NationStates

What about in cases where the cadaver had prior to expiration given irrefutable consent for such activities to take place with their body post death? The concept of 'dignity' would not apply in such cases

Zetaopalatopia wrote:What about in cases where the cadaver had prior to expiration given irrefutable consent for such activities to take place with their body post death? The concept of 'dignity' would not apply in such cases

Consent is an active process, not something which can be forever assumed once given. No one is around to consent, to argue that such prior consent was not coerced, given under duress, or given of unsound mind, so no one is there to maintain the presumption of a bonafide consent.

The Overmind wrote:

Zetaopalatopia wrote:What about in cases where the cadaver had prior to expiration given irrefutable consent for such activities to take place with their body post death? The concept of 'dignity' would not apply in such cases

Consent is an active process, not something which can be forever assumed once given. No one is around to consent, to argue that such prior consent was not coerced, given under duress, or given of unsound mind, so no one is there to maintain the presumption of a bonafide consent.

I understand and agree with your argument against the consent being given under duress, however I find the fact that 'of unsound mind' can be used for anything the judging individual deems to make it an invalid cause for dismissal of prior consent.

Coercion I also agree could make ones prior consent questionable, however if the 'coercion' is an equitable trade agreed to and signed off on, then would preventing the trade to conclude not be more harmful than not?

Zetaopalatopia wrote:

The Overmind wrote:
Consent is an active process, not something which can be forever assumed once given. No one is around to consent, to argue that such prior consent was not coerced, given under duress, or given of unsound mind, so no one is there to maintain the presumption of a bonafide consent.

I understand and agree with your argument against the consent being given under duress, however I find the fact that 'of unsound mind' can be used for anything the judging individual deems to make it an invalid cause for dismissal of prior consent.

Coercion I also agree could make ones prior consent questionable, however if the 'coercion' is an equitable trade agreed to and signed off on, then would preventing the trade to conclude not be more harmful than not?

Unsound mind, in this context, should be understood to mean anyone who could normally give consent, but is currently unable to because of their mental state, which includes intoxication, altered states of consciousness, etc.

The main point of my argument otherwise is that consent must be actively maintained, so even if one could reasonably conclude that it is unlikely that consent was initially given absent any questionable circumstance, the person who actually gave consent is not there to verify or maintain it.

For example, for all we know, they would have revoked consent moments before death but were unable to. Consent can be rescinded at any time, and should be considered rescinded by presumption if no one is there to maintain it.

The Overmind wrote:

Zetaopalatopia wrote:

I understand and agree with your argument against the consent being given under duress, however I find the fact that 'of unsound mind' can be used for anything the judging individual deems to make it an invalid cause for dismissal of prior consent.

Coercion I also agree could make ones prior consent questionable, however if the 'coercion' is an equitable trade agreed to and signed off on, then would preventing the trade to conclude not be more harmful than not?

Unsound mind, in this context, should be understood to mean anyone who could normally give consent, but is currently unable to because of their mental state, which includes intoxication, altered states of consciousness, etc.

The main point of my argument otherwise is that consent must be actively maintained, so even if one could reasonably conclude that it is unlikely that consent was initially given absent any questionable circumstance, the person who actually gave consent is not there to verify or maintain it.

For example, for all we know, they would have revoked consent moments before death but were unable to. Consent can be rescinded at any time, and should be considered rescinded by presumption if no one is there to maintain it.

So, the act of being inanimate means that consent can't be guaranteed, and there fore must be considered as rescinded or never given in the first place is what you are saying? Even in the case where video, trusted next of kin, or signed contract state consent was given in perpetuity?

Second Sovereignty wrote:OOC:
Why are we still trying this? We have better things to be doing.

On the off chance that we get another one that someone says affirmative notarized consent prior to their death counts, ala GAR 691.

"Our only objection to this draft as written is that it should apply to all sex with corpses of a sapient species, not only those of the same species as the person performing the acts. Dignity of the deceased is not harmed any less because the person doing it does not happen to be of the same sapient species."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

Zetaopalatopia wrote:

The Overmind wrote:
Unsound mind, in this context, should be understood to mean anyone who could normally give consent, but is currently unable to because of their mental state, which includes intoxication, altered states of consciousness, etc.

The main point of my argument otherwise is that consent must be actively maintained, so even if one could reasonably conclude that it is unlikely that consent was initially given absent any questionable circumstance, the person who actually gave consent is not there to verify or maintain it.

For example, for all we know, they would have revoked consent moments before death but were unable to. Consent can be rescinded at any time, and should be considered rescinded by presumption if no one is there to maintain it.

