Consensual Necrophilia

Resolved: Consensual Necrophilia should be allowed NEG I would like to start my argument by emphasizing the point made in the second paragraph of my opponent’s opening remarks, and asking that all personal bias be laid aside by the voting community; that they make their decisions based upon the validity of the arguments presented. That being said, I shall proceed by first providing my response to my opponents statement, then introducing the basic argument behind disallowing “consensual necrophilia”. Response: My opponent has introduced a logically sound and self-contained argument in the above statement, and I take no issue with any facts or conclusions drawn within these arguments. Unfortunately, the ideas presented in no way support the actual topic being debated today. What has been presented here is a well laid out argument that “consensual” necrophilia would operate in a commensalistic manner with society, providing benefit to the individual and enacting no harm upon society. Again, I take no issue with this finding. Contentions: The problem that we face in this debate is almost wholly the issue of consent. For a frame of reference, let us see what the the denotation of this word is in the eye’s of West's Encyclopedia of American Law: “Consent is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another. Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers…There must be a choice between resistance and acquiescence.” West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. (full excerpt available here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...) When we understand the full meaning of consent in the legal sense, we can start the journey towards understand why “consensual necrophilia” should be disallowed. Our definition tells us that for consent to exist, a person must “posess[es] and exercise[s] sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision” (West’s). It must be found self-evident that a deceased person is not of stated mental capacity, and therefore does not possess the capability of extending their consent. At first glance, it may seem that this particular moral quandary might be resolved by the policy outline that clear, written consent must be given and verified before the expiration of the individual in question. Under further scrutiny, this claim can not be born out. The issue arises when we see that “there must be a choice between resistance and acquiescence” (West’s). While alive, a person can provide full consent. Part of their capacity to do this (in the legal sense, remember) lies in the fact that this “choice” constantly remains at their discretion. Consent is a situational statement, and the courts have shown numerous times (cases provided upon request) that consent can be withdrawn based upon changes in situation. This ability to withdraw consent is a main tenet of the law behind the matter, and is NOT present in the deceased. Upon death, the individual no longer is capable of withdrawing their consent if they would choose, and therefore is not capable of providing consent any longer. Regardless of whether that consent had been provided previously or not, it is negated when that “choice between resistance and acquiescence” is removed. What my opponent has laid out might fit under the idea of “contractual necrophilia” but it is in no way “consensual”. Now that we have been able to show that necrophilia is inherently non-consensual, we must come to understand why it must be disallowed. Remember, having ceded my opponents points, I must agree that the act itself would still be non-harmful to society, but potentially beneficial to the individual. It is here that we must acknowledge that regardless of the effects of this particular act, the laws around consent (sexual or otherwise) are beneficial to society, and having a clear picture of the term helps us to live in harmony and prosperity. If we are to allow inherently non-consensual acts to be performed, then we call into question the entire structure of consent, which would not be beneficial. So, regardless of its effects on the individual, the net effect of this policy would be negative towards society. We can all logically conclude, then, that it is best for us to NEGATE the resolution. Thank you and I look forward to my opponents refutation.