07-31-2005, 09:49 PM
Chaerophon,Jul 31 2005, 03:20 PM Wrote:Mmmmm... more bigotry. It's not about the act, it's about consent - an animal can't do so, end of story.
[right][snapback]84705[/snapback][/right]
I'm sorry, but I don't buy this argument. While I personally agree that this sort of thing is disgusting and "wrong" (and shouldn't need to be explained), saying that it should be illegal on the grounds of animal cruelty is just ridiculous, considering the way we treat animals we plan on eating. If having sex with a horse is wrong because the horse can't consent to the act, why is it ok to keep cows perpetually pregnant so that we can harvest their milk indefinately? Why is it ok to slaughter thousands of animals for food? They certainly don't give their consent to that treatment. Several people have already made this point in this thread, and no one's responded to it. Either we grant animals rights or we don't - you can't call sex with a horse rape but not call slaughtering cows for food murder.
gekko
"Life is sacred and you are not its steward. You have stewardship over it but you don't own it. You're making a choice to go through this, it's not just happening to you. You're inviting it, and in some ways delighting in it. It's not accidental or coincidental. You're choosing it. You have to realize you've made choices."
-Michael Ventura, "Letters@3AM"
-Michael Ventura, "Letters@3AM"