From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Bestiality (consent?)
Keywords: bestiality
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:37:39 GMT

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.  >


>	If an animal can't give consent, can it testify?


	I don't know of any examples of animals testifying in court as
	anything other than bizarre spectacles (i.e., dog recognizes
	smell of X and freaks) that are almost always thrown out of
	court.

	Note that using a mutilated animal ofas *evidence* of cruelty to 
	animals is not equal to hearing testimony from an animal, if
	such a thing is possible.  (Although I understand that there have 
	been a number of cases where loonies who thought they could talk
	to animals tried to bring cases to court as "translators" for the
	animals' complaints..).. 



	[as an aside, I would ask that no one bring up the poultry industry,
	as it's wholly irrelavent, even if it is one of the favority
	PETAnist whining points.  If you cared about chickens in poultry,
	you'd be funding research to breed chickens w/o brains any bigger
	than the minimum needed to eat/excrete.  No need for eyes, etc.]
	
-- 
	Attempts to lessen the burden of proof in rape trials are an assault 
        	on our civil liberties.  Support equality, not revenge. 
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	Pyramid schemes are illegal unless you're the US government.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism