Quote:
Quote by: The Bacon Guy  Could you explain in what way this doesn't apply equally to the link you posted on bestiality? |
The link I posted on bestiality doesn't rely on inciting hatred towards the practitioners of this aberration in a way comparable to how racist propaganda does. The material addresses itself chiefly to the possible harm sex with animals can do to both parties, which is a consideration rooted in compassion rather than in blind condemnation.
But all this has an air of deja vu about it, since I took the trouble to follow your arguments on this precise subject on another site, dating from over a year ago. There, one of your opponents listed a great many diseases it is possible to be transmitted to both humans and animals in the course of inter-species sex - just as I was prepared to do had I not been beaten to it - but your reply was characteristically dismissive, saying that "with care" these hazards might be avoided.
This further proves to me the futility of trying to get a person with your views to admit that there could be any possible harm in bestiality - your prejudice in favour of the practice amounting to a bias at least as pronounced as anything your opponents might say.
Even when it can be shown that there is an unacceptably high level of risk involved to the human instigator, you prefer to shut it out - presumably because these facts run directly counter to your no-holds-barred philosophy... and therein lies the difference between what I posted and what tinybear posted - my fact-sheet isn't superstitiously prescriptive in its motivation, and neither is it concerned to proselytise in any religious sense.
As I read it, I see far more
concern for the abused creature than condemnation for the perpetrator, and even if the animal's welfare is of no concern to you, you have to admit that it is of great concern to some. All I see in tiny's link, by comparison is undisguised hostility. So you have to allow that that is a substantial difference at least.
Quote:
IS IT REALLY ANIMAL ABUSE?
Yes. Sexual molestation of animals by humans may physically injure or kill the animal victim. Cases of dogs with severe rectal tearing from anal sexual contact; cats killed by penetration by a human male; chickens decapitated to increase the abuser's sexual pleasure; animals beaten stabbed, or mutilated during or after sexual contact; and animals crushed for sexual gratification have been reported. Many animals are physically restrained during the abuse.
Not all cases of animal sexual abuse will involve physical injury to the animal, but all sexual molestation of an animal by a human is abuse. In his 1993 article, Dr. Frank Ascione stated that "bestiality may be considered cruel even in cases when physical harm to an animal does not occur (this is similar to the case of adult sexual activity with a child
where consent is presumed to be impossible)". This is because animals are unable to be fully informed, communicate consent, or to speak out about their abuse. In a 1997 article, Piers Beirne, Professor of Criminology at the University of Southern Maine, points out that "for genuine consent to sexual relations to be present...both participants must be conscious, fully informed and positive in their desires.
nmanimalcontrol.com |
ps. Thanks for your good wishes yesterday.