In several posts, I have wondered what the fuss was all about in the case of the German cannibal. The bloke he ate volunteered to be eaten and even participated in eating his own penis. Well, now the case is being made by some for consensual cannibalism to be decriminalised. I think I must agree with the concept. Why should the court waste time in prosecuting consenting adults when there are crimes of a non-censensual nature that are far worse?
My posts on the subject have not only produced a decent amount of hits for the site but several less than complimentary comments. I will grant you that it is hard to fathom why anyone would volunteer to be cooked for dinner. But then again, there is a great deal of human activity I don't quite understand. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you should have it banned, especially if that activity does not affect you personally.
After all what is wrong with a bit of cannibalism between friends?
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
From a legal standpoint, I don't care all that much about people eating other people WHO ARE ALREADY DEAD, who had agreed to be eaten. But otherwise it's a murder/suicide: how can we condone that under any circumstances?
2 - Andrew Ian Dodge
Why is murder/suicide wrong between consenting adults? Surely there are enough non-consensual suicides to keep the murder investigators busy enough?
3 - Eric Olsen
That's a line I don't think we can cross by giving it official sanction. I'm not even in favor of assisted suicide. Although I am pro-choise for practical reasons, I am otherwise adamantly behind the "sanctity of life": anti-death penalty, anti-assisted suicide, anti-suicide.
I don't think it's okay for you to kill me just because I say it's okay. What if I am insane? In fact, that's pretty much a definition of insane.
I have no problem with government intervening to prevent such things - or at least to officially prohibit them.