Necrophilia: not exactly “safe” sex
It is something no civilized nation indulges in.
In societies where such practices as eating the brains of the dead (usually enemy dead, to be sure — nothing so clammy as one’s own kinfolk) occur, diseases such as kuru and equivalents often ensue, with genetic sequellae and untoward organic consequences in the long term…
Not to mention, of course, the danger of contracting HIV/AIDS, if the wife had it, and the husband thinks he can get away with unprotected erotic acts, because there is no worry about the wife becoming pregnant.
~ Marion DS Dreyfus discussing the possible health risks associated with having sexual intercourse with a corpse, American Thinker, April 28
This is in response to the claim that Egyptian husbands may soon have the legal right to have sexual intercourse with their wives for up to six hours after death.
[Photo Credit: History Link 101]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Necrophilia.
God help us.
Too bad this is “no longer a Christian nation”, because that was the only thing between ourselves and these outrages. How long for us?
Just curious if anyone will come here to defend the practice of necrophilia.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
The claim that this quote is in reaction to is almost certainly not legitimate, if it makes anyone feel better: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/0426/Egypt-necrophilia-law-Hooey-utter-hooey
yuck!
WHY?!?!?!?!? Sociopathic, psychotic, some kind of dangerous mental illness, mental twist, something missing, to not feel repulsed at this idea….. UUUUGGGHHCKKK!
Make it a law though and suddenly it’ll all be so ok and so right! Lalala! My gov. decides my morals, if it’s legal it’s not wrong…. dedede!
“Our world is beginning to divide very rapidly into two classes of people: the biophiles and the necrophiles. The biophilic people are those who love life. The other class of people are the necrophiles … the lovers of death.”
– Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, taken from “There is Life in the Womb”
*SHUDDER!*
Ew ew ew ew ew ew. Not sure what this has to do with abortion though? Both sides can see this is very wrong.
Well, that was unpleasant. Hoping to have less disgusting quotes of the day from now on.
To those that are moral relativists and believe abortion is NOT wrong how can this possibly be wrong?
Not everything posted here has to do with abortion btw. </p>
Ah, the logical extension of a mindset that has no respect for the sanctity or autonomy of women’s bodies. The woman must subordinate her desires to the fetus’ “right to life,” just as she must gratify her husband’s desires, even when dead. If women don’t have a right to control their bodies when someone else’s (or some other entity’s) interests are at stake, why would necrophilia be a problem?
Megan, the right to life and the right to some sort of sick sexual gratification are not comparable interests. The supposed right to control ones body is more important than one and less than the other.
As ever, this has nothing with “rights” and everything to do with what kind of people we are. Dead people certainly have no rights — they have less claim to any than a living fetus could possibly have.
What’s outrageous about such necrophilia is that there are people who would do it. But what’s outrageous in the abortion debate has little to do, among pro-choicers, with what kind of people we become. It doesn’t matter if it’s a human life — the right to kill it trumps its right to live. That’s what kind of people they’re willing to become.
Rights and Laws versus Rights and Wrongs.
I;m not trying to imply above that there actually is a right to some sort of sick sexual gratification, in fact I probably should have phrased my above post a little better, but I think my point came across.
I was springboarding off Megan’s remark. Your own was far closer to my point than distant from it.
My bad.
Should not have mentioned abortion. Right Megs? :)
Obviously there are some who find necrophilia a perfectly acceptable practice.
Namely those who are pushing for this to pass in Egypt.
It’s ok rasqual, I hadn’t actually seen your comment yet when I posted mine. I was just clarifying because later when i thought about my comment I realized I refered to the sick sexual gratification thing as a right. Your comment was good and I’m glad we’re on the same page.
“Megan, the right to life and the right to some sort of sick sexual gratification are not comparable interests.”
Sure they are. They both make a claim against another person’s bodily autonomy and in so doing reduce that person from an end unto themselves, to a means to someone else’s ends–in other words, property.
This is unbelievably sick!
