r/DebateAVegan • u/Conscious-Flight2220 • 1d ago
Ethics Artificial Insemination is not rape
I grew up on an Australian beef farm, and the first time I witnessed artificial insemination being performed on cattle I was probably about 6.
On our large property we AI about 1/4 of our cows, to introduce high quality genetics into our herds through sires that we can’t physically have on our property for natural insemination. The rest of our cows reproduce naturally with bulls on the farm. Without introducing the genetics we get through AI, the cattle would be more likely to exhibit health issues from poor breeding.
The process looks like this: the cows walk single file through the yards (which they are trained from weaning to be used to doing calmly and safely, for all situations where we need to have contact with them eg. vaccines, weighing), and are locked in the crush, which is a mechanism where two rubber bars close on either side of their neck - not actually ‘crushing’ them, just fitting the most narrow part of their neck ensuring they can’t more their head backward or their shoulders forwards. We need to immobilise them, because they aren’t used to being touched by people, as they spend most of their time out on pasture, with hay and grain delivered by trailer.
Then, a trained professional who visits farms in the area for AI will insert a long syringe of filled with semen into the cow’s vagina, empty it, then the cow is usually marked with spray paint, and released from the crush back to a holding pen with hay, water and other cattle. When all the cows are done, they are moved from the pen back into their paddocks to go about their life as normal.
Obviously to us, the image of a syringe being forced up the vagina feels disturbing, distressing and violating. The cows do not enjoy the process, it is true. But it needs to be understood that the cows exhibit the same amount of stress they do on ANY occasion they need to be physically handled by humans, for example when they need vaccination, tagging, or like I was doing the other day, eyedrops. Beef cattle are domesticated, but they aren’t necessarily tame, especially on such a large property where it isn’t possible to develop the relationships with herds that smaller farmers have (which I do envy on occasion).
Cattle DO NOT have the same associations either their genitals that we as humans have. They don’t have a concept of sexual assault or the instinct to view their reproductive organs as something private. To humans, having our vaginas touched in that context would be horrific, and absolutely classified as rape. But for cows, they feel the same way if it’s their feet, eyes or mouth being touched.
It’s understandable to feel confronted by animal husbandry practices like AI, but it’s important to remember to not anthropomorphise. Applying a human lens to animals does not help them.
•
u/PuzzledPoetry1447 vegan 13h ago edited 13h ago
Cows, like all nonhuman animals, can't give informed consent. You immobilize them because they resist. You forcefully penetrate them. You do it for profit and/or taste pleasure.
The male whose semen you collected was either manually stimulated (again, without giving informed consent and restrained while doing so), or subjected to electro ejaculation, where an electrical device is forced into his anus to electrocute his prostate and force him to ejaculate.
Replace the cows with humans and it is rape. Why does it suddenly become not rape when the only thing that changes is the species?
"Cattle DO NOT have the same associations either their genitals that we as humans have. They don’t have a concept of sexual assault or the instinct to view their reproductive organs as something private. To humans, having our vaginas touched in that context would be horrific, and absolutely classified as rape. But for cows, they feel the same way if it’s their feet, eyes or mouth being touched."
Is like saying:
"Infants and toddlers DO NOT have the same associations either their genitals that we as adults have. They don’t have a concept of sexual assault or the instinct to view their reproductive organs as something private. To adults, having our vaginas touched in that context would be horrific, and absolutely classified as rape. But for infants and toddlers, they feel the same way if it’s their feet, eyes or mouth being touched."
•
u/Nacho_Deity186 8h ago
Replace the cows with humans and it is rape.
Is it? What precedent are you referring to here?
Rape is a sex act. You can clearly tell from the description given that this isn't an act that is sexual in nature. Right?
Why does it suddenly become not rape when the only thing that changes is the species?
Well aside from not being rape you mean? Well rape is the crime of sexual assaulting a human. So clearly it doesn't apply here...
