At least one human being will try anything.

Yours,
Wince

What's really sick is that people are already defending Meiwes' "rights" to consensual cannibalism and "assisted suicide."

Christ on a crutch...

After due process of a public trial for capital murder (so that his civil rights would not be violated), I would hang this man dead. From one of his own meethooks. If possible, at the gallows in the same building in Nurnberg where this was done almost 58 years ago. It would, under the circumstances, seem fitting.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I forgot to mention that, after the hanging, I would take down his corpse and feed it to the carnivores in the Berlin zoo.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I'm a pretty radical right-to-die-er, so I have to say my feelings are mixed. I believe that suicide is the right of the individual and that criminalizing it is one of those "symbolic" laws that does nothing but positively stroke peoples conventional sense of morality. Fluffy and sweet, but meaningless in the end. On the other hand, I'm strongly against murder: I think it's *my* right to decide when and how I die, and nobody else's.

But if you *ask* someone to kill you, and they do, then theoretically it's consensual. Yet proving "consent" might be extremely difficult, and it would open the law up to "he/she asked me to kill him/her" defenses, which would of course be as ridiculous as "gay panic" defenses of plain old murder.

This might be too far of a logical leap, but I think that "consenting" to being murdered might be as morally-bankrupt a position as "consenting" to Communism -- how do you "consent" to have your consent taken away?

And cannibalism? Any cultural relativism aside (it's had well-defined roles in various societies throughout history, though that doesn't make it right) , I think it's a simple health issue -- would you really want to eat something that eats what most people eat? Ick.

What's really sick is that some people such as Clayton Cramer are using this case to attack Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas and the privacy of sexual relations between consenting adults. Same old Santorum argument: cunnilingus = cannibalism = homosexuality = polygamy = incest = pedophilia, i.e., everything = everything else.

Actually, the incidence of HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, etc, make this a very interesting ethical question.
I've maintained for years that if someone fails to take reasonable steps to prevent the transmission of HIV and their partner subsequently dies of AIDS, it should be considered (and probably prosecuted as) murder.

That means failure to inform your partner of your HIV+ status would be a criminal offense. Which is as it should be.

No, not gonna touch this one. Honey roasted eel sperm anyone?

But, John, wouldn't you agree that at least some people who want to die are not mentally competant? I don't mean someone who's been suffering for two years with no hope of any cure or relief. I mean someone who's seriously confused, or just bummed out about life.

I disagree with your statement that a law against suicide is merely symbolic, or that it "does nothing but positively stroke peoples conventional sense of morality," even if that is the fasionably cynical thing to say these days. Society has taboos like that for a reason.

Take homicide, for example. Killing someone else is still considered to be one of the worst crimes an individual can commit, but even here one can see extenuating circumstances such as self-defense, or defending one's family.

Of course, someone can point out that such justifications are abused regularly, and this is certainly true. But that's why we have societal taboos as well as laws: to reinforce the idea that one should take a human life only under extreme circumstances. It's the difference between killing a man who is trying to rape your wife (or in your case husband/significant other{g}) and killing someone called that person a whore.

Same thing for suicide: strong legal and moral taboos exist as speed bumps, to inhibit casual self-inhumation. I'll even claim that denigrating such taboos as "merely conventional" hurts society as a whole, since it short-circuits the whole process.

Take abortion as an example. One of the objections to legalizng elective abortion (as opposed to an abortion to save the mother's life, etc.) has been that people become desensitized to death (or, according to others, killing). It becomes, well, just a personal choice.

30 years ago, some critics predicted that, eventually, the "quality of life" argument would progress from elective pre-natal abortion to post-natal. In other words, killing defective children after birth. There were even some science fiction stories written to that effect.

Pro-choice/abortion advocates dismissed such suggestions as "slippery slope" arguments.

Well, this is one time we've fallen down the slope.

"John Harris, a member of the Human Genetics Commission, told a meeting at Westminster he did not see any distinction between aborting a fully grown unborn baby at 40 weeks and killing a child after it had been born.

Harris, who is a professor of bioethics at Manchester University ... was reported to have said that he did not believe that killing a child was always inexcusable.

