[tones]

...at the same time it is good we are having this discussion, so that people who might not have been aware of the possibility of a grave injustice being inflicted on the potential victims here can have their eyes opened and also make an informed decision about whether or not to go. People with "clinical concience" or no respect for the dead can choose to go if they want.

[pheaton]

I walked literally right past the building that Bodies is in and it's pretty small. I thought once about just going and checking it out, but it does seem a bit expensive for what you actually get. Not to mention the possible ethical questions that arise from your financial contributions. Plus my wife went to a similar exhibit in Chicago a couple years back and she said that this one couldn't be anywhere near the size or the quality of the one in Chicago, given the amount of space they have to work with. Which means she would just be disappointed if we went anyways.

Anyways. I don't really have a point other than, I live outside of town and I'm not scared at all of other parts of Omaha. I'm downtown often and walk around down there alot. My job also takes me up by Blair sometimes. So the easiest way from Downtown to Blair is right through the "warzone". So I drive through North Omaha often. Sometimes I pick supposedly "bad streets" just to see for myself what is going on in that part of town. Usually nothing. Sometimes you see people that might be up to no good, but if their business isn't your business and your are just passing through, you probably will not have any issues.

I just want to make it clear that I don't fit your stereotypical West O person.

[tones]

Here is my source:
BODIES... The Exhibition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I quote:
"
Questions regarding the origins of the bodies continue to be raised.[9] In 2006, reporting from Dalian, China for the New York Times, David Barboza described "a ghastly new underground mini-industry" with "little government oversight, an abundance of cheap medical school labor and easy access to cadavers and organs."[10] Premier representatives say "the bodies were not formally donated by people who agreed to be displayed."[9] The director of the Anatomical Committee of the New York Associated Medical Schools (NYAMS) worries that one has "no documentation of who this is."[5]
ABCNews' program 20/20 produced a major report exposing the 'secret trade in Chinese bodies.'[11] Claiming that bodies are sold on the black market for $300, the report spawned not only a series of other articles[12][13][14] but also a Congressional inquiry,[15] an investigation by the NY Attorney General,[12] and the resignation of Premier's CEO Arnie Geller.[16]
In 2008, the front page of the exhibition website had a disclaimer describing the presumed origin of the bodies and fetuses:

Disclaimer: -This exhibit displays human remains of Chinese citizens or residents which were originally received by the Chinese Bureau of Police. The Chinese Bureau of Police may receive bodies from Chinese prisons. Premier cannot independently verify that the human remains you are viewing are not those of persons who were incarcerated in Chinese prisons.
-This exhibit displays full body cadavers as well as human body parts, organs, fetuses and embryos that come from cadavers of Chinese citizens or residents. With respect to the human parts, organs, fetuses and embryos you are viewing, Premier relies solely on the representations of its Chinese partners and cannot independently verify that they do not belong to persons executed while incarcerated in Chinese prisons.[17]

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo concluded his investigation of Premier, finding "The grim reality is that Premier Exhibitions has profited from displaying the remains of individuals who may have been tortured and executed in China. Despite repeated denials, we now know that Premier itself cannot demonstrate the circumstances that led to the death of the individuals. Nor is Premier able to establish that these people consented to their remains being used in this manner. Respect for the dead and respect for the public requires that Premier do more than simply assure us that there is no reason for concern. This settlement is a start."[18]
In June 2007, Elaine Catz quit her job of 11 years as science education coordinator for the Carnegie Museum of Science in protest over the exhibit, citing religious objections and questions regarding provenance, including the issue of reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong in China.[19][20][21]
In 2007, a Washington State bill was introduced to ban exhibits of bodies without clear documentation of consent, and a similar bill was introduced in January 2008 by California legislator Fiona Ma.[22][23][24]
In June 2008 the New York State Senate passed a bill requiring anyone showing an exhibit that uses real human bodies in museums across New York to get a permit to show where exactly the bodies came from. Senator Jim Alesi sponsered the bill.[25]
Professional ethicists, human rights activists and religious leaders have also objected. "Given the (Chinese) government's track record on the treatment of prisoners, I find this exhibit deeply problematic," said Sharon Hom, the executive director of the advocacy group Human Rights in China.[26] Professor Anita Allen, a University of Pennsylvania bioethicist, argued spending money to "gawk" at human remains should raise serious concerns.[27] Thomas Hibbs, Baylor University ethicist, compares cadaver displays to pornography in that they reduce the subject to "the manipulation of body parts stripped of any larger human significance."[28] Even if consent were to be obtained, Rabbi Danny Schiff maintains that we should still question what providing "bodies arranged in showcases for a hungry public" says about a society.[29] Harry Wu, a long-time human rights activist, terms the practice of obtaining exhibit specimens from China "immoral" and describes how the Chinese label of 'unclaimed' on bodies may imply that families were not notified of the death.[26][30]
Regarding the educational concerns around these exhibits, St. Louis Diocese Archbishop Raymond Burke directs Catholic Schools there to avoid field trips, citing serious questions for Catholics.[31] Prior to the exhibit's opening in Pittsburgh, the Pittsburgh Catholic Diocese endorsed the educational content of the exhibition, while noting that it would not be appropriate for everyone and welcoming continued discourse regarding the place of such exhibits in society.[32] Rev. Daniel Pilarczyk, Archbishop of Cincinnati, issued a statement: "I do not believe that this exhibit is an appropriate destination for field trips by our Catholic schools."[33]
In 2006, citing concern over how "some kids will process these images," Abbotsford, British Columbia School Superintendent Des McKay barred field trips to exhibits of plasticized human beings.[34] In an editorial, Lutheran Reverend Christoph Reiners questioned the effect on the values of children.[35] Elaine Catz, who helped coordinate field trips for the Carnegie Science Center prior to resigning in June 2007, maintains "it teaches that, once he is deceased, there is nothing wrong with taking a person's body without his consent; it teaches that there is nothing wrong with exploiting the dead in order to make a profit, as long as it is in the name of science or education or art. It teaches that it is incredibly easy to dehumanize others."[21]"