So, the act of being inanimate means that consent can't be guaranteed, and there fore must be considered as rescinded or never given in the first place is what you are saying? Even in the case where video, trusted next of kin, or signed contract state consent was given in perpetuity?

(OOC: It is generally believed that one cannot consent to sexual intercourse in perpetuity irrespective of whatever contracts one signs. This is because consent to sexual intercourse is regarded as withdrawable at any moment.)

The Ice States wrote:"Our only objection to this draft as written is that it should apply to all sex with corpses of a sapient species, not only those of the same species as the person performing the acts. Dignity of the deceased is not harmed any less because the person doing it does not happen to be of the same sapient species."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

Changed since you banned bestiality anyway.

Kenmoria wrote:

Zetaopalatopia wrote:
So, the act of being inanimate means that consent can't be guaranteed, and there fore must be considered as rescinded or never given in the first place is what you are saying? Even in the case where video, trusted next of kin, or signed contract state consent was given in perpetuity?

(OOC: It is generally believed that one cannot consent to sexual intercourse in perpetuity irrespective of whatever contracts one signs. This is because consent to sexual intercourse is regarded as withdrawable at any moment.)

By the same logic, consent to being eaten can also be withdrawn - ala repeal 691!

Simone Republic wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: It is generally believed that one cannot consent to sexual intercourse in perpetuity irrespective of whatever contracts one signs. This is because consent to sexual intercourse is regarded as withdrawable at any moment.)

By the same logic, consent to being eaten can also be withdrawn - ala repeal 691!

You and I rarely agree on policy, but once in a while planets align.

Kenmoria wrote:

Zetaopalatopia wrote:

So, the act of being inanimate means that consent can't be guaranteed, and there fore must be considered as rescinded or never given in the first place is what you are saying? Even in the case where video, trusted next of kin, or signed contract state consent was given in perpetuity?

(OOC: It is generally believed that one cannot consent to sexual intercourse in perpetuity irrespective of whatever contracts one signs. This is because consent to sexual intercourse is regarded as withdrawable at any moment.)

(OOC: Fair, but such a strict view necessarily excludes any who are actually consenting to and okay with acts while unconscious or, in the context of this thread, deceased. Thus I must play advocate for what I see as the less considered points of view.)

Zetaopalatopia wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: It is generally believed that one cannot consent to sexual intercourse in perpetuity irrespective of whatever contracts one signs. This is because consent to sexual intercourse is regarded as withdrawable at any moment.)

(OOC: Fair, but such a strict view necessarily excludes any who are actually consenting to and okay with acts while unconscious or, in the context of this thread, deceased. Thus I must play advocate for what I see as the less considered points of view.)

Generally speaking, it would be considered impossible for an unconscious person to maintain consent, so, yes, your conclusion is logical, but it's not an argument for allowing necrophilia.

The Overmind wrote:

Zetaopalatopia wrote:

(OOC: Fair, but such a strict view necessarily excludes any who are actually consenting to and okay with acts while unconscious or, in the context of this thread, deceased. Thus I must play advocate for what I see as the less considered points of view.)

Generally speaking, it would be considered impossible for an unconscious person to maintain consent, so, yes, your conclusion is logical, but it's not an argument for allowing necrophilia.

Perhaps not, but by the same logic one can not consent to being an organ donor or to giving their body to science as medical procedures require informed consent as well. If you can consent to the post mortem harvesting of your organs, then you should be able to consent to post mortem relations in much the same fashion

Zetaopalatopia wrote:

The Overmind wrote:
Generally speaking, it would be considered impossible for an unconscious person to maintain consent, so, yes, your conclusion is logical, but it's not an argument for allowing necrophilia.

Perhaps not, but by the same logic one can not consent to being an organ donor or to giving their body to science as medical procedures require informed consent as well. If you can consent to the post mortem harvesting of your organs, then you should be able to consent to post mortem relations in much the same fashion

Medical decisions, by necessity, require the recognition of, and conventionally recognize, consent beyond a person's ability to maintain it, because medical decisions must frequently be made in such a context. Organ donation is also something that is necessary to save lives, and consent for it often cannot be maintained by the person donating. Furthermore, sex is recognized as an act that requires ongoing and explicit consent. The similarities between the two domains are superficial, and the arguments that apply to one do not, for any of the arguments presented, apply to the other.

The Overmind wrote:

Zetaopalatopia wrote:
Perhaps not, but by the same logic one can not consent to being an organ donor or to giving their body to science as medical procedures require informed consent as well. If you can consent to the post mortem harvesting of your organs, then you should be able to consent to post mortem relations in much the same fashion

Medical decisions, by necessity, require the recognition of, and conventionally recognize, consent beyond a person's ability to maintain it, because medical decisions must frequently be made in such a context. Organ donation is also something that is necessary to save lives, and consent for it often cannot be maintained by the person donating. Furthermore, sex is recognized as an act that requires ongoing and explicit consent. The similarities between the two domains are superficial, and the arguments that apply to one do not, for any of the arguments presented, apply to the other.

