badreligion
2nd Level Black Feather
- Joined
- May 24, 2003
- Messages
- 8,485
- Points
- 0
Today on the History Channel, they had a program which covered documented cases of cannibalism throughout history.
This, of course, spawned conversation and speculation here at the house.
We agreed that killing a person just to eat their flesh is just creepy and wrong, however, if a person was put into a situation where survival depended on eating the flesh of a person or person's who had already died (such as the case of the stranded soccer players in the Andes), this would be acceptable.
The way I look at it is this... after I am dead, I have no use for my body. On my drivers license, it clearly states that I am an organ donor. If I am willing to donate parts of my body so that others may live or have a better quality of life, what is the difference between that and donating meat so that others may survive?
Meat is meat and food is food regardless of what form it comes in.
So... If you were put into a situation where there was no other food... no other option... would you eat the flesh of another person to keep yourself alive?
Hannibal Lecter had no problem with it ... he was quite cultrued lol