In addition, it was claimed that he did not believe that there was any ‘moral change’ that occurred between when the baby was in the womb and when it had been brought into the world." (emphasis added)

Now, Don Sensing points out that Harris "has a record of saying provocative things," but you know that even if that man isn't serious about this idea, someone else will be.

Please don't take this as a polemic against any abortion, or suicide. I know too many people with stories to say that suicide is always wrong. But does that make them always right instead?

I think it's healthy for a society to have taboos against killing, else humans would be doing nothing else but.

I have to ask one thing: what the heck is the "gay panic" defense for murder? I don't think I've ever heard of that before.

In a nutshell, what's really being asked is: do I have the (ethical) right to forfeit my own life? The second question raised: do I have the right to determine what will be done with my body once I've shuffled off the mortal coil? has already been answered. Many people choose cremation over burial, will their bodies as training cadavers for medical students, to be frozen in case medical science advances enough to resurrect them one day, even to be frozen and sliced up into liiiittlle biiittty peeices and digitized so medical student won't have to carve up cadavers.

To the former question, the Conservative in me says, "no", while the inner Libertarian dying to get out says, "sure, whatever."

I noticed that it took only 5 comments before the topic devolved into homosexuality. ;)

This is really one of those simple things - you take our erstwhile cannibal out into the yard and flog him to death with a bullwhip.

Cannibalism is outside of any sort of civilized behaviour and cannot be tolerated under any circumstances whatsoever.

As to whether or not a person has a "right to die"...of course; one can off one's self pretty much at will - its when a person tries to get another to do the offing where we get into trouble and on that noted slipery slope...better to stay off of it.

"I noticed that it took only 5 comments before the topic devolved into homosexuality."

It shouldn't take very long, considering that that the "victim" in this case allowed his own penis to be sliced off and eaten as an appetizer.

There are no legitimate reasons for offering up your life to another to cannibalize. There were cultures that believed that allowing the rest of the tribe to eat them would make them immortal, others believed it would keep disease, famine, or whatever from their children.

The point is, it does not matter one wit that the guy wanted to die and die in that way. Cannibalism is wrong--and illegal. You cannot give consent to it, well, you CAN give consent, but if someone takes you up on it, they're going down.

But I don't understand why Mr. Anderson thinks it is strange to draw a connection to the slippery slope argument. That's exactly what this case demonstrates. There will always be people on the edges--with fantasies that go beyond anything a reasonable or rational person could fathom. When you keep redrawing the line, extending what we accept, why is there a disconnect that this is a logical outcome of that?

The irony here, is that this story illustrates the point of "out there" for most people. It's over the top--the kind of story you'd come up with as an illustration of something we'd agree would be TOO FAR--as fiction. Now it's become a reality (and there are other cases like this one). But this story is just an extreme for some people. For other people, the kinds of things that are being rationalized and accepted are just as out there. If we accept that this story is "too much" or "too far" for most people, then we have to recognize that we all have a barometer of what is too much. It's just WHERE.

"I noticed that it took only 5 comments before the topic devolved into homosexuality."

See: Kinsell's Law

As far as the "appetizer": Eewwwww!

Mrs. du Toit:
"But I don't understand why Mr. Anderson thinks it is strange to draw a connection to the slippery slope argument."

I don't think it's strange at all. I think it's quite common, and I've said it before. Take a minority that has long been envied and hated but is now slowly becoming tolerated. Then find some way to associate that minority with some crime that _everybody_, including that minority, loathes. For centuries, the Jews were accused of kidnapping Christian children and ritually murdering them. This is known as the Blood Libel, and it has worked to great effect. Homosexuals are equated with child molesters and, now, with cannibals. If you can convince enough people through "clever" arguments such as this that the doctrine that the state should leave us alone will lead to orgies of bestiality and cannibalism, why then you have it made if you're a Santorum. There is, then, no limit we can place on the state's power to watch over us and control us to prevent us from doing depraved things. L'etat, c'est Santorum. But, then, of course, who controls the controllers? Hundreds of millions more people have died at the hands of totalitarian states ruling over people "for their own good" than have ever died from an excess of John Stuart Mill's liberalism.

Casey Tompkins:
"I have to ask one thing: what the heck is the 'gay panic' defense for murder? I don't think I've ever heard of that before."