Well then, I have a compromise that should be perfectly acceptable under the 'medical loophole' when it comes to not needing ongoing consent. All the cadaver needs do before death is donate their organs while giving explicit instruction that specific organs of theirs become property of their partner. Once those specific organs are no longer part of the cadaver's body and in possession of the indicated individual then the consent need only come from the current holder of the 'donated organ'

(OOC: I do hope you realize I'm not actually condoning my arguments for IRL implications. I just like to debate)

Zetaopalatopia wrote:

The Overmind wrote:
Medical decisions, by necessity, require the recognition of, and conventionally recognize, consent beyond a person's ability to maintain it, because medical decisions must frequently be made in such a context. Organ donation is also something that is necessary to save lives, and consent for it often cannot be maintained by the person donating. Furthermore, sex is recognized as an act that requires ongoing and explicit consent. The similarities between the two domains are superficial, and the arguments that apply to one do not, for any of the arguments presented, apply to the other.

Well then, I have a compromise that should be perfectly acceptable under the 'medical loophole' when it comes to not needing ongoing consent. All the cadaver needs do before death is donate their organs while giving explicit instruction that specific organs of theirs become property of their partner. Once those specific organs are no longer part of the cadaver's body and in possession of the indicated individual then the consent need only come from the current holder of the 'donated organ'

(OOC: I do hope you realize I'm not actually condoning my arguments for IRL implications. I just like to debate)

That would no longer be a medical decision at that point, and would still not be neccessary to save lives.

The Overmind wrote:

Zetaopalatopia wrote:
Well then, I have a compromise that should be perfectly acceptable under the 'medical loophole' when it comes to not needing ongoing consent. All the cadaver needs do before death is donate their organs while giving explicit instruction that specific organs of theirs become property of their partner. Once those specific organs are no longer part of the cadaver's body and in possession of the indicated individual then the consent need only come from the current holder of the 'donated organ'

(OOC: I do hope you realize I'm not actually condoning my arguments for IRL implications. I just like to debate)

That would no longer be a medical decision at that point, and would still not be neccessary to save lives.

It would if the organ donor status was tied to the latter clause being fulfilled. Basically, 'If you need my organ donation you WILL agree to this clause or no organs for you'

But we are just arguing in circles at this point. I'll just state that I feel if consent is given pre mortem for post mortem activities, then the last recorded proof of consent should be considered perpetual because the dead can not rescind consent. Going back to organ donation, there is no way of telling if the individual in their dying breath decided not to donate instead. Perhaps the individual needs to have their consent listed in their will, as that tends to be seen as consent to distribute wealth and property to those they cared for.

Also the reasons for consent do not exist when considering a cadaver as there is no risk of mental or lasting physical harm to the former individual as they are no longer an individual.

Zetaopalatopia wrote:

The Overmind wrote:
That would no longer be a medical decision at that point, and would still not be neccessary to save lives.

It would if the organ donor status was tied to the latter clause being fulfilled. Basically, 'If you need my organ donation you WILL agree to this clause or no organs for you'

But we are just arguing in circles at this point. I'll just state that I feel if consent is given pre mortem for post mortem activities, then the last recorded proof of consent should be considered perpetual because the dead can not rescind consent. Going back to organ donation, there is no way of telling if the individual in their dying breath decided not to donate instead. Perhaps the individual needs to have their consent listed in their will, as that tends to be seen as consent to distribute wealth and property to those they cared for.

Also the reasons for consent do not exist when considering a cadaver as there is no risk of mental or lasting physical harm to the former individual as they are no longer an individual.

A person who conditions their organ donation on nonconsensual sex being permitted with their body will simply not have their organs taken.

I'm not arguing that the dead rescind consent. I'm arguing that consent to sex must be maintained and the dead cannot do that.

You brought the discussion about consent to argue that the consent of the dead means there is no indignity in the act of necrophilia. If you're now arguing that consent is irrelevant for the dead, it torpedoes that argument.

The Overmind wrote:

Zetaopalatopia wrote:
It would if the organ donor status was tied to the latter clause being fulfilled. Basically, 'If you need my organ donation you WILL agree to this clause or no organs for you'

But we are just arguing in circles at this point. I'll just state that I feel if consent is given pre mortem for post mortem activities, then the last recorded proof of consent should be considered perpetual because the dead can not rescind consent. Going back to organ donation, there is no way of telling if the individual in their dying breath decided not to donate instead. Perhaps the individual needs to have their consent listed in their will, as that tends to be seen as consent to distribute wealth and property to those they cared for.

