Assume that the body was already dead, so no murder was committed for the purpose of consuming human flesh. I just got finished watching "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" for the first time, and it really got me thinking about the whole concept. I'm not some crazy psycho, but I can't come up with any sound argument against a person eating another person who is already dead. It doesn't seem any different than eating the flesh of any other animal. It's not like the body still has a soul or anything. I'd like to hear others' thoughts on the subject. Thanks!
2006-10-29
15:36:58
·
5 answers
·
asked by
peacock
1
in
Society & Culture
➔ Other - Society & Culture