The gay panic defense? That's when you plead temporary insanity because your victim's sexual advances so freaked you out that you had to kill him. The first time I heard the term was in reference to the Matthew Shepard case (though there I think the panic there was supposed to have been partially caused by one of the perps' own trauma), but according to this Salon article, it's older than that.

From what I know on this case, neither man could be considered rational. Delusional at the very least, possibly with other series emotional and mental disorders.

I've been suicidal (taking Paxil now), so I know how irrational the suicidal get. You aint thinkin' straight when you're out to do yourself in.

I strongly doubt either man could be trusted to make a rational choice at the time of the incident. And I am as strongly doubtful about the killer's state of mind now.

If the laws in the German state in question allow for it I expect something very much like a 'guilty but insane' verdict. Or the equivalent. The cannibal will get hospitalization and spend the rest of his life in a supervised setting. Likely he'll end up in a high security setting, since he'll be looking for more 'guests' for dinner even in hospital. we are talking about the sort of insanity that's nigh impossible to really control. Expect his condition to deteriorate as time passes.

A tragedy really. Had people taken him seriously, had people taken his victim seriously, both men would likely be in treatment now, and we wouldn't have such a morbidly fascinating tale to obsess over.

Re: the "Gay panic defense"

It should be noted that this defense rarely works. Especially not anymore, in this country. For example, I'm rather astonished by how often the gay press brings up the Shepherd case, and doesn't mention that one of his killers got life in prison and the other got the death penalty. And not by a jury full of gay people, either.

This in highly conservative, very Republican Wyoming.

When a lawyer is desperate, he will try anything that has a chance of helping his client. That is a defense lawyer's job: any defense that's legal is valid to try, even if you know it's a desperation move. Indeed, all the lawyer who even tried it in this case was trying to do was save his client from the death penalty or life without parole, because a "not guilty" verdict was impossible at that point.

So he made the desperation move. It failed. Predictably so. This isn't the 1950s, you know.

This is kinda old news. They were both criminally insane and should have been put away.

"So he made the desperation move. It failed. Predictably so. This isn't the 1950s, you know."

Yes, I do, having myself used that line on someone else a few days ago. Casey asked what the gay panic defense was, and I answered. Since he didn't indicate that he was inquiring because he expected to have to use it in the near future, I didn't comment on its success rate, but thanks for clarifying.

Seems to me "gay panic" is no different than any other "temporary insanity" pleas. They all offend a lot of people.

Casey why is consensual cannibalism sick? You disapprove of it, but that does make it either sick or immoral (though it is rather odd). What affect does it have on you; besides offending you?

This occured between consenting adults, therefore it is not murder. Charging the bloke with murder makes about sense as jailing someone who attempts suicide and fails.

Lonewacko how is the bloke who volunteered to be eaten criminally insane? Surely he has rights to do with his body what he pleases?

Eh, them vores. This'll probably become the next cutting-edge thing, after transdermal horn implants and elective amputations go mainstream.

Somehow I'm reminded of a passage out of one of William S. Burroughs' early routines— you know, the one about FDR's court-packing scheme, unleashing the purple-assed baboons to sodomize the U.S. Supreme Court, etc.:

Roosevelt was convulsed with such hate for the species as it is, that he wished to degrade it beyond recognition. He could endure only the extremes of human behavior. The average, the middle-aged (he viewed middle age as a condition with no relation to chronological age), the middle-class, the bureacrat filled him with loathing... "I'll make the cocksuckers glad to mutate," he would say, looking off into space as if seeking new frontiers of depravity.

If there is no victim it shouldn't be a crime. If you ask me, imposing your morals on me is more heinous than this admittedly wacky-human-food-orgy.

The Internet - Bringing Sick People Together Since 1970

If the main course was incompetent, he couldn't very well give his permission for such a radical "lifestyle change", could he?

Let's chalk this one up as a victory for Darwin's Law. Two deserving idiots removed from the gene pool.

Simple Answer. Yes.