Also the reasons for consent do not exist when considering a cadaver as there is no risk of mental or lasting physical harm to the former individual as they are no longer an individual.

A person who conditions their organ donation on nonconsensual sex being permitted with their body will simply not have their organs taken.

I'm not arguing that the dead rescind consent. I'm arguing that consent to sex must be maintained and the dead cannot do that.

You brought the discussion about consent to argue that the consent of the dead means there is no indignity in the act of necrophilia. If you're now arguing that consent is irrelevant for the dead, it torpedoes that argument.

When one argument is not working shift to another. While I would prefer a world where an individual has a say of what happens to or with their body in ALL respects, the fact of the matter is a body is not an individual, and all things that happen to one after death don't matter in the slightest. I was trying to find a way to allow for those of 'interesting tastes' to have a legal if dubious way to receive the needed consent to make the act not criminal.

If the dead can consent to medical treatments, they can consent to anything. And if the dead can not consent, then all organ donations are nonconsensual. that is the stance I take if we consider a cadaver to be subject to consent given prior to death.

If however a cadaver is not subject to consent then there is no argument other than risk of pathogens.

Zetaopalatopia wrote:When one argument is not working shift to another. While I would prefer a world where an individual has a say of what happens to or with their body in ALL respects, the fact of the matter is a body is not an individual, and all things that happen to one after death don't matter in the slightest. I was trying to find a way to allow for those of 'interesting tastes' to have a legal if dubious way to receive the needed consent to make the act not criminal.

This reflects your value system. It is not a fact that nothing that happens to a body matters.

Zetaopalatopia wrote:If the dead can consent to medical treatments, they can consent to anything.

Sex and organ donation are two completely different domains of consent, as I have already argued.

Zetaopalatopia wrote:And if the dead can not consent, then all organ donations are nonconsensual.

Medical decisions, by necessity, and traditionally, operate under the presumption of maintained consent. Sex does not.

Zetaopalatopia wrote:If however a cadaver is not subject to consent then there is no argument other than risk of pathogens.

If a cadaver is not subject to consent, your initial argument founders.

The Overmind wrote:

Zetaopalatopia wrote:If however a cadaver is not subject to consent then there is no argument other than risk of pathogens.

If a cadaver is not subject to consent, your initial argument founders.

If a cadaver is not subject to consent it is an object, and there is no need for my initial argument

An argument is only needed if consent is a factor.

What about in cases where the cadaver had prior to expiration given irrefutable consent for such activities to take place with their body post death? The concept of 'dignity' would not apply in such cases

You argue that dignity does not apply where consent is given. If consent does not apply, then dignity applies.

The Overmind wrote:

What about in cases where the cadaver had prior to expiration given irrefutable consent for such activities to take place with their body post death? The concept of 'dignity' would not apply in such cases

You argue that dignity does not apply where consent is given. If consent does not apply, then dignity applies.

I do not believe there is dignity in the first place, hence why it is in quotes in my statement above. Mentioning dignity at all was a concession I made in hopes to reach a middle ground given we are both on opposite sides of this argument.

For me, a cadaver is a cadaver, not a person, not an individual. A pile of formerly living biomass and nothing more. However I understand that my view point on this is... less than common, so my arguments have been attempts to bridge that gap in the center. Allowing for the living to cede the need for consent of what will become not them, while also allowing those who hold a body after death in the same regard as a living individual for such matters. As no middle ground can be found I reverted to my less compromising stance on the subject.

We will likely never find an agreeable middle ground between our view points.

Zetaopalatopia wrote:

The Overmind wrote:
You argue that dignity does not apply where consent is given. If consent does not apply, then dignity applies.

I do not believe there is dignity in the first place, hence why it is in quotes in my statement above. Mentioning dignity at all was a concession I made in hopes to reach a middle ground given we are both on opposite sides of this argument.

For me, a cadaver is a cadaver, not a person, not an individual. A pile of formerly living biomass and nothing more. However I understand that my view point on this is... less than common, so my arguments have been attempts to bridge that gap in the center. Allowing for the living to cede the need for consent of what will become not them, while also allowing those who hold a body after death in the same regard as a living individual for such matters. As no middle ground can be found I reverted to my less compromising stance on the subject.

We will likely never find an agreeable middle ground between our view points.

Yes, as I pointed out a few posts ago, your position is based on your value system. That doesn't mean I'll accept spurious arguments for it.

OOC: I get it, having sex with a corpse is not only disgusting, it's utterly immoral. You'll get no disagreement from me there: I'm simply curious why the World Assembly would care.