In the case of allowing someone the freedom to consent to sex after death most certainly. Necrophilia is depravity consensual or not!
In the case of allowing 10 year olds to purchase pornography, I just think 10 is way too young
I must agree with both of these sentiments.
Particularly where necrophilia is concerned: if a person has sexual relations with a human corpse belonging to a person who died 23 hours beforehand, he is guilty of no crime; if he does the same act two hours later he is eligible for up to five years in prison and/or a very hefty fine of $10,000. While we need to draw arbitrary cut-off lines for many purposes, giving a period of only 24 hours to perform the act is practically unenforceable and a potential loophole for habitual necrophiliacs. Additionally, the amendment specifies that the "person" must be clear of any diseases; who is this referring to, the necrophiliac or the defiled corpse? Assuming it is referring to the latter, I'd venture to say that anyone who wants to
fuck a corpse probably deserves whatever disease he might get. If the idea of the amendment is to allow necrophilia on the basis that it is a matter of consent, why would someone be barred from having sex with a corpse if it has a "disease" when they would not be prohibited from having sex with a diseased living person?
