---

by Jayjay
So as long as consent has been given by the parents then I can see no other issues.

---

This comes down to whether a human child has inalienable rights, or is the property of the parents. We all agree, I'm sure, that children do have some inalienable rights, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Should a child's organs be donated, for example?

I think yes, because of the overiding and provable good it will do to many other children.

But when the act is as degrading as eating a dead child's flesh, for no concievable good whatsoever except for a so-called artist to provoke easy and cheap outrage and abhorence with all the inteligence and grace of a swinging cudule, I can see no reason whatsoever why the child's dignity should be so readily sacrified.

Is this a moralistic judgement? Yes. I think there needs to come a point where they must be imposed on behalf of those who cannot give consent.

This artist may be challenging fundamental human taboos, but he's doing it in such a cackhanded, lazy and exploitative way I couldn't give a damn what he's trying to say, and I don't think he should be allowed to do what he did, whatever the parents are saying.

Shock for the sake of it is every bit as tiresome as those saccarine landscapes.

---

by Byron
This comes down to whether a human child has inalienable rights, or is the property of the parents.

---

I realise what I'm about to say might outrage some people, and I wish to cause no offense, but I have to be honest about my views.

We are talking about a still born baby. It was never born. It was never fully actualised. It had more in common with a fetus than with a child. As such it should not be seen as a child.

No one is being hurt here. If the parents do object, then that's a different matter, though I have heard no where that that is the case. What is happening here is a lot of people being outraged and disgusted, which is no reason to ban something. You think this is immoral and disgusting? Don't watch it.

It really is that simple.

---

by Jayjay
(quotes)
We are talking about a still born baby. It was never born. It was never fully actualised. It had more in common with a fetus than with a child. As such it should not be seen as a child.

---

I'm sure I read somewhere that if a baby is miscarried or still born after (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) 28 weeks it has to have a death certificate and is entitled to a funeral. I think this counts as a human being. Try telling a parent who has had a still born baby that it should not be seen as a child.

---

by Jayjay
This is no different to me than the use of birth control and the rights of .. erm, this is starting to over step family friendly so I'll stop there. I guess the 'dults here know what I mean, whether they agree or not.

---

I can't believe what I've just read.The consent issues over letting someone eat a still born child are the same as those of taking the pill? Do you have ANY idea how deeply offensive and repugnant that suggestion is?

---

by Jayjay
We are talking about a still born baby. It was never born. It was never fully actualised. It had more in common with a fetus than with a child. As such it should not be seen as a child.

---

It was never born? It may not have been born alive, but a still born child has to be 'born' in the same way as a healthy child. In most cases they have been carried to (or almost to) term by the mother and she will have developed an emotional attachment to the unborn child. During the pregnancy the child may have kicked the mother, a heartbeat will have been detected, the baby will have been responding to sound and light, in a few cases it may even havce been given a name. It is a human child at this point and should be afforded the rights of any other child. Or is it okay to eat dead people of any age now?

---

by Sydney
I can't believe what I've just read.The consent issues over letting someone eat a still born child are the same as those of taking the pill? Do you have ANY idea how deeply offensive and repugnant that suggestion is?

---

I think he probably does. Doesn't stop it being a valid opinion though.

I'm sure you're aware that there are people who think that the notion of deliberately terminating a pregnancy is offensive and repugnant - to the point where some of them will kill doctors and bomb abortion clinics. Indeed, from one point of view, it might be seen as less morally wrong, since a still-born child has at least died of natural causes.

Not that that's my opinion - I do mostly agree with Jayjay, actually. But it's an issue that many people have strong (and strongly opposing) feelings about, and I don't think there's any kind of moral black-and-white here.

(Edited by In a State of Dan 06/01/2003 14:17)

Have to say i agree with JayJay here...

As far as it being Art go, i don't know the history behind it, but i'm sure there is some social/psychological reason why it was done in the East. In south america, tribes used to eat parts of their enemies to gain their strength.

I would guess eating the still born baby has some sort of significance, probably similar to the above. I will endeavour to find out.

As far as the moral implications go, i have to say i am indifferent. I'm not disgusted by it, but i don't find it terribly pleasing.

