Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1285 - Sexual activity with a corpse bill 2017 Watch

Announcements
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SomeWelshGuy123)
    I have a question, why does this section of TSR exist? Threads debating religion are taken down constantly but threads about shagging dead bodies are ok?
    We have our own rules - we are a model parliament accepting a range of views, you will also notice that this comes under the debate and current affairs section of TSR - which also has its own rules according to the moderators.

    If you disagree with debating ideas then you are disgustingly illiberal and anti-western values.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LifeIsFine)
    Not sure if the notes are funny or frankly ridiculous.
    Would say nay to this bill initially, if someone is dead, while their corpse may not belong to anyone I think their family should be involved in this decision somehow.
    The notes are a reference made by certain leftists in the house in the Skype chat (while the have no time for the MHoC itself) arguing that there is a moral obligation to be an organ donor because you're dead and it would be selfish to deny others your organs
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    To be fair, this is certainly a Liberal idea
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    That defies bodily autonomy surely? What if they don't want the family to decide what happens, what if someone actively wants their corpse to be engages in intercourse?

    aye btw.
    Then expand this bill and legislate for those situations, although I'm certain I could and would continue to finding loopholes if you were to do that.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SomeWelshGuy123)
    I have a question, why does this section of TSR exist? Threads debating religion are taken down constantly but threads about shagging dead bodies are ok?
    Since we're a model parliament we talk about changing policy. Generally we actually debate this here rather than just make endless jokes about shagging corpses.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    I had initially intended on opposing this. But Conceited has since convinced me to abstain.

    At least this gives Connor an opportunity to vent....:rolleyes:
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SomeWelshGuy123)
    I have a question, why does this section of TSR exist? Threads debating religion are taken down constantly but threads about shagging dead bodies are ok?
    The Community Guidelines can be a minefield.
    The first couple of sentences here and the rest of that information is probably gonna help you the most.
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    These threads are more intellectual.
    :toofunny:
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I see from your choice to quote me in the notes that this is an intellectually bankrupt attempt to ridicule opt-out organ donation by challenging the supposed premise in the opt-out policy that human bodies (once deceased) can/should be used in whatever way is most useful. However the opt-out policy is not borne out of any disrespect for the dead but rather a great deal of respect for the living. Some (a tiny group no doubt) may feel uncomfortable with the idea of giving organs after they die but they are unlikely to feel that way on others' behalf. For such people there is, obviously, an opt-out. For most the any discomfort is surely mitigated by the incredible good that one can do by donating and perhaps even the sense that, by donating, one can 'live on' after their death.

    The strong opposition to necrophilia stems from the idea that human bodies have some sort of sacred quality to them and that post-mortem coitus would therefore be a defilement. Other concerns include hygiene and the issue of consent. We may indeed agree on a materialist view of the world and say that human bodies, after death, are just 'meat'. However the idea that they are not is a pleasant fiction. The question arises therefore of whether this bill benefits enough people to so great an extent as to be worth disregarding the widespread sense of human exceptionality. The benefits of opt-out organ donation are tangible and clear. The benefits of this are not. This is not a policy that will save lives. And although the author attempts to compare necrophilia to homosexuality (a horrendous analogy) this is not a bill that allows a not insignificant group of people to engage in rewarding and meaningful relationships with other human beings by acting on impulses that should not prompt concern by a psychologist. Furthermore, simply repealing Section 70 creates no provisions whatsoever for the securing of consent. Presumably laws against rape do not apply to corpses. Supporters of opt-out organ donation agree that individuals should have a say in the destiny of their bodies after death and the opt-out system allows for it. Opt-out supporters would probably also agree that saving the living is more important than honouring the wishes of the dead. And similarly I imagine most agree that honouring the dead is more important than a quick sexual fix.

    It is possible to come at this issue from a thoughtful perspective. At this, the bill author(s) has not succeeded.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Of course freedom should have limits, but ejaculating in or on an inanimate, insentient, object is not morally equivalent to murder or rape of conscious, sentient people who have rights established by the law. I am a classical liberal, I believe in maximising freedom to the greatest extent possible, surely you see the benefits to this approach?