Stephen,

I think you miss the point in your criticism of Santorum. The point is that an objective moral code is desirable and necessary. And the particular objective moral code on which Western Society is derived from the Judeo-Christian heritage. And that moral code bans murder, suicide, cannibalism, and yes, Homosexual behavior (as well as adultery, fornication, coveteousness, lying, stealing, etc.)

The problem with the concept of those who subscribe to the Harm Principle of Morality is that there is no objective standard to determine "Harm." It is entirely subjective.

The point is NOT that homosexuality = murder = cannibalism, etc. It is that the History of Western Society and the very development of Western Society is intrinsically tied to the afore mentioned objective Judeo-Christian moral code.

There are some who, out of selfish concerns, wish to abolish this code, and silence those who try to follow it. There are some who insist that since no one follows that code exactly, then the code itself must be wrong. But there are many in America who are not so anxious to abolish this code, especially when all external evidence shows (admittedly a subjective jusdgement) that no other moral codes have emerged which have proven themselves superior to it.

The common theme that many of us see is the desire to escape from the moral judgment imposed by such a code. It is not that the "sins" are equal. It is that they are all sins.

Steven, sorry I misspelled you name.

Guy from Ohio clearly shows the failings of the Harm Principle of morality.

The idea that imposing a beneficial moral system is more heinous that killing another human being is self-evidently insane. Consenting to Harm does not make it unharmful. Most reasonable people understand this. Only the most twisted minds cannot grasp this concept.

The other revelation Guy from Ohio's comment brings is just how far some are willing to go to reinforce there idea that morality is entirely personal. If that is the case, then nothing I do is ever immoral as long as I don't have any contradictory feelings about it. As long as I can justify myself, I am ipso facto justified. This is the defense of a psychopath.

Scott,

I agree that "Consenting to Harm does not make it unharmful". That, however, gets into several gray areas such as assisted suicide, abortion, tattoos and certain fertilization methods. Your argument seems indicates that millions of people are unreasonable or insane since there is considerable polarization on these subjects. For me, I think consent has everything to do with it. Abortion is harming a non-consenting person while what these two did was to harm a consenting adult. From a law-only perspective I’m against the former and not against the latter.

I'm not sure where I stated that "morality is entirely personal", I simply stated that there is no victim in this case. My personal morals and ideals would never allow me to be a part of that particular lunch date. Should we let this fact of my personal morals dictate what a law should be? In my opinion, no.

Besides, I'm more of a grilled ham and cheese guy. Please pass me the fava beans.

Guy from Ohio,

The idea that morality is entirely personal is implied in two things you said. 1) There is no victim, and 2) imposing a moral system is more heinous than an actual crime.

The first assertion must rest on the idea that no material harm occurred because of consent. Hence, you were invoking the Harm Principle, and since harm is a subjective to the individual, your morality is personal. The second assertion can only be logically argued on the basis that morality is essentially personal and subjective.

On the subject of laws and morality:

Morality can be simply defined as a set of values. On a societal level, any society must agree on a basic set of values in order to function effectively. In fact, a society cannot be a society without a shared set of values. The argument that laws cannot be based on morality is nonsensical. All laws are based on a particular society’s shared set of values. As such, all laws are based on morality. Any argument that requires the abandonment of moral values can be recognized as either 1) a call for lawlessness (anarchy), or 2) an attempt to modify the current morality of the society.

Addressing the first instance, any call for the abandonment of morality will necessarily require that abandonment of all laws. This leads to anarchy. Anarchy results in the destruction of society. So when proponents argue that morality cannot be the basis of laws, they are making a nonsensical argument. How can one seriously argue that morality should have no legal standing when ALL laws are based upon morality? Those who address the “laws cannot be based on morality” argument by accusing advocates of this position of attempting to destroy society are completely correct in their accusation. One can argue that all morality, and hence all laws, are invalid. And one can against particular laws. But one cannot argue both positions without contradicting oneself.

Since most cannot seriously be advocating for the destruction of society as a whole, then the only remaining option is not that they want to destroy morality, but rather that they want to change it. Any modification of the current morality will modify the society as well, and requires at least a partial destruction of the society, as it exists today. Any argument that asserts that the first amendment requires the abandonment of morality must be exposed. Those who make such an argument are in fact only trying to replace the current morality with a new morality. As such, moral for and against laws are completely appropriate and totally legitimate.