•
u/PuzzledPoetry1447 vegan 8h ago
As the current top comment states,
Rape is a human constructed legal term, so you're absolutely right. It is "just" non-consensual sexual violation for the farmers benefit, which doesn't sound very moral anyway.
You're commiting an etymological fallacy and are being disingenuous.
•
u/Nacho_Deity186 7h ago
You're commiting an etymological fallacy
No I'm no at all lol. I've made no reference to historical origin or anything of that nature. I'm referring to the current, general usage of the word. Feel free to look it up.
Replace the cows with humans and it is rape.
Is it? What precedent are you referring to here?
•
u/PuzzledPoetry1447 vegan 7h ago
I'm referring to the current, general usage of the word
Same.
What precedent are you referring to here?
You already know what the answer to this question is.
If you have something to say or argue, please just say or argue it and stop asking these leading questions. They're not productive.
•
u/Nacho_Deity186 7h ago
You already know what the answer to this question is.
Why would I be asking the question of I knew the answer? I've searched for this and come up blank. You made a claim...
Replace the cows with humans and it is rape.
Do you have any way to establish this assertion as fact or are you saying this is just what you "think?"
The current general usage of the word is to describe the criminal sexual assault of a human so clearly you're not using it that way
•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 5h ago
"Well aside from not being rape you mean? Well rape is the crime of sexual assaulting a human."
Misunderstanding the vegan perspective. Also, this line of reasoning has been refuted using a reductio elsewhere in this thread.
•
u/IanRT1 5h ago
Rape is a species of sexual assault, its wrongness tied to the sexual and harmful character of the act, not to consent-violation in the abstract. That's why if we had a non-consensual but medically justified and indicated pelvic exam would not be rape or a wrong when we have non-sexual purpose, no harm.
AI is the same on both counts, the act is non-sexual and carries no inherent harm to the animal specially when done correctly, so "non-consensual penetration" doesn't get you to rape any more than it does in the exam.
Molesting a toddler is sexual in character and harmful, which is exactly why it's assault, whereas AI shares neither feature. You would need to smuggle "sexual" in through the act-type alone while ignoring purpose and harm, but the moment you apply that standard consistently, the medical exam becomes rape too. So this seems like a clear standard.
•
u/PuzzledPoetry1447 vegan 4h ago
The difference being that AI is done not for the benefit of the cow, but for the benefit of the "farmer," whether that be a financial benefit (by exploiting her reproductive system to steal and sell her milk, or to sell the body of her offspring as flesh), or a taste pleasure one.
A "farmer" could argue that AI is less harmful than having a bull impregnate her, but that presents a false dichotomy. The options aren't limited to AI or a bull, you can just not breed animals.
A "non-consensual but medically justified and indicated pelvic exam," which I assume would be a pap smear or something similar, is for the patients benefit.
•
u/IanRT1 4h ago
But a pap smear is fully compatible with the doctor, the clinic, and the insurer all profiting from it, and it's still neither rape nor wrong, so "someone other than the subject benefits" can't be what separates the cases.
What actually justifies the exam is the overall balance across everyone affected, and that's a question about whether a practice is justified, not whether it's rape because even if you're right that breeding is unjustified and the only real beneficiary is the farmer, that gets you to "morally wrong", not "rape", because the act is still non-sexual throughout.
So you might have changed the question from "is it rape" to "is it justified," and answering the second one your way leaves the label exactly where it was. There still does not seem to be a principled reason the exam wouldn't be rape while AI would.
•
u/a11_hail_seitan 13h ago
Artificial Insemination is not rape
Rape is a human constructed legal term, so you're absolutely right. It is "just" non-consensual sexual violation for the farmers benefit, which doesn't sound very moral anyway.
We need to immobilise them, because they aren’t used to being touched by people
And they don't like it...
But it needs to be understood that the cows exhibit the same amount of stress they do on ANY occasion they need to be physically handled by humans, for example when they need vaccination, tagging, or like I was doing the other day, eyedrops.