    Also, conflating your argument to another, similarly constructed one to illustrate moral equivalence is not an ad hominem, mentioning the opponent or their views in an argument does not, in itself, constitute a fallacy.
    This seems rather simplistic and unpragmatic. Is it not better to look at a policy and ask whether the world before the policy seems better than then one after. Because the status quo on necrophilia doesn't appear to be causing any problems.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Does the person not have to consent to this before their death?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    My question is why?
    No normal, psychologically healthy person would want to have sex with a corpse.
    'Because it's some people's fetish' you might say, well some have a fetish of having sex with children. Does that make it okay?
    If you have the urge to have sex with a cold lifeless corpse, you likely have the same characteristics as most serial killers.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. Upsides are very small but there's also no downside.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lsheep666)
    My question is why?
    No normal, psychologically healthy person would want to have sex with a corpse.
    'Because it's some people's fetish' you might say, well some have a fetish of having sex with children. Does that make it okay?
    If you have the urge to have sex with a cold lifeless corpse, you likely have the same characteristics as most serial killers.
    Last claim citation needed

    Second claim same was said about homosexuality
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=joecphillips;74043504]Last claim citation needed

    Second claim same was said about homosexuality

    I study criminology so I see a ton of cases of mentally unstable people who are necrophiles and the sick things they'll do, like kill, to satisfy their needs.
    It is also not natural dude, & don't try and say the same was said about homosexuals since that's been going on with consent between humans since the beginning of time.
    Are you really trying to say pedophilia is the same as homosexuals?
    Also why the **** would you choose a cold, decaying body over a warm living one?
    It's sick, perverted & if you can't see that then there's no reasoning with you.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Lsheep666;74043618]
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Last claim citation needed

    Second claim same was said about homosexuality

    I study criminology so I see a ton of cases of mentally unstable people who are necrophiles and the sick things they'll do, like kill, to satisfy their needs.
    It is also not natural dude, & don't try and say the same was said about homosexuals since that's been going on with consent between humans since the beginning of time.
    Are you really trying to say pedophilia is the same as homosexuals?
    Also why the **** would you choose a cold, decaying body over a warm living one?
    It's sick, perverted & if you can't see that then there's no reasoning with you.
    Provide figures and evidence
    No your argument was used against homosexuality, it is not a valid argument at all
    I did not say that
    Why would you choose to bang a dude? Some people see that as sick and perverted should it be outlawed?
    The state should protect people’s rights not force it’s morals onto others
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    .....a resounding nay!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Mr Speaker

    I am repulsed by this bill this bill is more worse than the sexual activity with animals bill. I don't know what sane person will give consent to having their bodies molested upon death. Also feel families should be taken into consideration. I don't think they'll be too pleased to have some sick freak molesting their loved ones. For example, do the authors honestly believe a farther will be OK with his dead daughter being molested? I think not!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)

    B1285 - Sexual activity with a corpse bill 2017, JoecPhillips MP, Seconded by Connor27 MP

    A
    BILL TO
    Legalise sex with corpses.



    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1- Repeal
    (1) Section 70 of the sexual offences act is hereby repealed

    2- Citation and commencement
    (1) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
    (2) The provisions of this Act come into force on Royal Assent
    (3) This Act may be referred to as the Sexual Activity With A Corpse Act 2017

    Notes:
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/70
    The state should have no place in restricting anyone's sex life because they disagree with it.
    But if you're dead, you're dead. Your body doesnt belong to anyone if you're dead so should be used for "the greater good"
    If you're such a disturbed, wretched, selfish little person that you want to make sure your death isn't of benefit to anyone else, then vote nay


    I imagine this may be a joke.. if not:

    How would you go about this? The body would still have to be processed and taken care of. What, do you think the family would give permission for someone to have sex with their child's/relatives corpse? Should it be down to the next of kin? How is that even arranged? Money can't be involved. Surely if you want to use a corpse for good, it involves donating organs. Not someone's twisted version of sexual gratification.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lsheep666)
    That you're a little 17 year old whose head is so swollen he believes academic grades determine someone's intelligence & feels the need to sadly inform everyone of his grades.
    More importantly the British education system is one of the most laughable systems in the world.
    Do the BAC with more than 8 academic subjects (unlike your measly 4 a levels) get a 90% average, then you can boast about your academic success.
    Are you mentally impaired? The other guy asked me which university I was at, so I answered the question for him, your BAC seems to have not taught you basic primary reading comprehension it seems...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lsheep666)
    That you're a little 17 year old whose head is so swollen he believes academic grades determine someone's intelligence & feels the need to sadly inform everyone of his grades.
    More importantly the British education system is one of the most laughable systems in the world.
    Do the BAC with more than 8 academic subjects (unlike your measly 4 a levels) get a 90% average, then you can boast about your academic success.
    You are a fresher at Middlesex Uni. Do not deride other people's academic credentials.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 16, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.