[camping!]

Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks

My method is to point out FACTS. Or, in your case, the complete and total ABSENCE OF FACTS.

You do have some wonderful conspiracy theories, though. Kind of along the same lines as Bush/Cheney planting all the explosives in the WTC Towers, and Bush personally dynamiting the levees in New Orleans.

You're free to believe all that tripe if you want. Me? I prefer to base my decisions on facts.

show me the 'facts' that the bodies on display were given voluntarily and purposefully to this exhibit and that the people on display did so knowingly and voluntarily.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by camping!

show me the 'facts' that the bodies on display were given voluntarily and purposefully to this exhibit and that the people on display did so knowingly and voluntarily.

There aren't any.

And that's my point.

So are we going to make decisions based on "Innocent until proven guilty" or "Guilty unless proven innocent"?

[camping!]

Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks

There aren't any.

And that's my point.

So are we going to make decisions based on "Innocent until proven guilty" or "Guilty unless proven innocent"?

Innocent until proven guilty does not negate common sense nor is this something that should be held to the same standard as a criminal case. Sort of like the recall of chinese toys and Chinese drywall. Sure, some of those were dangerous -- but how do we know that all of them carried unsafe levels of lead and/or other poisonous materials?

What do you think happened that that many healthy Chinese citizens with no evidence of disease or other traumatic injury that would suggest having been in an accident just happen to drop dead in their primes? And that they were unclaimed, unnkown? Or that they wanted their remains to be filleted and used for entertainment?

The proof -- the facts-- suggest that they were killed/executed/murdered. They were sold without their prior knowledge and without the knowledge of their relatives. The burden of proof lies both ways.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by camping!

Innocent until proven guilty does not negate common sense nor is this something that should be held to the same standard as a criminal case. Sort of like the recall of chinese toys and Chinese drywall. Sure, some of those were dangerous -- but how do we know that all of them carried unsafe levels of lead and/or other poisonous materials?

What do you think happened that that many healthy Chinese citizens with no evidence of disease or other traumatic injury that would suggest having been in an accident just happen to drop dead in their primes? And that they were unclaimed, unnkown? Or that they wanted their remains to be filleted and used for entertainment?

The proof -- the facts-- suggest that they were killed/executed/murdered. They were sold without their prior knowledge and without the knowledge of their relatives. The burden of proof lies both ways.

Honestly... Everything I bolded is a set of relatively contradictory assumptions.

You mention "the proof" and "the facts" but you're not giving proof or facts.

If your mind is satisfied that - in the absence of actual proof - the likelihood of wrong is high enough that you will NOT go see "Bodies - The Exhibit" then don't go. It's great that you feel that way.

But why are you on me like some fundie preacher, condemning me to hell because I don't hold the same view as you? If my wife & I decide to go to the exhibit, we will. And we're not going to feel the least bit guilty about it as a result of being preached at, like we're murdering innocent people or something.

You decide whether or not you want to go. I will do the same.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by tones

the fact that "Bodies" is utterly disrespectful of the dead, and is a grotesque display of mutilated corpses that ignores the fact that the "subjects" were once actual people.

Just FYI, these are subjective opinions, not facts.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by tones

Ok, lets just say that the opinion that...

That's better.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by Happygolucky

They should do an American Scene..... have a bunch of fat bodies walking thru a HuHot BBQ or

a fat dude sitting on a Lazy boy watching NU Football. I would pay to go see that.

Maybe. But it'd have to be moved out of downtown, and out west so that you won't get riddled with bullets as you're going to see it.

All things considered, with fat people at HuHot & other fat people sitting in recliners, maybe we should just name it, "West Omaha Bodies - The Exhibit."