Scott Harris:
"Steven, sorry I misspelled you name."

No problem! I like both spellings of my name.

To begin with, I openly boast that all my motives are selfish motives. As for the destruction of society, some societies do indeed deserve to be destroyed: the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Saudi Arabia, or (what we must at all costs prevent) a Santorumized America. I will fight to preserve the United States of America _as it is_ under our Constitution, and oppose any attempts to _change_ or subvert our Constitution. I share _no_ values with a Santorum.
I will defend his right under the First Amendment to vomit his excrement, just as I would defend the right of any other Communist, Nazi, or Taliban totalitarian to do the same.
But I will also recognize him for what he is and act accordingly. I will excercise _my_ First Amendment rights -- and also my Second Amendment rights. The Santorums must keep their jackboots out of my bedroom, not only because the Supreme Court says so (John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner vs. State of Texas, June 26. 2003), but also because the Second Amendment says so. I will give up my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers. I will give up my freedom when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Sexuality, Homo-Sexuality, Lesbianism, Tribadism, is an absolute value, an absolutely holy selfish good in itself, and I will never renounce or compromise my values. This I vow upon the altar of every God and of every Goddess.

Steven,

Openly admitting to wanting to destroy "Santorumized America" is at least an honest position. Pontificating about laws based on morality being invalid is not a valid position.

Two things. There are a large number of Americans who basically agree with Santorum. It would have been impossible to coexist all these years without some basic agreement. So I'll bet you share a lot of values with him, not the least of which is the value of the right to make an argument.

What bothers me is those who declare that his argument is invalid because of his morality. You just made a passionate case based on your personal version of morality. He makes a passionate case based upon a non-personal morality.

Suicide and Homicide are not rational acts. They may sometimes be necessary, but they are never rational. They are emotional acts, sometimes to an extreme, but they are never the result of sweet reason.

If any thinking is involved it's rationalization, sometimes good, sometimes bad. But reason has nothing to do with it.

The suicidal (including yours truly) are selfish, spiteful, nasty little bastards who'd as soon see you dead if you give us any banal platitudes and empty rhetoric. The only way to deal with us is to put us in a situation where we can't hurt ourselves or others. A frustrated suicide is dangerous. So pop us in a controlled situation till we come to our senses and agree to play by the rules.

Anybody who says any different is either naive, a damn fool, or takes a vile pleasure at watching people kill themselves. If you must see somebody dead, at least have the courage to kill him yourself. Driving him to suicide is the coward's way out.

One last bit of advice: Never call suicide a noble act in front of somebody who's tried to kill himself.

Alan,

What would you call choosing to shield another from deadly harm, in the full knowledge that it will probably mean your death? I don't think you would call that suicide, based on your statement, but it's the only scenario I'm familiar with where anyone would customarily link a "suicidal" action with a sense of nobility.

Thanks to all for explaining the "gay panic" defense.

Apparently Guy from Ohio (hey!, from Hamilton) and Andrew are so far gone in relativism that they just can't grasp the concept that Some Things Are Bad.

I think Scott Harris did a nice job of explaining one way to justify that position. Frankly, if you two still can't get it, after several folks pointing out that someone who wants to be killed is not in a competant state of mind, you'll never get it.

I will add that that extreme sort of relativst position can be used to justify bestiality as well. And, if all you can respond with is "what's wrong with that?," remind me to not live in the same community with you...

"Openly admitting to wanting to destroy "Santorumized America" is at least an honest position. Pontificating about laws based on morality being invalid is not a valid position."

The only laws I accept as valid are those which protect my life, liberty, and property.

"Two things. There are a large number of Americans who basically agree with Santorum."

There were a large number of Germans, in fact a majority, who agreed with Hitler.

"It would have been impossible to coexist all these years without some basic agreement."

The only thing that enable me to coexist with Santorumites at all is the fact that they are forced to obey the Constitution. It took the Civil War and World War II (Hiroshima) to force them to do that. They are now in the process of trying to _change_ the Constitution and overthrow the Supreme Court. If they succeed in doing that, there will be another Civil War. I will not submit to slavery.

