behaviors banned precisely because society accepts the intrinsic and unique value of human life.

For example, cannibalism could be justified by the same arguments made by Moosa to yawn at necrophilia. Soylent Green is people!


Vox Wrote:There really is no argument to prohibit such a thing in the sort of world materialists see. Nothing. (well, aside from eating brain matter, with the prion diseases and such).

 
Also, if our dead are just so much inanimate material without any moral meaning, why not display human cadavers as art–even in pornographic poses? Apparently, no reason at all. Illustrating the slowly creeping nihilism and decadence infecting our culture, that very degenerate exhibit toured internationally to wide acclaim–even though it is widely suspected that the dead art objects were the bodies of executed Falon Gong political prisoners.

Vox Wrote:I can't speak to the degeneracy of the particular exhibit being written about there, but think that the mere display of the human body for scientific purposes is not a bad thing at all. Displaying plastinated bodies in poses that show them having sex is obviously disgusting, but anatomical displays are very important and educational. They don't have to involve degradation at all (in fact, when i volunteered at a medical museum, I'd often say prayers for those whose skeletons were on display).

And where are the lines when it comes to display and art without purely scientific purpose? For ex., what about the Sedlec Ossuary chapel? The display of relics?
 
Unsurprisingly, Moosa connects his human-denigrating values with an assertion that euthanasia and abortion are morally inconsequential:

Quote:So much backward thinking continues, such as unrelenting stances against euthanasia, organ donation and abortion, because of the idea that humans are special beings with some kind of cosmically significant purpose.

Even when we are discussing adults being able to do what they want with their bodies – whether it’s donating organs or taking their own lives – very strong opposition exists almost solely resting on the belief that humans are “special” beings.
 
Do you see how antiseptic and abandoning this could become? Do you see how it could deleteriously impact the living as well as the bodies of the dead?

Anti-human exceptionalism is also dangerous. As a book reviewer of a Darwin biography put it, when promulgating a purely materialistic and reductionist view of human life:

Quote:For ultimately, if animals and plants are the result of impersonal, immutable forces, she observes, then “the natural world has no moral validity or purpose.” We are all of us, dogs and barnacles, pigeons and crabgrass, the same in the eyes of nature, equally remarkable and equally dispensable.

That last word is the key.


Vox Wrote:Hey, man, a rat is a pg is a dog is a boy, the cognoscenti say.
 
Treating the dead with respect not only values the “who” of the deceased in life, but extols the unique importance of humanity itself.

We reject that fundamental insight at our own peril. For if we ever come to see ourselves as just another animal in the forest, that is precisely how we will act.
 
LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism.


RE: Necrophilia Next on the Agenda - austenbosten - 12-07-2017

And this is why I've long been an advocate of European imperialism over Africa.  The absolute hell-hole that Africa has been for decades, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabee, Rwanda, Sudan, the rampant AIDS epidemic, Ebola, now the plague....can anyone still say that it was a good thing to end colonialism of Africa, or unseat those white Africans who sought to preserve respectable nations like Rhodesia and aparthied-South Africa?

Quote:“To those who say derogatory things about colonialism, I would say colonialism is a wonderful thing. It spread civilization to Africa. Before it they had no written language, no wheel as we know it, no schools, no hospitals, not even normal clothing.”
―Ian Smith



RE: Necrophilia Next on the Agenda - Jeeter - 12-07-2017

If this nut job truly feels that humans are “dispensable,” he should feel free to lead by example.

(12-07-2017, 06:47 PM)austenbosten Wrote: And this is why I've long been an advocate of European imperialism over Africa.  The absolute hell-hole that Africa has been for decades, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabee, Rwanda, Sudan, the rampant AIDS epidemic, Ebola, now the plague....can anyone still say that it was a good thing to end colonialism of Africa, or unseat those white Africans who sought to preserve respectable nations like Rhodesia and aparthied-South Africa?

Quote:“To those who say derogatory things about colonialism, I would say colonialism is a wonderful thing. It spread civilization to Africa. Before it they had no written language, no wheel as we know it, no schools, no hospitals, not even normal clothing.”
―Ian Smith

I don’t know. Europe has more than its share of degenerates.


RE: Necrophilia Next on the Agenda - austenbosten - 12-07-2017

(12-07-2017, 06:52 PM)Jeeter Wrote:
(12-07-2017, 06:47 PM)austenbosten Wrote: And this is why I've long been an advocate of European imperialism over Africa.  The absolute hell-hole that Africa has been for decades, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabee, Rwanda, Sudan, the rampant AIDS epidemic, Ebola, now the plague....can anyone still say that it was a good thing to end colonialism of Africa, or unseat those white Africans who sought to preserve respectable nations like Rhodesia and aparthied-South Africa?

I don’t know. Europe has more than its share of degenerates.

I don't think South Africa or Rhodesia would of had the same problems as UK or Germany.


RE: Necrophilia Next on the Agenda - Credidi Propter - 12-07-2017

I could see this very easily morphing into an argument for a so-called “right” to use an incapacitated or vulnerable adult as a sex slave. As with so many things, humanity fails to consider the risks of accepting a newfound convenience. We’ve seen it with no-fault divorce. We’ve seen it with abortion. We’ve seen it with same-sex marriage and the advancement of widespread acceptance of homosexual activity. Before those things, however, we saw it with contraception. Until the world recognizes that evil, other evils will flourish. Places here and there may be more or less strict on the consequences of contraception, but until people are willing to objectively look at that issue again, other efforts will basically be fruitless.


RE: Necrophilia Next on the Agenda - Paul - 12-07-2017

(12-07-2017, 07:22 PM)Credidi Propter Wrote: I could see this very easily morphing into an argument for a so-called “right” to use an incapacitated or vulnerable adult as a sex slave.