I’m sorry to inform you, abortion advocates, but you must lose on this one. You see, a woman’s body who has been dead for several hours means the woman’s body is NO LONGER A PERSON. If there is not a person, then the man gets to do whatever he likes, right? Because, Joan and Megan, if a baby’s living body is NOT A PERSON, so the mother gets to destroy it, then you MUST agree with the sick egyptian group of men promoting this idea.
IF the BODY of a human being is NOT a PERSON then HE gets to CHOOSE. So, abortionists, if you want to admit that the body of a separate human being, no matter how small, is a PERSON then great, we have a starting point to convert you to being pro-life. Otherwise, your indignation is soaked in HYPOCRISY.
BTW, what a sick and disgusting idea! So it has that in common with abortion: being sick and disgusting.
Joan: So you’re calling a human corpse a “person” who, apparently, is entitled to “bodily autonomy?” Where, pray, may s/he seek redress of grievance if this right is not respected by the surviving spouse?
This is the kind of idiocy you court when you glance about hastily to see whether there’s a stick at hand to whack pro-lifers with — without first engaging your brain.
You heard it here, folks. Pro-abortion fanatics posit that human corpses have more rights than the unborn. Folks, we’re dealing with freakin’ geniuses on the moral high ground.
Joan wrote an excellent, concise summary of what abortion is! Allow me to quote:
They (both) make a claim against another person’s {the baby’s} bodily autonomy and in so doing reduce that person from an end unto themselves, to a means to someone else’s ends–in other words, property.
Joan, no right is absolute. That very much includes bodily autonomy (A right I never would have heard of had it not been for the abortion debate). When I said not comparable, I meant in magnitude. Simply put, the right to life is far more important. A right to bodily autonomy doesn’t make abortion acceptable any more the a right to free speech makes it ok to yell fire in a crowded theater or a right to bear arms makes it ok for an individual to own a nuclear bomb. All rights have limits.
“That very much includes bodily autonomy (A right I never would have heard of had it not been for the abortion debate).”
Eh, bodily autonomy is basically the reason things like rape are illegal, the fact that you and you alone can decide who touches your body is inviolate in most cases. They don’t understand the “rights have limits” thing, that’s the reason that they call us rapists for being pro-life. Because, obviously, thinking that a fetus should not be killed when it is living in the uterus through no fault of its own equals approving of rape.
I guess you’re right Jack. I suppose that I rarely hear the term outside of this debate is because it’s more intuitive in other cases. Well let’s just say the rest of my point stands if you ignore the contents of the brackets. I wasn’t trying to argue it’s not a real right or whatever but I was just saying how little it is heard of otherwise.
Oh, I know that you weren’t arguing against bodily autonomy. I just think it’s important to point out that bodily autonomy is certainly a very important right, but it is limited just like every other right we have.
“Joan: So you’re calling a human corpse a “person” who, apparently, is entitled to “bodily autonomy?” Where, pray, may s/he seek redress of grievance if this right is not respected by the surviving spouse?”
I wasn’t referring to necrophilia. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my post. I was strictly referring to “the right to some sort of sick sexual gratification” in the abstract. I had rape or other coerced or forced sex in mind.
“Joan, no right is absolute. That very much includes bodily autonomy (A right I never would have heard of had it not been for the abortion debate).”
There is no right more fundamental than the right to bodily autonomy, because our bodies are the most valuable property we own. To violate a person’s right to self-ownership is to reduce them from the status of a moral equal to a slave.
“There is no right more fundamental than the right to bodily autonomy, because our bodies are the most valuable property we own. To violate a person’s right to self-ownership is to reduce them from the status of a moral equal to a slave.”
Now, see, I agree with that, except in cases that you are killing someone who has no choice in the matter when you exercise your bodily autonomy. Rights have limits, joan. None of us live in a vacuum and none of us have ultimate and utter control of every single thing in the world that we can do with our bodies.