"So I'll bet you share a lot of values with him, not the least of which is the value of the right to make an argument."

If Santorum had his way, I'd be in a concentration camp.

"What bothers me is those who declare that his argument is invalid because of his morality. You just made a passionate case based on your personal version of morality. He makes a passionate case based upon a non-personal morality."

Santorum's morality consists of the idea that we are all property of the state, that the state should control every minute of our lives, and that all sex should be banned unless it's for the sole purpose of breeding more slaves for the state.
Collectivism is slavery and leads to mass murder, rape, and -- cannibalism.

Scott Harris:
"Morality can be simply defined as a set of values. On a societal level, any society must agree on a basic set of values in order to function effectively. In fact, a society cannot be a society without a shared set of values. The argument that laws cannot be based on morality is nonsensical. All laws are based on a particular society’s shared set of values. As such, all laws are based on morality."

As such? To steal from Roger Kimball, "as such" approximately in the sense of "Abracadabra." My understanding has always been, to put it conversationally, that ethics are the rules that apply based on how what you do affects other people, and morals are what you should be doing even if no one ever finds out or is affected non-negligibly. Shared values will affect which laws are made in a democracy or republic, but that doesn't mean they affect whether such laws are moral.

IOW, once we have our shared values nicely listed, we still have to decide whether each is moral (no murder because it deprives the victim of life...not to mention liberty and the pursuit of happiness), ethical (like, say, holding people to contracts they've agreed to with a signature, since it doesn't have any cosmic value), or just a way of binding the community that accumulated over time (half the zoning laws in America).

The reason even people who aren't frothing-at-the-mouth libertines invoke the harm principle is that, given enough time, ways of binding the community can come to look like moral certainties. You could argue that the old laws against miscegenation were based on lofty ideals of preserving the races as God made them and not exposing resulting children to hard lives, or you could argue that the only harm interracial marriage did was to people's complacency and that children wouldn't suffer if people just minded their own business--to give one example. You don't have to give up the belief that some things are Bad, or go Too Far, or that there's an Objective moral code.

"I will add that that extreme sort of relativst position can be used to justify bestiality as well. And, if all you can respond with is "what's wrong with that?," remind me to not live in the same community with you..."

Bestiality is legal in Texas. In fact, it was legal in Texas at the time John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested.
Either the Texas legislature has some peculiar tastes or they wanted to "send a message to our youth" that homosexuals are filthier than dog-fuckers. Or both. In anycase, the United States Supreme Court sent them a different message.

Steven how come that fact about Texas does not surprise me in the slightest? I have met several people from that part of the world who are perfectly happy to admit that they were arrested for trespassing (while have relations with a cow). How these same people bleated on about "fags" and "homos", because and I quote..."at least it was female cow (or sheep)".

I think those against the position of "consensual cannibalism" are farther more "frothing" than the two of us who are libertines. To accuse of being "frothing", in addition to some of the other comments above, merely makes my point.

So obviously most of you here do not believe in one's personal sovereignty then? So there shouldn't be much opposition here to the European system of harvesting your organs after you are dead automatically. If you do not have rights to determine what you do with your own body then what rights do you truly have?

Scott,

I think our basic disagreement is about the term "victim". We can agree to disagree there.

When I said "imposing your morals on me is more heinous than this admittedly wacky-human-food-orgy", it is worded somewhat extremely. The intent was the fact that changing a law based on one's feeling or personal morals affects millions whereas this act of cannibalism affected a few people (can you imagine being the parents of either one of those?). We have to be very vigilant about passing laws based on a group of societies morals. Morals about any one subject have an incredibly broad spectrum in society. Just because someone is on a different band in the spectrum then you doesn't necessarily mean that they are insane. My belief that it shouldn't be a crime if there is no victim also doesn't mean that I ignore laws that don't happen to follow that premise.

Sean Kinsell (good post) and others have some well stated posts, I also appreciate what you are saying.

Oh, and Casey, don't move to Columbus ;^)

Steven,

I think you need to be honest about who is the agressor and who is the defender of American Society as it has been. Santorum and his compatriots are not the agressors. Your post implies that he is. In fact, he is a defender of what has been. It is those like yourself who are the aggressors. At least you admit you are trying to destroy something.

