And my point is that you cannot assume (based on your feelings) that any person had moral, religious, or personal reasons for not wanting to be used as a cadaver. That is only your personal view with no basis to justify it with a person lacking any relative, donor designation, or healthcare directives.
I see little difference with someone in authority deciding on their own to cremate a person (where some religions mandate burial) vs. cadaver use. Both instances are imposed on a deceased, unclaimed, unspecified body, and each can be done in a respectful manner.
In many other instances involving foul play a body is mandated to undergo an autopsy and cut open with much less respect that we gave to cadavers--even if they had clear personal written or family directives. You can't have it both ways.
Here's the thing though.... MY point is that YOU cannot assume (based on YOUR feelings) that any person DIDN'T have moral, religious, or personal reasons.... You see where I'm going with this? And honestly, you're wrong. It is not ONLY my personal point of view with NO basis to justify it. It's based on human psychology. It's the very reason why waivers exist! It's the very reason why that declaration is on the back of every single U.S. civilian's Driver's License! Even the State recognizes basic human psychology. The one pertaining to most folks not wanting their bodies to be carved up after death like some sort of slab of beef at an Industrial Butcher's processing plant.
We're not two different sides of the same coin. Your point of view doesn't take basic human psychology into account. Mine does. Mine is grounded in basic human decency for those who suffered horribly while alive. Yours is grounded in,
"Well, these people likely hated themselves and thus would have no objections to being carved up by medical students. The fact that signed waivers don't exist, means nothing."
You see no difference, I do. Again, YOUR definition of respectful isn't necessarily the definition that others hold. From what you've mentioned during our exchange, it's more about making medical students FEEL better for cutting open Homeless people who likely didn't want their bodies to be cut open in the first place! And again, no; that is not simply my opinion. That is human psychology. You can't just say that these people THOUGHT themselves to be worthless, so we're free to treat them that way.
What about individuals who try to end their own lives? Clearly, such individuals who climb onto bridges or outside of tall buildings with the intention of jumping, they obviously THINK they are worthless. So, of course police arrive to keep crowds back.... And to encourage such individuals to jump. No?? Well, based on your perspective, that's how the real world works, doesn't it? Oh, I suppose not. Yeah, sorry. You don't get to make yourself feel better by pretending that it's okay to carve up homeless people because they themselves PROBABLY thought they were worthless. Combined with,
"Well the cause is a good one. So that justifies it all."
Thanks for proving my point. People can justify all sorts of horrific acts in their own minds. (It was done in a respectful manner.... The cause is an important one.... They themselves most likely thought they were worthless. So why should we actually care about them.... Someone else decided it was okay to carve into them after they expired. Sure that someone wasn't a family member. But that's good enough to assuage my conscience....Did I miss any? I mean those were the main points you brought up.)
I'm not having it both ways. Foul play isn't even part of this discussion. Never was. We're discussing basic human decency in how the Homeless are treated after they expire of causes not involving having their lives ended by someone else. And quite frankly, you're on the opposite side of basic human decency. But perhaps nowadays basic human decency is too much to ask for? Oops! Did that pesky Idealist side of my personality escape, and make his way to CPF? Hold on, I'll go check to see if he's still in his cage.
