As far as I can tell, under normal circumstance only the legal system has the right to override the next of kin's insistence that the corpse remain buried. So how did this person get their hands on my mother's corpse?
Plenty of people may have access to a corpse between the time of death and final disposition: orderlies, morgue employees, funeral parlor/creamtory/cemetary employees.
Has your contention changed from having no issue with someone eating a corpse or using it for sex, changed into, "If people with some sort of legal right to disposition on a corpse use it for sex acts or food, I have no issue with it"?
You've appealed to my emotional response. What I think is more important is my logical response. I don't see why I should care.Well Mr. Spock, other than the public health matters involved with the handling of a corpse, and the legal right to final disposition, issues surrounding the corpse (and other possessions of only sentimental value) are almost completely emotional. Will the family donate organs; cremate; embalm and bury; not embalm but bury; have a service; have a public service or a private one; do they want flowers; what dress should she be cremated/buried in; closed casket; open casket; rings on or off; one long visitation or two or three shorter ones.
A random corpse may only amount to so much meat to those of us who didn't care about the deceased, but it may well be more important than a rump roast to people who knew the living person who occupied the shell. Given it is largely an emotional matter, to ignore the emotional component is illogical.
Plenty of people already eat things I think are nasty and perform sex acts that make me wince and look away. I'm not about to start outlawing them because I think they are gross. I'd only want to outlaw them if I thought they were wrong.
Is causing emotional damage to other survivors wrong? If the cannibalism or necrophilia ran counter to the wishes of the deceased, would you then think it was wrong enough to take issue?