Elizabeth,
This part:
because there is no worry about the wife becoming pregnant.
Ties in nicely with Planned Parenthood’s agenda: sex without consequences.
One could just as easily argue that the right to life supersedes bodily autonomy because one needs to be alive in order to have any rights at all. By the way, if you’re going to keep going on with this slavery stuff (a little offensive to groups that have actually been enslaved, don’t you think?) then I guess it’s perfectly acceptable for me to compare abortion to the Holocaust, right? Fair is fair right?
I really wish everyone on both sides could stop co-opting tragedies to score points in the abortion debate.
“To violate a person’s right to self-ownership is to reduce them from the status of a moral equal to a slave.”
Exactly. Killing a human being who’s too small to fight back IS reducing him or her to property/slavery.
Joan, are you becoming pro-life? This is an even better summary of abortion than your first one. I’m going to be very happy if I can say “welcome to the pro-life club!”
Hear hear, Jack.
Joan, “the right to some sort of sick sexual gratification” doesn’t entail “a claim against another person’s bodily autonomy.” Whatever you had in mind, as a generalization it fails in the context — which is necrophilia. If you hope that others will understand your remarks when you don’t supply context, why aren’t you willing to understand others’ remarks when the context is explicit?
Megan said: “The woman must subordinate her desires to the fetus’ .right to life,’ just as she must gratify her husband’s desires, even when dead.”
JDC replied immediately, “Megan, the right to life and the right to some sort of sick sexual gratification are not comparable interests.”
In context JDC’s retort is clear and topical; your own rejoinder both ignores that context and supplied no new context to be understood yourself.
Taking JDC’s contextualized colloquial language of generalization to be a substantive and broad generalization in fact, is disingenuous. Not bracketing your own remarks is careless.
Troll.
“Now, see, I agree with that, except in cases that you are killing someone who has no choice in the matter when you exercise your bodily autonomy. Rights have limits, joan. None of us live in a vacuum and none of us have ultimate and utter control of every single thing in the world that we can do with our bodies.”
It’s true that rights have limits. Even the right to bodily autonomy can be infringed upon or dispensed with under the strictest and most compelling of circumstances (for example, containing or preventing a grave or existential threat to society). Protecting incubating fetuses, simply out of a sense of moral certitude that they should be protected, does not rise to that level. But even if it did, that wouldn’t have any bearing on what I said in my original post: to require a woman to unwillingly carry a pregnancy to term would have the effect of reducing her from an end unto herself, to a means to someone or something else’s end.
“One could just as easily argue that the right to life supersedes bodily autonomy because one needs to be alive in order to have any rights at all.”
Someone else’s right to life most certainly does not supersede my right to bodily autonomy. Or would you argue that, if it was feasible for one person to physically place themselves within the body of another, with the only way to remove that person from the “host” body being to kill them, that it would not be acceptable to do so and that the host simply must learn to endure their new burden?
“By the way, if you’re going to keep going on with this slavery stuff (a little offensive to groups that have actually been enslaved, don’t you think?) then I guess it’s perfectly acceptable for me to compare abortion to the Holocaust, right?”
I’ve explained this to you before. It’s offensive to many people to compare something to the Holocaust because the Holocaust is a singular, specific event in human history and the only reason anyone would invoke it, out of its own specific context, is to co-opt the emotional and historical resonance it has for their own purposes. “Slavery” is an abstract term, not a specific event. Your point would only be applicable if I was specifically referencing a certain period or event of slavery (i.e. the enslavement of American blacks) in a rhetorical manner.
I think this piece belongs perfectly on a prolife blog. This is what you get when you live in a world where it’s permissible to kill the child in the womb. There is nothing we won’t do to one another. And bodily autonomy? What, pray tell, is that? You arrive here without your consent. You are ejected hence at the will of Another. You become compost in short order. You don’t put you eggs in the Eternal basket and you get legal necrophilia.
Not sure what this has to do with abortion though?
