Bestiality should be illegal in all cases in the United States

The task of pro is establish illegality of bestiality in all cases in the United states. To contend this, Con has provided two major points to why legalization is prudent and a minor case made about the resources required to incarcerate offenders. On this last point I am inclined to agree with con that the resources needed to incarcerate offenders is an issue. How ever on her two main moral arguments there are large and semi unsettling issues.Consent. This seems to be the core of Con's argument. In this she used examples of female humans primarily engaging with males of another species. Consent here is clearly established on the part of the animal but A law cannot be written to such a narrow perspective of events where a human female shows a willingness to engage in intercourse and a male of a different species follows what is arguably instinct but still clearly consensual. How ever, If this is legally recognized, than the scope must also apply to human males engaging with female animals, consent is not so obvious here. This argument is based on what is legally called "Implied consent" in other words the other party took no action to oppose intercourse, but how can it be proved legally that this is the case? One one party is competent to testify in court. While the Narrow examples given by con are correct in their scope- they are missing an important part of a requirement for consent. Consent is a continuous act, not something that is given once. In order for both parties to have consent, both parties must be able to withdraw their consent at any time but when the Human male/Animal female scope comes up this is not likely to be the case. An animal cannot provide consent that is legally satisfactory to be presented in court. But there is an even larger issue with this argument that I have yet to touch on.In order for consensual sex to be recognized under law, Sexual crimes must also be recognized. Just like it is is possible for a chimpanzee to consensually engage in intercourse with a human female, it is also possible for a human to be raped by a vastly physically stronger animal.Animal as offending Agent:http://www.nytimes.com... There are any number more stories out there, but social stigmas prevent such stories from being widely publicized. This is a typical behavior we see in many rape victims in a human on human scenario: http://www.nij.gov... You can imagine why a case of a dog forcing them selves on a human woman is not reported or talked about. How ever even a few documented cases establish that is a crime which can be committed.Human as offending agent: http://www.thefword.org.uk... And there are probably plenty of instances but I need only establish the crime has taken place to highlight why this is a major problem. I remind you now, only one of the parties is competent to testify in court. to argue that an animal is competent to consent to sexual intercourse legally means they must also have rights and a competence to withdraw consent in a legally recognizable way. For this to be the case, an Animal would need the right to press charges against a human sex offender and like wise a Human must be able to press charges against an animal offender. Both incidents are absurd, but the animals that can consent to intercourse by your example are clearly capable of sexual offense. This opens a huge can of worms... What about horror stories of women being forces to have intercourse with a dog?... What legal liability can the animal have in this instance? If beastaility becomes legally permissible under the terms put forth by Pro, These questions must be answered as well. For an animal to have the right to consent to sex it simply must have the right also to withdraw consent and be entitled to legal rights and protections that this entails.Moral agencyThis is not an argument that is all believable from pro, but more over it too suffers from an extension of its basic premise. If an animal does not have basic rights because it is not recognized as a morale agent than logical consistency dictates the same argument be extended to human children who lack moral agency. They too would not be protected from sexual assaults nor would they have any basic legal protections from murder or abuse of any kind until they are a "Morale agent". This is not the way our legal system works and Its not the way any of us want it to work. Further this argument like wise would void Animal protections from abuse and mistreatment, as the basic rights afforded to them currently are redefined under this logical premise as being reserved for those deemed morally competent. This has all sorts of implications, extension of logic to its conclusions makes the proposition that lack of Moral agency dictates a forfeiture of basic rights is a dangerous proposition to put forth. You are getting into a an of worms that opens up issues such as aborting a human baby after it has been born from the womb since it lacks moral agency it to would not be afforded basic protections of law, this would be a simple extension of the basic logic behind what Pro has proposed.Utilitarianism.Though on its most basic levels I am inclined to agree with Con on this point that incarceration of offenders is a waste of resources how ever above I have outlined the major legal consequences of legalization of bestiality and it requires a complete re wiring of basic premises in our legal system and the consequences are massive either way. The utility of these consequences is not out weighed in anyway by a comparatively small expenditure in recourse to maintain its illegality.