3 ms·

Dissections were not illegal. However, legal sources of cadavers were uncommon. This is a subtle but important distinction. Unfortunately, it means the source

Dissections were not illegal. However, legal sources of cadavers were uncommon. This is a subtle but important distinction. Unfortunately, it means the source of most cadavers was grave-robbing, which hopefully we can agree is not the most morally savoury of sources?

danuker 3y ago
I agree that grave-robbing is illegal. But I'd have no moral qualms with robbing the grave of someone with no living relatives. It's not like they're gonna mind. We all get recycled in the end.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- esperent 3y ago
  From what I understand, they robbed the graves of paupers - people who were too poor to afford marked graves. Which is not at all the same thing as having no living relatives.
RobotToaster 3y ago
Technically it's body snatching, grave robbing is removing valuables from a grave. Body snatching was historically just a misdemeanour, while grave robbing was a felony, so body snatchers would usually leave valuables and just take the body.
- jwestbury 3y ago
  Thanks for the clarification!
- morninglight 3y ago
  Benjamin Franklin, Tomb Raider?
- pyuser583 3y ago
  Wow I learn all sorts of cool things on this site. Now I just have to figure out how to work this into a conversation.
LatteLazy 3y ago
I think it is really unclear whether it was legal or not (and comes down to definition of those things). Parliament legalised dissections of humans under some circumstances in the 1800s. Before that it was treated as illegal, but I don't think there was an actual statute against it (maybe it was the common law?). Some laws before that specifically allowed it in some circumstances though (you could dissect people convicted and executed for murder for instance). It's a mess... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrectionists_in_the_United_Kingdom#Anatomy_Act_1832 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrectionists_in_the_United... The same article lists cases of people being lynched for it, so best to just not be caught I think...

danuker 3y ago

I agree that grave-robbing is illegal. But I'd have no moral qualms with robbing the grave of someone with no living relatives. It's not like they're gonna mind. We all get recycled in the end.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
esperent 3y ago
From what I understand, they robbed the graves of paupers - people who were too poor to afford marked graves. Which is not at all the same thing as having no living relatives.

RobotToaster 3y ago

Technically it's body snatching, grave robbing is removing valuables from a grave. Body snatching was historically just a misdemeanour, while grave robbing was a felony, so body snatchers would usually leave valuables and just take the body.

jwestbury 3y ago
Thanks for the clarification!
morninglight 3y ago
Benjamin Franklin, Tomb Raider?
pyuser583 3y ago
Wow I learn all sorts of cool things on this site. Now I just have to figure out how to work this into a conversation.

LatteLazy 3y ago

I think it is really unclear whether it was legal or not (and comes down to definition of those things). Parliament legalised dissections of humans under some circumstances in the 1800s. Before that it was treated as illegal, but I don't think there was an actual statute against it (maybe it was the common law?). Some laws before that specifically allowed it in some circumstances though (you could dissect people convicted and executed for murder for instance). It's a mess... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrectionists_in_the_United_Kingdom#Anatomy_Act_1832 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrectionists_in_the_United... The same article lists cases of people being lynched for it, so best to just not be caught I think...