Consensual Necrophilia

I'll start out by thanking my opponent for engaging me in this debate. We've had a short conversation by email about this topic that I'm sure will expand into a very intriguing debate, and I know Jifpop will bring his A-game. I know I have an uphill battle to fight here because there are likely very few people on this site who don't find necrophilia abhorrent. Most of the people who read this topic are likely going to have a very strong response to it from the outset " the thought of having sex with a corpse is inherently disturbing to most of the population. However, what everyone who reads this must recognize is that I am not discussing anything that requires that anyone engage in this practice. My argument is not supporting practicing necrophilia in public - it remains a private act, just as any sexual act would be. I have simply created a system whereby consent can be acquired from the person whose corpse is to be used. As such, this does not increase the incidence of necrophilia, it simply affords necrophiliacs a legal, safe route for engaging in their fetish. The burden of proof in this debate is shared. It is my burden to provide substantive reasons why the practice of consensual necrophilia should become legal, thus I must provide a clear justification (or set of justifications) for why the practice is beneficial to individuals and society at large. It is my opponent's burden to clarify the harms of the practice, and justify its continued illegality. The reasons I take the Pro side of this debate are all detailed in Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. What does this hierarchy look like? http://upload.wikimedia.org...... At the bottom is the physiological needs, most basic to our survival. Above that is the need for safety and security, which is also among our most basic needs, protecting those above it. Let's talk about these first. The basic physiological needs can be obtained by any individual who is capable of their own continued survival. These aren't affected by our sexual tendencies, as they are a basic component of our lives. Safety is at least partially involved. While aspects like shelter and stability aren't affected, we can look at safety from the perspective of what happens to the humans involved in this necrophilia. In the status quo, they are attracted to corpses, but have no legal recourse for expressing that attraction. They cannot acquire the permission of the person whose corpse will be used, thus violating both that person's property rights to their corpse after death, and the property rights of their families to that corpse and its well-being. Everyone who engages in this act is automatically engaging in criminal behavior, and that criminality places them in the shadows of society. This relegates them to the fringes of society, and it is in those fringes that they are more likely to commit other criminal acts, thus affecting the safety of others. In general, this status also reduces their sense of belonging, though I will get to that more on the higher needs. The remaining three needs - love, self-esteem, and self-actualization - are a little less basic, but no less necessary. Maslow refers to the bottom four layers as "deficiency needs," which, if not met, cause anxiety and tension. Let's look at love. Really, what this boils down to is a feeling of belongingness (apparently not a made up word!). This really establishes an individual's ability to form and maintain emotionally significant relationships in general. Whether this involves a friendship, familial relationship, or intimate relationship, that sense of belonging is necessary in order to form them in any lasting sense. A person who feels that their actions are being actively put down by society, whether in the legal or social sense, does not feel any sense of belonging in that society. Now, my point here is not to state that these people would all be engaging in every sort of relationship if this type of law were implemented. Nor am I saying that all individuals involved in this practice are going to be perfectly well off in these relationships as a result of such a policy. However, acceptance in society, to any extent, will make a big difference in terms of how these people interact with the society around them. It will reduce their sense of loneliness, social anxiety, and clinical depression, and as such improve their interactions with those around them. Society doesn't need to actively condone their acts in order for them to feel more a part of that society. Onto esteem. All humans have a need to feel respected, not just by themselves, but by society at large. You must be both accepted and valued by others. Gaining recognition is an important part of this process, and in order to be recognized, a person will often go to great lengths in their work or hobbies. This produces a sense of value in society. Esteem is removed completely when the legal structure disallows their actions. They are not accepted by society. They are not valued. This leads to low self-esteem, or even an inferiority complex, where a person is plagued by doubt and uncertainty. In this case, they would most certainly feel that they don't measure up to society's standards. As this attraction is involuntary, there is no way for them to alter it, and therefore they will always feel that they are socially inferior, even if they don't engage in the behavior itself. Lastly, self-actualization. Maslow described this best: "What a man can be, he must be. This need we may call self-actualization...It refers to the desire for self-fulfillment, namely, to the tendency for him to become actualized in what he is potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming." A variety of people express this very differently. A person may have a strong desire to express themselves as a dancer. Another may require the production of children in order to be self-actualized. To be self-actualized, one must master the previous levels on the pyramid. In essence, someone who is incapable of obtaining esteem, love or security cannot ever reach the point of self-actualization. Necrophiliacs cannot under current laws ever become self-actualized. They can never fulfill their full potential as their potential is actively denied by a society that deems their actions as being so unreasonable as to be illegal. As such, they will always fall short. These people can never be self-actualized. This means that none of the benefits of self-actualization are available to them. The list is extensive: Efficient perceptions of reality (judge situations correctly and honestly) Comfortable acceptance of self, others and nature (accepting of their own human nature with its flaws) Reliant on own experiences and judgment (independent) Spontaneous and natural (true to oneself) Task centering (having a mission to fulfill in life that goes beyond oneself) Autonomy (resourceful and independent) Continued freshness of appreciation (renewed appreciation of life's basic goods) Profound interpersonal relationships (marked by deep loving bonds) Comfort with solitude Non-hostile sense of humor (the ability to laugh at oneself) Peak experiences (ecstasy, harmony, deep meaning) Socially compassionate Few close intimate friends rather than many surface relationships These are all characteristics that are valued by the majority of humanity " hence, we tend to view those who achieve them as being role models. Everyone should be provided the best opportunity available in order to reach the point of self-actualization, and thus, we should not deny opportunities when they do no harm to society at large or to any individuals beyond themselves. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca...... http://psychology.about.com...... http://www.businessballs.com...... (Just a note, since these references are sort of interspersed through my arguments, I haven't numbered the specific locations where they reside. I apologize for any confusion this causes) Alright, that's my case. While I'm tempted to provide some rebuttal to issues I'm likely to see, I will leave it to my opponent to establish his case and rebut mine.