Bestiality should be illegal in all cases in the United States

Remember, Pro has the burden of proof. Last round, Pro completely fails to justify bestiality"s illegality in all cases. No new arguments in the last round since I do not have a chance to respond. == Rebuttal == R1) Consent Pro argues that consent would be a problem for bestiality, especially for men-on-animal action. However, if the law required the consent of the animal, this would be no different than sex between humans. All of Pro"s same concerns are present with human sex, in which implied consent is the norm. When people actually have sex with each other, it is rare for the man to ask the woman "do you consent to what is about to happen?" and for the woman to verbally respond, "Yes, I consent." In most cases of intercourse, the consent is implied from both partner"s receptivity to the other"s touch. By making this argument, Pro basically concedes that animal-on-woman action is morally permissible. Because Con only needs to win that bestiality should be legal in some cases, this concession is an automatic win for Con. In addition, Pro drops the examples of the chimpanzee (who learns sign language) and the hyper-intelligent alien. Verbal consent is possible in both cases. Con wins even if bestiality were limited to cases where the animal can verbally consent. Pro also says that for some reason, if bestiality were legal we would have to make it illegal for an animal to rape a human. I don"t see why. Bestiality is legal in Texas, but Texas does not put animals in jail for rape. It simply doesn"t make sense to do so, as I explained last round. One-third of male ducks would have to be put in prison. R2) Non-consent // animals are not morally considerable beings Pro says that children - like animals - lack moral agency. However, this isn"t true. (1) Children are rational beings who are capable of knowing what rights they have. (2) Moral obligations can be asserted against children. Children who commit murder are put in prison. Children who commit rape are held accountable for their actions. (3) Children are part of society so are included in the social contract. Children agree to be bound by society"s rules, whereas animals do not. (4) For the purposes of the harm principle and utilitarianism, harm to children is considered, whereas harm to animals is not. As human beings, children are treated as inherently considerable beings. Thus, children are morally considerable beings, whereas animals are not. My opponent doesn"t answer any of my examples here. It makes absolutely no sense to say that murdering an animal for pleasure is legal [hunting], but that raping an animal for pleasure is illegal since rape is a less bad crime than murder. If animals are morally considerable beings, we would not be allowed to hunt them, breed them (which often involves animal-on-animal rape), or eat them. Under utilitarianism, Pro concedes that the cost of locking up all the zoophiles in prison is not worth the benefit. However, he says that we have to fundamentally change our legal system to legalize bestiality. This argument makes zero sense because multiple states currently allow bestiality. It requires no special change to the legal system - you simply don"t prosecute people who have sex with animals. Animals are generally treated in the United States as being property and not being morally considerable beings. It is voting Pro that requires changing the entire legal system because adopting Pro"s ethical system means changing many other rules in society. Conclusion: because Pro has the BOP and fails to provide an ethical justification for why bestiality should be illegal, vote Con. P.S. Dogs like it ruff.