To argue that he and his kind are the equivalent of Nazi's and want those who disagree with them in concentration camps is hysterical reasoning. Please refer me to the concentration camps that existed in America prior to the Lawrence decision, because I missed that part of American history.

Sean,

You make a valid point. It is not necessary, not is it desirable for all morality to be included in the legal code. That does not mean that all laws are not based on morality. It just means that all morality is not (and should not be) sanctioned by written laws. Certainly, Prohibition is a prime example of going too far in trying to encode morality into the law.

I believe that there is a difference between agreed upon minimum standards (the legal limits), and desirable behavior (moral actions.) Also, if you've ever read Tom Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense," you are aware of the distinction between government and society. The difficulty is knowing where to draw the line between government and society given that both are represented in our government.

Unfortunately, groups like the ACLU (which is not all bad), have blurred the line. There is now a concept that whatever is legal is also morally acceptable. Also, people and institutions are being sued because they try to hold to a moral standard that is more stringent than the legal standard.

Moral standards in private organizations should be acceptable even if the majority of society disagree with those standards. But the extreme goals of protecting minorities from "embarrassment" or "emotional distress" are, I believe, illegitimate. The government, i.e. the courts, should not be in the business of protecting people's feelings.

Scott, sorry I was so nettled before; this issue is a peeve of mine (not consensual cannibalism, mark you, but morals | ethics | acculturation).

Andrew, I believe in personal sovereignty, yes. But you can't will that your body be used to do something illegal--say, freezing it solid and clubbing your least favorite ex-boyfriend to death with it--just because you can choose how to dispose of it. As Mrs. du Toit said, if your fondest wish is to be planked and sauced with a wreath of glazed carrots, it's nice that you're in touch with your feelings, but that doesn't mean you get to do it.

It's not that there aren't grey areas. If a loved one were immobilized by untreatable pain, or had homicidal impulses that weren't susceptible to therapy, and asked me to help him end it, I honestly don't know what I'd do. If I did honor his wishes, though, I would realize that I was still accountable to the law and that I'd have to pay the consequences if I were found out. Does it not bother you an eensy bit that we're talking about letting someone who coolly killed, butchered, and ate another human being run around loose on the streets? This is not a once-and-done act of self-defense or mercy in extraordinary circumstances, after all.

Sauce AND Glazed Carrots, Sean? How gauche.

If I a family member asked me to help them end their life in your scenario, I would do it. I think the law is an arse on euthenasia.

It does not bother me that bloke is out on the streets. The cops should be out hunting people who are trying or have killed people who did not give them permission to do so.

Andrew,

If that is your position, then the only remaining option for those of us who disagree with you is to act to ensure that your views never become the prevailing law of the land. I consider your viewpoint to be morally repugnant, and I am not ashamed to say so.

Have a heart, Mrs. du Toit: the man's not in his right mind. But we can pipe a border of mashed potatoes and broil until golden if you think his soul will repose better that way.

"I think you need to be honest about who is the agressor and who is the defender of American Society as it has been. Santorum and his compatriots are not the agressors. Your post implies that he is. In fact, he is a defender of what has been. It is those like yourself who are the aggressors. At least you admit you are trying to destroy something."

Santorum and his compatriots are aggressing against my property and my liberty. They are not defenders of anything American. They want to control my life. I will not stand for it. They are the same as Communists.

"To argue that he and his kind are the equivalent of Nazi's and want those who disagree with them in concentration camps is hysterical reasoning. Please refer me to the concentration camps that existed in America prior to the Lawrence decision, because I missed that part of American history."

Yes. You missed a lot. Here's what Dean Esmay himself has to say about that part of American History you choose to deny:
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/005599.html#005599
Here's more:
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm
And here's the rest of the world. Compare. With which countries do you choose to identify? Nations like Israel and Holland? Or nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran?
http://www.sodomylaws.org/
They are Nazis. Their premises and their arguments are exactly the same.
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hitler.html

Scott well that makes two of us... I find your opinion morally facistic and arrogant. Nothing like allowing people to suffer just to make you feel better eh? Well and to make doctors weathly from bleeding terminally ill patients and their families for as long as possible.