From: moses@netcom.com (Lamont Cranston)
Subject: Re: Bestiality (consent?)
Keywords: bestiality
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:24:48 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <jay.38.727987223@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU> jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel) writes:
>>Along the lines of consent, I'm curious what you think of bestiality?  The 
>>Utah State Legislature is considering a bill that would make it illegal, 
>>because an animal can not give consent.  A few questions to consider:


>	If they are going to insist on outlawing a practice that is probably
>	already outlawed in the state (you'd be surprised how many old laws
>	there are against all number of things--bathing in public, for instance)
>	they should be doing this one under the rather empty-headed but 
>	already-existing statutes against cruelty to animals.


>>	Does the word "rape" apply to non-human sentients?


>	No.


>>	What if the animal initiates the action; how many people have had to
>>	shake a dog off their leg?


>	p-u-n-t


>>	If people can't molest animals, should they kill and/or eat them?


>	Let's assume that there is nothing inherently evil about 
>	eating animals or using them as slaves, or as raw materials
>	for various products (leather, shampoo, etc.).. Yes, there is 
>	a very vocal minority of people who don't agree with their position,
>	but there are lots of vocal minorities, and most of them are 
>	about as rational/worth listening to as old Cure-All Oil
>	hucksters.  


>	Of course, this is what it has to boil down to.  Either you take
>	the position (and yes, there are some people who really do--I am
>	not making this up) that animals have rights and therefore consent
>	comes into play [I wonder how many of these people are also the 
>	same people interestedin animal/human sex and would pull a 'but
>	my dog consented, the way s/he wiggled his/her..'].  Since an animal
>	*cannot* communicate anything but the grossest message, and the mental
>	capacity of the animal is many orders of magnitude lower than even
>	a human moron, consent is a wall.  

>	If, on the otherhand, you take the position that we can eat animals
>	and wear leather, then you MUST take the position that animals
>	have no rights, and therefore no right whatsoever to "consent"--
>	any issue of "animal cruelty" should be an individual decision
>	and not a legal one, since such decisions have no positive or
>	deletirious effect on society, which is what laws are _supposed_ 
>	to involve.

>	<which is why I'm against anti-cruelty statutes and their inherently
>	hypocratic nature.  Of course, this doesn't license extreme cruelty
>	in medical testing, since pain/trauma can make differences in testing
>	outcome, and the outcome is important.  >

This sounds like the "if he eats rice, he must be a Chinaman" argument
here.  I see absolutely no connection between eating animals and
animal cruelty.  There is a line there and it is very valid.  Killing
an animal in order to eat it may leave the animal just as dead, but I
don't see how anyone can compare it to killing one just for yucks.
The intent of the act changes its very nature.  Intent is a very valid
and common point in law.  There is no hypocracy in saying "it's OK to
kill an animal as long as you have a good reason."  Murder laws are
about the same.  You can kill a person as long as you have a good
reason also.  Good reason being he's trying to kill you for example.
The main difference being that the "good reason" part for animals is a
bit looser.  Being hungry is enough.

It is perfectly just and correct for the government to enforce laws
intended to protect animals if they have rights or not.  Their exact
legal status is completely irrelevent in this case.  I think this is a
given unless you are opposed to EPA type legislation as well.  We
routinely pass laws designed to protect things such as endangered
species.

Monty

-- 
Lamont Cranston                        "I once had a plan, but it seems to
moses@netcom.com                        to have gone missing"
Newsgroups: alt.feminism