Now that the "BODIES" exhibit has opened in Pittsburgh at the Carnegie Science Center, it's worth considering not going.

We are about to be blanketed with an expensive advertising campaign that will attempt to tell us why we should go: "it's educational," "it's the human body as you've never seen it before," "it's an unforgettable experience..." The counter-arguments will not be as prominent, but they deserve to be explored seriously. Clearly, the promoters of the exhibit have a strong profit motive and considerable self-interest in getting us to see the show. Conversely, those on the opposite side are primarily concerned with what our attendance says about us.

So why consider not going?

Let's leave aside the discussion about whether the bodies on display might well be those of exploited Chinese prisoners who never consented to participate. Since it would not be a difficult matter to obtain bodies from volunteers who could provide their agreement in advance, let's imagine that's what happened. Even if consent were obtained, significant problems with the exhibit would still persist.

When we attend a funeral, we often say that we are going to "pay our respects." Part of paying our respects involves dealing with the body respectfully and appropriately. This implies that while the dead body is with us, we strive to treat that body with all the dignity and gentleness that we would give to a live human being. In other words, even though the person is dead, we continue to respect that individual's personhood as we handle their "remains." We treat the body as the precious receptacle of what was once a complete human being, not simply tissue and bone that can be handled in any manner we please.

Moreover, when it finally comes time to part with the body, there is an explanation as to why burial became the predominant mode for dealing with bodies. In Genesis, the Hebrew Bible tells us that we arose from dust, and to dust we shall return: Our bodies were created with Godly material, and we want to restore them to God, to God's earth, when life is over.

If somebody were to advocate plastinating a deceased spouse and keeping him or her in the living room because it brought "psychological comfort" to have the body nearby, we would find such behavior shockingly inappropriate. One of the reasons that it is inappropriate is because our culture holds that, when death occurs, the body ought to be allowed to "rest in peace." It should not be preserved as an instrument to serve the living, unless there is a pressing medical need.

The difference between organ donation and body plastination is that, in organ donation, a small part of the body is inserted into another person, thereby allowing the living to live, while the donor is buried with dignity. In body plastination, the dead continue to abide among the living for no critical medical purpose, never to find repose. Our society does not allow us to preserve dead bodies indefinitely, insisting instead that we must complete our duty of care to the body of a loved one, and then return fully to our lives.

None of this respect has been provided to the individuals now on display at the science center. We have done the opposite of "paying our respects" to them: To serve our voyeuristic pursuits, masked as edification or entertainment, we have allowed these bodies to have their skin flayed, their nervous systems dissected, their genitalia exposed and a host of other indignities. We have not treated them as "persons" who should be afforded the full dignity of the humanity that was once a part of them, but as "things" to be sliced and exhibited to serve our purposes. We have not allowed them to "rest in peace," nor to have their bodily material returned to God.

Instead, the exhibit presents death preserved forever, stripped of all humanity and treated as a sensational spectacle. It is indeed a disturbing commentary on our society if we are really so cavalier about the use and abuse of the body in a way that denies the very humanity that the body once housed.

An insightful teacher put it this way: "We readily understand sick people who, wracked with pain and emaciated from suffering, do not wish to be seen in their deteriorated condition. Yet, while we appreciate the vanity of the living only too well, we are insensitive to the ghastliness of holding up the helpless ghost, painted and propped, in morbid exhibitionism."

The promoters of the exhibit will, of course, maintain that these dead individuals consented to be treated this way. This is, however, irrelevant. If one were to provide consent that upon one's death, one's flesh could be diced and offered for sale as food, would an admirable society permit it? The answer is no.

Why? After all, some might enjoy the consumption of human flesh, and "get something positive out of it," just as at the "BODIES" exhibit.

Enjoyment or supposed benefits are, though, entirely beside the point. We allow animal flesh to be sold and consumed, but we do not allow the same for human flesh. We make this differentiation in order to demonstrate that, even in death, there is something exalted about the human being that raises our bodily material above that of the animal, and that, as a society, we refuse to degrade. The fact that individuals might personally agree to have their bodies arranged in showcases for a hungry public does not make such a display worthy of a society that cherishes the divinity inherent in every human person.

The world was sickened to learn that the Nazis attempted to profit from the dead by melting down the gold teeth of their victims. Perhaps we too should ask whether a commendable society ought to allow profiting from the dead in this way. Perhaps we should ask whether treating humans as exhibits and compromising human modesty is really inconsequential to us. Perhaps we should ask what failing to honor the humanity of the dead, and denying the dead the opportunity to be treated as exalted beings, really says about us.

Perhaps we should consider not going.