NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello and greeting from the Allied States of Antipolo's UN relations emissary,

My country is prepared to launch a proposal to abolish and ban Cannibalism. To some's surprise, there has not been a resolution on this yet banning the barbaric act. In that regard we have prepared a draft concerning this issue:

Ban Cannibalism
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
"United Nations,

RECOGNIZING certain countries in which this practice is made legal,

NOTING the horrid nature of eating another person,

FURTHER NOTING other alternatives to people as food,

URGES the act of cannibalism among humans to be abolished."

It is still waiting for some more further approval. I am hoping to see many nations behind this act.

Your argument consists of "It's icky and unnecessary".

As far as we are concerned, that is insufficient to justify prohibition. If somebody consents without coercion to be eaten after they die, then nobody's rights are infringed by allowing their wishes to be fulfilled. Our concern is the maximisation of individual rights and freedoms, and we do not see it as the place of the state to dictate to the citizen what consists of proper and improper treatment of their body after death.

Our office agrees with _Myopia_ in this matter, and further objects to the threat to a nation's right to determine its own domestic policies that this proposal poses.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Your argument consists of "It's icky and unnecessary".

As far as we are concerned, that is insufficient to justify prohibition.

Never undersestimate the dangers of ickiness. This argument appears sufficient to Us.

Never undersestimate the dangers of ickiness. This argument appears sufficient to Us.

Please explain how the supposed "ickiness" of consensual cannabalism infringes on anyone's freedoms.

Please explain how the supposed "ickiness" of consensual cannabalism infringes on anyone's freedoms.
The purpose of this proposal is duly noted within the subtext of the resolution. It should be observed that a moral decency resolution is: "a resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency." Therefore there should not be anymore argument specifically concerning the infringment of freedoms.

I have to agree with my Myopian friend here, in view of the fact that just because you find something icky, does not justify it being wrong.
If you're going to propose a resolution, you should first ask yourself: "Does this thing actually harm anyone or pose a threat in the future to harm some one?" Since we're discussing cannibalism of an already dead person, I can't see how, failing improper food handling, this poses a threat.

Your argument consists of "It's icky and unnecessary".

As far as we are concerned, that is insufficient to justify prohibition. If somebody consents without coercion to be eaten after they die, then nobody's rights are infringed by allowing their wishes to be fulfilled. Our concern is the maximisation of individual rights and freedoms, and we do not see it as the place of the state to dictate to the citizen what consists of proper and improper treatment of their body after death.

*applause* Here's for personal and cultural freedoms!

Look at it this way: humans are the only animals that can consent to being eaten. So I say we ban the eating of all meat except that of consenting humans.

Well no, I don't really say that. But just for the sake of argument...

It's the duty of the United Nations to mainatain a humane atmosphere in ALL nations.
The eating of animal meat is a liberty which all citizens are entitled to, as they are enlighted enough to make a educated choice.
The United Nations such invest in a world Education fund yto ensure this and teach the morals for which we stand.
As for the eating of Human flesh it is a barbaric practice, which must be ended as soon as possible.
We as a group must stamp out this crulety by force if need be.

On behalf of the Allied States of Antipolo and its peoples, we thank County Islands for its support. In that regard we would like to clarify our position on this current proposal. We do not feel that it is the United Nations' duty to use military force in preventing these incidents. However we just strongly urge all governments to ban the practice of cannibalism and thereby making it illegal to eat other human beings. Decomposed or not, with consent or without.

Thank you all for your time.

I don't see what's cruel or barbaric about cannibalism. Murdering someone is cruel and barbaric, but the act of eating a consenting individual who dies of natural causes is not. If, when I die, someone wants to eat my body, they are welcome to it. I will not be using it any more.

Of course, you don't want to eat the brain, because that might give you Laughing Sickness, which isn't fun. The rest is just as good as anything else.

Taking Punrovia's stand one step farther, if, when I die, a bunch of necrophiliacs want to use my body, they are welcome to it. I'm not gonna be using it anymore. :eek:

If both parties consent to cannabalism, I don't see why it should be outlawed. There are cannabals who murder people for their meat, but what's illegal is the murder, already covered by UN resolutions, rather than the eating flesh part.

Canibillism is unheard of. Urcea supports the Anti-Cannibalism movement.

Interesting. I've heard of it. I'm sure I have.

Well perhaps a ban to cannibalism amongst other living humans would be in proper order?

*IRL I did find a story where a living consenting human being was invited by another person. He voluntarily chopped off a certain, particular body part and they had ate it together. Without giving any medical information to the other person. The danger of disease still rampant throwing all concern to health away. Though one might believe that one could be a "professional" cannibal, there are no real and current scientific guidelines as to eat someone else. So yes not only do I find this appaling, but it does raise some valid health concerns...every single time this particular act is committed. In this case it's just not right, to permit a LIVING breathing person to do this; cut a piece of himself off, would it still be right and acceptable?

