Why are Atheists in America ok with cannibalism through consent

[CapnAwesome]

What is morally wrong with consensual cannibalism, other than it being icky?

I've thought about it, and it's the obvious presence of mental illness on one or both sides that presents a problem. You can't sign a legally-binding contract if you're nuts. You can't agree to be eaten because it means you're nuts, so we'd have no way of discerning whether the people involved were of sound mind. Also, it would usually constitute murder (it's murder even if the victim agrees to it, as the law stands), which is bad. It's a different story if the victim does the killing, but there's still the question of mental stability, which I think is insurmountable.

Hmmmm, it could be. But normally mental illness alone is not a justifiable reason to lock someone away. The normal standard is posing an immediate threat to themselves or others.

So a lot of it depends on the situation. But if it involves just eating a dead person who was going to die anyway, I'm for sure in favor of that. If my close friends and family want to eat me when I die, I'm fine with that.

The other ones are a little more tricky. But I think suicide and murder laws pretty much cover all of them. You can get them mental health treatment if they are an immediate threat to themselves or others.

I don't think the one doing the eating should have any consequences, unless murder or coersion were involved.

I guess I'm the atheist the troll was referencing.