The baby is dead, it's a lifeless lump of flesh. It was born properly, and it's mind wasn't developed enough that it could have or give it's own consent. Therefore, if the Parent's have given consent for the body to be used in this manner, then so be it.

As JayJay said, just because people don't like something, that's no reason for it to be banned. Don't like it? Don't watch it.

---

by Jayjay
(quotes)

I realise what I'm about to say might outrage some people, and I wish to cause no offense, but I have to be honest about my views.

We are talking about a still born baby. It was never born. It was never fully actualised. It had more in common with a fetus than with a child. As such it should not be seen as a child.

No one is being hurt here. If the parents do object, then that's a different matter, though I have heard no where that that is the case. What is happening here is a lot of people being outraged and disgusted, which is no reason to ban something. You think this is immoral and disgusting? Don't watch it.

It really is that simple.

---

I don't think this could ever be described as "simple"!

A baby can be fully developed and stillborn, a few weeks premature or born as a partially developed foetus. If it is as developed as the baby in the picture appears to be, as Sydney says, it has become a person, long past the age when abortion would be acceptable in law or medically advised. Would it be acceptable to mutilate the corpse of a baby who dies in thier cot a few weeks or months after birth? When do you draw a line?

We have a duty to defend and protect the rights, to an extent, of those who cannot do so for themselves. It's why you cannot spend 10 hours torturing an aminal to death, and rightly so. Some say of course no animal should be killed: it's an emotive and subjecitve subject if ever there was one.

So subjectively, I say this shouldn't have happened. Not because it's disgusting or abhorent (it is, and so is the artist), because having your stomach turned isn't sufficient grounds to surpress something. But because it's a desecration of a dead child. If the same artist got the apporpriate consent forms signed to eat an adult's corpse, then revoleted as I'd be, I empthatically would not want anything done to stop it.

This, however, is different.

ok, you're saying if we don't like it not to watch it. I don't think we will and its not so much that we're complaining about it being on TV I think its more the fact that some guy is actually doing it in the 1st place. Ok yeah this stuff does go on in other countries as part of their religions or beliefs, but its a very sickening thought. This is sorta off subject, but just cuz its someones belief, do you think its right for them to dig up a corpse and do unpleasant things with it even if allowed? its not natural for a human being to eat still born babies, ok i nkow some animals do eat their children or mate, but we're human and its a totally sickening thought i'd have said to the majority of the human population knowing that this guy wants to eat a still born baby.

ok so this kind of thing *does* go on in different cultures, but the only reason someone could want to broadcast this is because of the reaction they know it will provoke amongst people, as has been said earlier.
personally, i think this kind of art is ok, but when dealing with this paticular subject matter - i think its far too much of a delicate subject to broadcast when considering the number of people who will be affected even just by the thought of this programme
i don't think it can be argued well enough to say that anything good comes from it really

---

by Jay Jay
We are talking about a still born baby. It was never born. It was never fully actualised. It had more in common with a fetus than with a child. As such it should not be seen as a child.

---

About 9 years ago my mum was pregnant..unfortunatley there were problems with the pregnancy and my little brother was still-born almost 4 months premature. I remember the 5 months of my mum's pregnancy, the excitement that went through our house and the different little things that were done to prepare for the childs arrival. To say that a still-born baby should not be seen as a child is very very insulting. I sometimes wonder what it would have been like if he'd been born and I know my mum still knows the date of his birth. The fact that I never got to see him, hold his hand or do any of the other things I would have gotten to do with a baby doesn't detract from the fact that I, in essence, lost a brother. Perhaps if you were to experience this situation (and i sincerley hope you never do) then you would understand the attachment that people develop with an unborn child.

As for the whole should they/shouldn't they debate on the eating an unborn child thing....A) Why would they want to do it?? It seems that people want to do more and more extreme things in the name of art just so they can make some money and garner some fame (bet the guy ain't doing it for free) and B) Channel 4 are showing it because they know it will get people talking about it and watching it and as they say any publicity is good publicity.

I for one won't be watching.

Several complaints have been received about this thread, and after reading the last post, I really do feel there is, without a doubt, enough reason to close this discussion.

Any problems with this decision, please email me. Desire@tangent21.com

Thank you.