Now I know some people do know this story and will refer to other parts of this story. Others will stray off to find different metaphors in life and ascend the slippery slope. So I pray that we all stay on the same page. As I am prepared to limit my proposal on the cannibalism ban. I feel I have comprimised enough on this bill (as far as the deceased persons go). But as far as a LIVING PERSON eating another living, that is the question I pose for you today.

I support the movement for anti-cannabolism as much as I support the oppositional reasoning. Perhaps, if this goes up for a vote, there can be some sort of stipulations allowing it so it does not infringe upon individual rights. Individuals should have the right to offer themselves up as food instead of choosing burial, burning, or sea graving. However, I feel they should have this written in a "living" will format and should pre-pay for the cost of checking for disease, etc... that they may have that could spread to others (like the cows are checked). Also, in cases of when cannabolism is necessary for survival in cases of emergencies, they should not face charges upon being rescued. Without these stipulations, my vote will not support this movement/motion.

Well naturally it should be checked before it is deemed fit for human consumption, just as any other food would be. Also I agree that a person should have to stipulate in their will that they wish to be disposed of in this fashion.

Latin School supports you in your quest.

Lets look at it from an economic stand....

The eating of "passed on" human bodies might take away gain from other meat distributing/providing sources in that nation/nations.

I'm not really sure where our nation stands on this issue yet, I have to think on it a little more and will come back later.

Well naturally it should be checked before it is deemed fit for human consumption, just as any other food would be. Also I agree that a person should have to stipulate in their will that they wish to be disposed of in this fashion.

Exactly. Any nation that cannabalism is allowed in should have those safeguards in place. However, I play the national sovreignty card here. I think it's just as foolish to force all UN nations to allow cannabalism as it is to force all UN nations to ban cannabalism. If we do a "Cannabalism Safety Act", it should only force nations that already allow cannabalism to check food before it's deemed fit for human consumption and that the deceased person willingly chose to be eaten. Nations like Antipolo can still ban cannabalism in their borders if they so desire.

Your forgeting the moral issues of such a life style choice.
If we allow Cannibalism, then we encourge other inhame actions.
We need to stop this at all costs, as members of the U.N it is our duty to protect and serve the people of the world.
Are we protecting them if we allow them to be consumed?
This isn't an issue of health, this is about human rights.

We wish to thank the Latin School for supporting us in this movement. County Islands, while we do like to have you supporting our cause…it is very important to also address the impact of cannibalism as an extreme HEALTH HAZARD.

As for the requested stipulations are concerned, we have yet to formally legalize an edit yet nor a working paper. However we are currently working on a draft though we are not prepared to display it publicly. At this moment our government still strongly urges to support this bill and ban cannibalism as a whole.

We deeply regret that the opposition who support cannibalism, fail to realize the health impact and the UNSANITARY practices still used in this act of cannibalism. It is also worth noting that there are no guidelines in eating other people (except for unofficial ones crafted by self-prescribed “professional cannibals”). Despite the fact that all food and drug are thoroughly regulated and come under intense scrutiny when a famine or problem like mad cow disease or bird flu come underway. It should observed that AIDS/HIV as well as many other contagious diseases can be easily contracted through this act of cannibalism without proper medical attention. That of course should be reserved towards the people who need it most like people in the hospitals.

Our government does serve and protect our people. We don't serve and protect corpses. What our people decide to do with their body after their death, within the health and sanitation laws of this nation of course, is their own business. Our government won't interfere with a citizens right to donate their body for scientific research, human consumption, art and culture or anything else.

Antipolo's ambassador to the UN wishes to remind everyone that not only cannibalism applies not only to the dead dead, but ones still alive as well. Especially towards persons wishing to donate their body to be eaten. We would also like everyone to recognize that implementing nationwide health-standards is not as easy one might think. A government would need to implement a substantial share of its health budget towards this project. As well as numerous safegaurds to ensure complete safety. Not to mention investing much money up front in starting an industry devoted to preparing human flesh.

The ability to eat someone is trivial to other people including ones not directly affiliated with the practice if not handled with care. Our government highly doubts any government who wishes to legalize cannibalism have taken necessary steps to address health concerns. New diseases unknown to us can arise because of it, another danger in letting it through. It is also one of the easiest ways to contaminate an entire body.

So please I urge you to read and re-read these two paragraphs, for not only is it a barbaric act which severely underlines a person's psychological problems. It also raises some valid health concerns that cannot be addressed simply by creating new laws and there. For this reason we feel that the health of the society far outweighs national soverneighty.

Antipolo would like to acknowledge Fatus Maximus in that, a "Cannibalism Safety Act" is in works. However I am not sure people would care or do care, or even acknowledge the health hazards of cannibalism. Furthermore it walks along a thin gray line in the sense that it offers optionality...something that cannot be done in a UN resolution. Doing something like that would take us in a direction unclear to our government at this point.

