Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
*sigh* Irony . . . it's irony . . .
I'm sure.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well if its your body...or does the body belong to the state...?
I am of the opinion that your body belongs to who you gave it to in your last will. If that's not given it belongs by default to the first who claims it, in most societies that would be the government (having the most guns) and then, by extension, the person the government gives the body to. Except for the first part I believe that's also how it is handled in most western societies.
[edit] It doesn't really matter though as 2000 year old bones are a whole different matter than your Aunt Lilly that died while Snowboarding on the Mount Everest.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Well if she has proof that the ancient people didn't want to be removed then she would have a point IMO.
I don't see why...
she might have a moral point for people who believe there is something supernatural about corpses, but really, its decaying organic matter with no desires.
I can see if, say, a native band, that still exists and still was using a burial site, didn't want that site uncovered, they may have a legitimate argument. But stonehenge, like Bardock said, isn't owned or used by people for this any longer. There are no people who own the dead corpses, and obviously corpses can't be given human rights.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I am of the opinion that your body belongs to who you gave it to in your last will. If that's not given it belongs by default to the first who claims it, in most societies that would be the government (having the most guns) and then, by extension, the person the government gives the body to. Except for the first part I believe that's also how it is handled in most western societies.
Seems fair I suppose, so if you want your body protected- you leave it too your estate? How long does that protection last though? Until noone is around to defend it?
I guess, that is the only practical way to go about it- because people will keep digging up bodies...then again, in modern times if we document medically all there is to know about our bodies, state of health etc- it should greatly limit a future cultures need to excavate bodies.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sure. I'd be dead and not able to care.
A body is a body in most major religions and atheism...once its dead its dead. However, what about respect for the person who it once was?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Seems fair I suppose, so if you want your body protected- you leave it too your estate? How long does that protection last though? Until noone is around to defend it?
Yeah, like with every property I guess.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I guess, that is the only practical way to go about it- because people will keep digging up bodies...then again, in modern times if we document medically all there is to know about our bodies, state of health etc- it should greatly limit a future cultures need to excavate bodies.
Perhaps. Though, here's hoping that it won't be a big deal in the future anyways.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
A body is a body in most major religions and atheism...once its dead its dead. However, what about respect for the person who it once was?
Being dead? No real reason for that.
If something is left to say what the person would like to have happen it should at least be considered though.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see why...she might have a moral point for people who believe there is something supernatural about corpses, but really, its decaying organic matter with no desires.
I can see if, say, a native band, that still exists and still was using a burial site, didn't want that site uncovered, they may have a legitimate argument. But stonehenge, like Bardock said, isn't owned or used by people for this any longer. There are no people who own the dead corpses, and obviously corpses can't be given human rights.
I think thats reasonable, but to be fair shes not saying they shouldn't be studied but they should be studied and put back. It seems both points are valid.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So...do Medical Institutions have a right to dead bodies...what with the huge donor shortage...
I think inimalist and I disagree on that subject, it came up before. I personally believe that they don't have a "right" to the bodies at all. They should probably be first in line for any bodies that the government has to take care of, but if family or friends claim the body or especially if the person did not want that to happen to their body it shouldn't happen. Though, I think the question is even better when you talk about organ donors, and not only medical research.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I think thats reasonable, but to be fair shes not saying they shouldn't be studied but they should be studied and put back. It seems both points are valid.
fair enough
I disagree, more because I care about research more than superstition (thats not meant to be as dismissive as it sounds), but it is a compromise 🙂
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think inimalist and I disagree on that subject, it came up before. I personally believe that they don't have a "right" to the bodies at all. They should probably be first in line for any bodies that the government has to take care of, but if family or friends claim the body or especially if the person did not want that to happen to their body it shouldn't happen. Though, I think the question is even better when you talk about organ donors, and not only medical research.
I'm not sure how much we disagree. In theory, a corpse is an object, and should be left to the next of kin, much like property is if not specifically designated by the will. People obviously should have the right to say they do not want their body to be harvested. However, once they die, their body is now the property of the family, so if they want to disregard their wishes, all the power to them.
We may disagree about the application in a modern nanny state. I also assume Germany has some degree of public health, which also affects this, imho. I think an opt out system is better than an opt in system, but neither are very good in an idealistic world.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see why...she might have a moral point for people who believe there is something supernatural about corpses, but really, its decaying organic matter with no desires.
I can see if, say, a native band, that still exists and still was using a burial site, didn't want that site uncovered, they may have a legitimate argument. But stonehenge, like Bardock said, isn't owned or used by people for this any longer. There are no people who own the dead corpses, and obviously corpses can't be given human rights.
To be fair, and has already been pointed out, you could say this about ANY belief system.
People just want others to be respectful, at least tolerant, of what they believe.
Christians believe that men fly to heaven on chariots, part seas and turn staffs into snakes, but you would be hard pressed to find one that believed aliens, dragons, or Atlantis are even a possibility.
*shrug*
Originally posted by chithappens
To be fair, and has already been pointed out, you could say this about ANY belief system.People just want others to be respectful, at least tolerant, of what they believe.
Christians believe that men fly to heaven on chariots, part seas and turn staffs into snakes, but you would be hard pressed to find one that believed aliens, dragons, or Atlantis are even a possibility.
*shrug*
yes, I believe that there should be no artificial or supernatural considerations when looking at research. Be them druids, Christians or aliens.
the "tolerance" argument falls short for me too. there are cultures in the world, and that have existed in the past, that don't agree with divorce.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I think im verging towards that they should be studied and put back my problem is that the pagans can't prove they have any connection or practice what the dead people did.
who decides when there is nothing left to be gained from studying the bones?
are researchers allowed to dig the bones back up, at taxpayer expense, should they decide they need to look at them again?
Ok, point that every one is asking for:
These people were great believers in the power of the land and the sky - nature!. This is where the connection is! This has been proven by stonehenge its-self! it has been deliberated over greatly as to what its use was, I personally feel it had many uses particularly for the equinox's at summer and winter, where the solar and lunar alignments are precise to the arrangement of the stones.
It was a place of great importance, hence its stature and georaphical evidence (which is non-invasive to the land) relating to lay lines and the various other small "mounds" around the main henge.
If you read the first post again then you will find that none of the organisations present yesterday nor myself have any objections to studies being done on the remains, just that they be returned when the studies have been completed.
I have a great respect for the dead as should every one, and no I'm not forcing my view or beliefs on others, This is an expression of some thing I feel quite strongly should be left alone.
IMO once some one has died their body belongs to nature, to the ground. Final wishes are quite prevalent as they can make the differece between a peacfully resting, observative spirit and a wrathful one full of vengance - forgive me for being superstious.
Many people go through live thinking about what they would want to happen to them when they die. ie. funeral plans etc.
The ancient ones had plans too and for specific purposes.
personally I feel they are part of the whole vibe of Stonehenge, a great piece of heritage which I and many others wish to preserve.
And the Henge is still used, with great care and passion by the Druids, and the rest of us as a spiritual and magikal community, to preserve our ancient nature but also learn from it WITHOUT disturbing it.