If we're just, as that reviewer put it, "all the same in the eyes of nature", then what's wrong with slavery? If people are no different than grass, just some cosmic accident, then why not?

Scary stuff, and it's amazing the lengths some Catholics go to in order to try to reconcile evolution with Adam and Eve. Even though the Church says it's permitted to explore evolution as a hypothesis, the evidence isn't there for it yet. But even if it is true, there's still the soul, not that those who belong to the religion of science believe in anything that can't be measured.


RE: Necrophilia Next on the Agenda - VoxClamantis - 12-07-2017

(12-07-2017, 07:22 PM)Credidi Propter Wrote: I could see this very easily morphing into an argument for a so-called “right” to use an incapacitated or vulnerable adult as a sex slave.

Think about it: the so-called "brain-dead" will end up being pimped out in brothels somewhere in Germany or Amsterdam. There'll be new fetishes involving intubation or whatever. Just imagine the sick things pervs could do with feeding tubes.

(12-07-2017, 08:58 PM)Paul Wrote: If we're just, as that reviewer put it, "all the same in the eyes of nature", then what's wrong with slavery? If people are no different than grass, just some cosmic accident, then why not?

Scary stuff, and it's amazing the lengths some Catholics go to in order to try to reconcile evolution with Adam and Eve. Even though the Church says it's permitted to explore evolution as a hypothesis, the evidence isn't there for it yet. But even if it is true, there's still the soul, not that those who belong to the religion of science believe in anything that can't be measured.

Natural selection, sexual selection, genetic draft, genetic drift, and gene flow are scientific facts. Christians need to be careful when talking about "evolution" to differentiate between the "mechanisms of evolution" and the idea that we came from nothing. Carelessly using the term "evolution" and writing it off altogether without clarification make us look uneducated and leads to more of the "Christians hate science!!!!!" schtik.


RE: Necrophilia Next on the Agenda - Paul - 12-07-2017

(12-07-2017, 10:08 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: Natural selection, sexual selection, genetic draft, genetic drift, and gene flow are scientific facts. Christians need to be careful when talking about "evolution" to differentiate between the "mechanisms of evolution" and the idea that we came from nothing. Carelessly using the term "evolution" and writing it off altogether without clarification make us look uneducated and leads to more of the "Christians hate science!!!!!" schtik.

None of which are the same as "evolution", as in humans coming from apes (or, to be precise, from a common ancestor which was neither human nor ape).

But even that will get you branded as science-hating, even though the scientists still don't have a mechanism for how all this new genetic information gets created, nor how the whole thing got started in the first place.


RE: Necrophilia Next on the Agenda - VoxClamantis - 12-07-2017

(12-07-2017, 10:41 PM)Paul Wrote:
(12-07-2017, 10:08 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: Natural selection, sexual selection, genetic draft, genetic drift, and gene flow are scientific facts. Christians need to be careful when talking about "evolution" to differentiate between the "mechanisms of evolution" and the idea that we came from nothing. Carelessly using the term "evolution" and writing it off altogether without clarification make us look uneducated and leads to more of the "Christians hate science!!!!!" schtik.

None of which are the same as "evolution", as in humans coming from apes (or, to be precise, from a common ancestor which was neither human nor ape).

But even that will get you branded as science-hating, even though the scientists still don't have a mechanism for how all this new genetic information gets created, nor how the whole thing got started in the first place.

But that's the thing: Wikipedia gives this as the definition of "evolution": "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." IF that's the definition, then "evolution" is a fact, KWIM? That's why I think Catholics should be extremely clear when using the word. Failure to do so results in the secular type accusing us of "hating science" or being "stupid" about science, and then their throwing out facts involving the aforementioned mechanisms, none of which we'd deny in the first place. I think we should beat them to the punch, define what we mean by "evolution" very clearly (conceding the term if they use Wikipedia's definition of it), affirm the facts of genetic drift and draft, natural and sexual selection, and gene flow, etc., and then leave them with no ammunition, getting back to the matter of origins which they can't win.


RE: Necrophilia Next on the Agenda - Sacred Heart lover - 12-08-2017

(12-07-2017, 10:47 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
(12-07-2017, 10:41 PM)Paul Wrote:
(12-07-2017, 10:08 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: Natural selection, sexual selection, genetic draft, genetic drift, and gene flow are scientific facts. Christians need to be careful when talking about "evolution" to differentiate between the "mechanisms of evolution" and the idea that we came from nothing. Carelessly using the term "evolution" and writing it off altogether without clarification make us look uneducated and leads to more of the "Christians hate science!!!!!" schtik.

None of which are the same as "evolution", as in humans coming from apes (or, to be precise, from a common ancestor which was neither human nor ape).

But even that will get you branded as science-hating, even though the scientists still don't have a mechanism for how all this new genetic information gets created, nor how the whole thing got started in the first place.

But that's the thing: Wikipedia gives this as the definition of "evolution": "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." IF that's the definition, then "evolution" is a fact, KWIM? That's why I think Catholics should be extremely clear when using the word. Failure to do so results in the secular type accusing us of "hating science" or being "stupid" about science, and then their throwing out facts involving the aforementioned mechanisms, none of which we'd deny in the first place. I think we should beat them to the punch, define what we mean by "evolution" very clearly (conceding the term if they use Wikipedia's definition of it), affirm the facts of genetic drift and draft, natural and sexual selection, and gene flow, etc., and then leave them with no ammunition, getting back to the matter of origins which they can't win.

I agree.  I believe it's referred to macro-evolution vs. micro-evolution.