Hello and greeting from the Allied States of Antipolo's UN relations emissary,

My country is prepared to launch a proposal to abolish and ban Cannibalism. To some's surprise, there has not been a resolution on this yet banning the barbaric act. In that regard we have prepared a draft concerning this issue:

Ban Cannibalism
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
"United Nations,

RECOGNIZING certain countries in which this practice is made legal,

NOTING the horrid nature of eating another person,

FURTHER NOTING other alternatives to people as food,

URGES the act of cannibalism among humans to be abolished."

It is still waiting for some more further approval. I am hoping to see many nations behind this act.

This is a no brianer, I think most countriess from the UN already are against canibilisium.

I don't really think it would require a substantial investment to have bodies checked for disease and so forth - how many cannibals are there likely to be? Legal or not, it will always be a niche market. Meat consumed in our society is already checked to make sure it is fit for human consumption, so part of the framework is already in place. Also, we do know the health risks from cannibalism - diseases, which could be checked for, and also Laughing Sickness, a brain disorder similar to CJD which is very nasty if you get it but easy to avoid by simply not ingesting human brains. I would suggest more stringent tests on grey matter for this reason. If a person wishes to be cannibalised, the law could be arranged so that they are required to pay for the tests themselves.

Also, how exactly is eating someone who has died and consented to having their body eaten barbaric? I am not advocating murder - people can't donate their bodies for cannibalism until they die naturally. I believe I have the right to dictate what is done with my body after I am dead. Some people want to be buried, some people want to be cremated. If I want to be eaten, and someone wants to eat me, then I should be allowed to do so.

For the record, I personally want nothing to do with cannibalism (I happen to be a vegetarian), but I don't see why the act deserves the taboo we place upon it. Humans are made of flesh. Most humans eat flesh. Why shouldn't humans eat humans?

1) It is still possible to be passed into legislation that cannibalism be legalized
2) Have you even considered the thought process of one wanting to forgo all other regular food alternatives to eat another human being. They would would really have to be suffering from severe mental and psychological problems. That said, we should not allow such damage to be spread by the legitimizing these practices.
3) It is not safe to presume that cannibalism is a niche market here in the NS specifically.

That is all our government has to say for the time being.

*****Though again in real life, i would really like to urge you guys to spur conversation regarding this topic in your daily lives. The topic of whether or not to legalize cannibalism in your community. Does the interests of civil freedoms outweigh the interest of moral decency in this case?

Anyway I hope you guys have fun with that in whomever you choose to converse. Ask a liberal, then ask a conservative and see what happens! Especially make sure to ask anyone or everyone from different backgrounds. I'll be be back in a couple days..preferably Sunday or Mondayish. Seeya guys :p *********

Does the interests of civil freedoms outweigh the interest of moral decency in this case?

In my opinion, the answer to that question is almost always yes. That is only my opinion, but as I happen to be a delegate, my vote counts as well.

The People's Dominion of Snoogit have reservations over humans eating each other. Disease, and contamination have long been problems in The PDS. If we were to allow cannibalism, we would surely be allowing disease to enter the populace. We have seen what happens when we feed our Snoogarian Cows bone meal (feed made from dead Snoogarian Cattle), they develop "Angry Snoogarian Cattle Disease" their horns become weak, and fall off, their noses get red, and puffed up like a baloon, their hooves become like clay, and after they are dead their brains have massive amounts of calcium in them, causing them to act disoriented, and in many cases homicidal.

With this knowledge, we can only assume that if humans were to eat other humans a similar fate would befall them. In the interest of Human health, we banned all cannibalism. Not just human.

The purpose of this proposal is duly noted within the subtext of the resolution. It should be observed that a moral decency resolution is: "a resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency." Therefore there should not be anymore argument specifically concerning the infringment of freedoms.

Freedom is our only yardstick in determining what should and should not become law. We don't give a damn how icky or disturbing you or anyone else finds something - if individual freedoms are maximised by allowing it, we will allow it. In answer to your question, freedom ALWAYS outweighs moral decency in the political philosophy dominant in _Myopia_ (most of our internal differences arise when we try to establish how freedoms can be balanced).

Our government highly doubts any government who wishes to legalize cannibalism have taken necessary steps to address health concerns.

We maintain strict health regulations on all food, so that the rights of consumers are not infringed by deceptive or cost-cutting suppliers. This applies just as much to human meats as non-human. We find that as long as the individual was not ill, and the meat is thoroughly cooked, most human meats do not appear to pose a health risk (although we recommend avoiding the central nervous system). We do insist that consumers are informed of any known health risks, and of the tenuous nature of our scientific knowledge of the risks (given that there are not very many cases for us to study compared to most food products).

However, we do not believe there to be many especial risks to eating human meat, apart from prion diseases such as Kuru. As to other diseases, we see no reason why there should be more danger to eating humans. Plus, the risk of diseases crossing between species is eliminated.

By the way, did you know that human placenta is extremely nutritious, and some mothers in RL choose to eat their placentas after giving birth?

As to eating parts of the living, as long as it is a consenting act we don't see any reason why it is any worse. It ought to be viewed similarly to other acts such as circumcision, piercings and body "modding" (though of course food regulations would still apply if the meat is to be sold).