In Defense of Cannibalism

For the second time, I am posting a closing statement delivered by the fictional Allen Shore from Boston Legal. This time defending desecration of the human body and... cannibalism. Cremation without the permission of any member of the family is more acceptable. (The persons was homeless and wouldve ended up decomposing somewhere. The defendant was his best friend, his only friend.) But canibalism? At first thought, it seems impossible to defend cannibalism for all its ethical and social blunder. That it seems there is no way cannibalism could be justified, at least philosophically. However, when juxtaposed alongside rationally permissible reasons which could only be understood through a thorough study and consideration of matters, then perhaps one could find himself out of indictment.

District Attorney: ...if we've reached the day where burning the remains of a body and cannibalism doesn't offend then I guess life has no sanctity at all, does it? No dignity. Please deliver a verdict that says there is sanctity not just to the life of a human being, but also the death.

To save the defendant from being put behind bars, this is what Shore delivered:

A billion and a half Christians routinely go to Church every Sunday and ceremoniously eat the body of Christ, drinks His blood... Let's not carry on with the idea that the notion of cannibalism offends the sanctity of life. It has roots not only in sacraments but also Greek mythology. It's still glorified in certain sections of both the south and I believe, Malibu. And I might add, it's not illegal. There's no federal law, no Massachuessetts law that criminalizes cannibalism. That's why Mr. District-Attorney-my-name-appears- second-on-the-ballot-this-November Ginsberg has trumped up these other charges, desecration and so forth and lectured you on dignity and sanctity. There is no dignity in starving death. When a homeless person is left to rot on a slab, the sanctitiy of life somehow gets trivialized. Mr. District-Attorney-my-name-appears-second- on-the-ballot-this-November Ginsberg wants you to be offended. You know what offends me? We have in this country over a million homeless people. The government can't feed them, cant give them shelter, but hey let's spend $60-70,000 to prosecute one who tried to stave off death. Let's spend another $45,000 a year to imprison him. There's no dignity on that. It's cruel. Mr. Nichols was cremating his friend to prevent the indignity of the unceremonious and degrading decomposition of his body. As for why he ate, he told you. He was starving. (Looks at one of the members of the jury) When was the last time you starved? (Then at another) How about you? (Looks at the DA) I know you're not starving except for attention. Let's face it. The only reason we're all here is because canibalism makes for good television. What better to satiate some pre-election hunger pangs than a belly full of media attention. Mr. District-Attorney-my-name- appears-second-on-the-ballot-this-November Ginsberg knows that. That's why he's handling this case personally. Not only does it give him a sensational platform for his shameless self-promotion, it also fits his notion of society. That's its not about understanding the homeless. It's about prosecuting. Kinda makes you wonder, who here is really the cannibal?