Why?
2007-05-20 06:43:04 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If I were buried, I wouldn't want a casket or a tombstone. I'd want to go into the earth and decompose like all other natural life was meant to do, so that the earth could absorb my nutrients and help itself. Circle of life!
If that were impossible, for some reason, I'd rather be cremated and spread over flowers- that way my casket and whatnot wouldn't take up any more space on the earth.
2007-05-20 06:46:43 · answer #1 · answered by msxcheshirexcat 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I prefer cremation,I have always found it to be a wasteful and useless practice to do burials. It simply seems like a huge waste of land that could otherwise be of some actual use to the society. I believe it also uselessly extends or worsens the grieving process by having this permanent stone marking the place where a loved one is placed. I have heard of people who never seem to get over someones death,and you have to wonder if it would have been easier if there had not been some grave that they could linger over for decades,at least that's my opinion.
AD
2007-05-20 13:51:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Burial - Cremation is just creepy. Remember that outfit down South that didn't cremate the bodies and someone found piles of them behind the place? I what no part of lying in some field.
2007-05-20 13:49:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I honestly don't know. I like the idea of not taking up space but I want my family to be able to 'visit' me. I'm not entirely sure Cremation costs less though...my dad still had a 2700 funeral bill AND the cost was split too when my stepmother passed away and was cremated.
2007-05-20 13:46:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I used to think cremation, because that would take up less space. But it takes an awful lot of energy, and contributes to greenhouse gases, so it is not enviromentally friendly.
burial takes up a lot of real estate, and it seems a waste to have so much land used to house the dead in perpetuity. I don't have any kids, so there won't be anybody to visit my grave when I'm gone anyway.
My preference would be to be buried in the woods, and a tree planted over my body, so that my corpse could fertilize new growth. That way I'm not taking up space, and I'm contributing to the enviroment as well.
2007-05-20 13:49:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I prefer cremation. Why? The whole life cycle thing. If your buried, then your body is pumped full of all kinds of preservative and stuff so your body doesn't decay. I think you should go back to where you came from, the earth. I would mind having a head stone somewhere, just for family and stuff, but I don't want my body there.
2007-05-20 13:48:20 · answer #6 · answered by NONAME 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Cremation, less muss and the family will find it affordable. I also like the idea because Buddhists are cremated. We have no goraks to eat my flesh off the bone on a mountainside, so cremation it will be....
2007-05-20 13:55:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm going to be cremated. It's part of my fiance's culture, and it seems to be the best choice. In Denmark you have to pay a yearly fee when you're buried. So it's easier to get cremated and then just have a simple headstone somewhere.
2007-05-20 13:47:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Burial cause i feel that getting cremated is not for me...
2007-05-20 13:46:37 · answer #9 · answered by Yassy 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Cremation all the way. I want to speed up the decaying process.
2007-05-20 13:47:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