Consensual Necrophilia

Case 4: Health ImplicationsThe health issues that can be caused by necrophillia far outweigh any arguments my opponent can make.P1: While this risk may appear minor, it most certainly exists. Dead bodies can transmit airborne diceases, a key real risk of pandemic. While this can be prevented by trained professionals, I doubt that most necrophilliacs have the status to prevent this from effecting others. Should we risk harming citizens so a few people can satisfy their rare fetish? It takes a great amount of trust to require someone to handle a dead body, which is why it is illegal in nearly every country. According to the National Health Institute, airborne diceases are more likely with dead bodies as their hardened skin allows in pathogens easier. Please people, we had a reason for only allowing professionals to handle dead bodies.My opponent proposes a fix to this by refrigerating the body, which is great and all, but unless these necrophiliacs own a high tech freezer, that body is going to cause harm. Even with todays technology, their is just way to much risk and trust involved, and this can be screwed up a million ways without professional supervision. The fetish not only harms him, but others.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...P2: One thing my opponent should realize by being a microbiologist, is that you should NEVER touch something dead without gloves. You will catch dicease. Now my opponent probably suggests wearing a condom (even know women would have nothing), it is just not reliable enough. This is a major public health concern. I will restate, only people with medical training should touch dead bodies.http://publications.paho.org...Case 5: It spurs more crimeWhile the liberal argument that allowing people to come out decreases crime is something I agree with, I don't here. I don't know how much my opponent knows about Necrophilia, but he does recognize that the body can only be used for a week. This also means he recognizes that after the body limit expires, the necrophilliac is left lacking a source for his fetish. By legalizing his fetish, we just paved a way for him to illegaly commit this crime. We all know that drugs are addictive, but so is sex, and the only way for necrophiliacs to get more is if they kill. By criminalizing the root, we can destroy the results of the stem they produce.Cut off the head to kill the snake, how the old saying goes. Another thing my opponent seems to not realize, is that necrophilliacs can only use the body for 6 to 12 hours. It will litterally stifen whether its refrigerated or not, which is why most necrophilliacs become serial killers. By the time all the documents and official chanels are taken to clear the body for use, it will be stiff and useless. Rigor Mortis is a inevitable part of death, In 12 to 18 hours the body is, as the saying goes, stiff as a board. At this stage, you can move the joints only by force, breaking them in the process. It takes about two days for rigor mortis to fade, and once it does, decay sets in. HowStuffWorks "What causes rigor mortis?" health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/.../rigor-mortis-cause.htm http://www.webmd.com...You mean like every single time a criminalized necrophiliac engages in mass slaughter? I think we can bear the media frenzy that results from this far better. More importantly, I don't see the harm in a frenzy. Let's bring the conversation back out into the open and actually discuss this policy. We push it to the back all the time, and it's about time we had a frenzy.No, I mean the fundamentalist and moralist frenzy that results from socially progressive laws like this. This risk should only only be taken if their is a massive need for it, and enough people who it would apply to. Not 100 people at that. http://www.godhatesfags.com...The point I'm trying to make, is that the 1100 necrophiliacs (whiteflames estimate) who this law will never apply to, will be intensly persucuted and it will be just as hard to come out with their sex preferences.I'm not sure how much Con thinks it will cost for Congress to meet, something they should be doing anyway, but these costs are relatively insignificant. By comparison to the cost of bringing these people to trial just for engaging in necrophilia, we should be thankful that this is all that would be incurred.It can costs millions. President Obama spent months allocating spare government money in order to hold a congresional meeting on Puerto Rico. And that was rather low priority. A law like this, with the media attention and likely vast disaproval between conservatives and liberals (I'm sure not even any liberals would want this) would probably bring this to around 3 to 4 million. Money that 1000's of government employees rely on heavily, out weighing the number of necrophiliacs 5 fold. Vote Con!!!!Note: I ignored many rebuttals answered by my new arguments, which Pro agreed to me doing. It actually erased my debate again while writing this