I think it’s some kind of meta-comment on the gullibility of pro-life bloggers.
Eh, LisaC, I think that a good portion of pro-lifers understood this wasn’t a real law up for debate. Funny thing, a lot of my pro-choice friends on Facebook took it seriously lol.
LisaC: Don’t forget the credulity of the Huffington Post.
Whoops! Gullibility and Credulity off the table!
Joan, you need to revisit a logic class and try drawing a truth table. Your arguments today are pushing YOU right into pro-life rationales. I think you’re beginning to cave.
Hey, now that the word Holocaust has come up, is cc allowed to comment? Tell us, cc, is a dead woman a person or is her body a thing? Is a live baby a person or a piece of property?
Holocaust, dead babies, necrophilia — has the CC invocation level been quite reached, yet? I’m not as certain, ninek…
“I’ve explained this to you before. It’s offensive to many people to compare something to the Holocaust because the Holocaust is a singular, specific event in human history and the only reason anyone would invoke it, out of its own specific context, is to co-opt the emotional and historical resonance it has for their own purposes. “Slavery” is an abstract term, not a specific event. Your point would only be applicable if I was specifically referencing a certain period or event of slavery (i.e. the enslavement of American blacks) in a rhetorical manner. ”
Just as there have been many instances and cultures involved with, and races enslaved, at many different times and time periods, in slavery, there have also been many different holocausts and many different races and cultures involved in and victimized by them. The Jewish Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis is not THE only holocaust ever and unfortunately was not the last. So, no, the Jews do not hold trademark rights to “Holocaust” and it is no more disingenuous for us to refer to the holocaust of the unborn than it is for you (apparently) to refer to women as “slaves” because for 9 months of their entire lives they may be asked to carry their own growing child to term.
A violation of bodily autonomy needs to be an intentional kind of thing. Like the jerk who rapes you intentionally violated your bodily autonomy. The child conceived did nothing intentionally and so is not guilty. The rapist can be convicted. The child CAN NOT. The jerk who murders you on purpose violates your bodily autonomy intentionally . He is guilty and subject to the death penalty. The guy who bumped into you accidentally violates your bodily autonomy but not to the severity or degree of the rapist/murderer and not intentionally so he is not guilty. The guy who punches you in the face for whatever reason violates your autonomy intentionally and is guilty of assault. The baby who through no intent or effort of his/her own who finds themselves in your womb is not intentionally violating your bodily autonomy and so IS NOT GUILTY. And is certainly not guilty of a capital crime deserving the death penalty, let alone without representation, jury, or trial. Why is this such a difficult concept????
ew.
“Holocaust, dead babies, necrophilia — has the CC invocation level been quite reached, yet? I’m not as certain, ninek…”
I think you also have to draw a pentagram on the floor and chant I summon thee three times.
I think this piece belongs perfectly on a prolife blog. This is what you get when you live in a world where it’s permissible to kill the child in the womb.
Well, abortion is illegal in Egypt except to save the life of the woman. So I guess your argument is that the impermissibility of abortion leads to imaginary pro-necrophilia laws, or something.
LisaC: Don’t forget the credulity of the Huffington Post.
Whoops! Gullibility and Credulity off the table!
I’m not a big fan of the Huffington Post. I find it less than reliable when it comes to fact-checking.
Stupid humans would have us believe that:
Sprinkling water on infants head is no better or worse than tossing them out of a second story window.
Burning a widow on her deceased husbands funeral pyre is no different than water baptism by immersion.
‘Honor killings’ are no different than circumcision.
Sexual intercourse with your deceased spouse for up to six hours after their death is OK with GOD.
There has to be a joke in here somewhere.
What could go wrong?
Mark Steyn is right about Egypt. Now that Obama has cheerfully waved goodbye to Mubarak and hello to the “Arab Spring”, we are left with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Very Muslim Brotherhood.
Two necrophiliacs walk into a bar…
What’s next, dead people voting? Whoops, the DNC already encourages that here!