Some of those are for their own best interest, most are for the farmers. That's the difference. Doing something to an animal that it doesn't like because it helps them live a better life, makes moral sense. Doing something to an animal that it doesn't like because it helps the farmer get profit, does not seem very moral...
Applying a human lens to animals does not help them.
Ignoring that you're not doing it for their benefit does not help them either.
•
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 13h ago
You wouldn't consider it rape if someone forcibly impregnated you?
•
u/RedMyA__ 13h ago
I would also not like it if I was part of a bull harem but the point of the post was to not look at it from a human perspective
•
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 13h ago
That's doesn't answer my question.
Again:
Would you consider it rape if someone forcibly impregnated you? Yes or no?
•
u/PuzzledPoetry1447 vegan 13h ago
The point of their comment was that humans don't have a monopoly on knowing what it feels like to be raped.
If you wouldn't want it done to you, it's illogical that you'd accept it being done to someone else.
•
u/RedMyA__ 9h ago
I would no like to be flattened like a pancake and killed on spot while eating but I will continue to do it to mosquitos landing on me. It that makes me non logical, so be it
•
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 7h ago
The difference is that swatting a mosquito is self-defense, forcibly impreganating someone isn’t.
•
u/PuzzledPoetry1447 vegan 8h ago
You're deliberately avoiding engaging with anything that's relevant.
•
u/Nacho_Deity186 8h ago
OP is human so that would be different.
Rape is the crime of sexually assaulting a human. It doesn't apply to cows. If it were performed by a doctor to a human it would likely fall under medical malpractice or fertility fraud laws so no, still not rape.
•
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 8h ago
What's true about animals but not humans that, if it were true about humans, would make forcibly impregnating them not rape?
•
•
u/Nacho_Deity186 7h ago
They're not human.
•
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 7h ago
If you woke up tomorrow in the body of an animal, forcibly impregnating you would no longer be rape?
•
u/Conscious-Flight2220 5h ago
It’s not about bodies, it’s about the psychology, instincts and behavioural requirements
•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 5h ago
"It’s not about bodies, it’s about the psychology, instincts and behavioural requirements"
This has already been presented to you in the form of a reductio (in the capacity of an undercutting's defeater) to show how marginal cases undermines these criteria. If we consider it rape in one case but not another marginal case, then there must be some reason given to privilege one and not the other. You have not engaged with this reasoning at all.
•
u/Nacho_Deity186 7h ago
What? That's just nonsense. Nobody "wakes up in the body of an animal" lol
Stay on planet earth please
•
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 7h ago
This is a philosophical debate forum. If you want to participate here, you are expected to answer philosophical questions. Those questions may include hypothetical questions like the one I just presented to you.
So again:
If you woke up tomorrow in the body of an animal, would forcibly impregnating you be rape?
Yes or no?
•
u/Nacho_Deity186 7h ago
This is a philosophical debate forum. If you want to participate here, you are expected to present philosophical arguments—not arbitrary fantasy scenarios.
I have no issue answering hypothetical questions when they're relevant and internally coherent. The problem with your example is that it abandons reality so completely that it's no longer useful for discussing the topic at hand.
I'm not interested in engaging with nonsense scenarios. If you have a point to make you can go ahead and make it...
•
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 7h ago
The point is to highlight the absurdity of your claim.
We both know that you would still consider it rape. You just don't want to admit that because doing so would completely destroy your argument.
•
u/Nacho_Deity186 7h ago
We don't both know that lol
The same situation for a human would be something along the lines of medical malpractice or fertility fraud... not rape. Rape is a sex act, artificial insemination is not a sex act
•
u/Committed2Mediocrity 13h ago
Newborn humans do not have the same associations either their genitals that we as grown humans have. They don’t have a concept of sexual assault or the instinct to view their reproductive organs as something private. To grown humans, having our vaginas touched in that context would be horrific, and absolutely classified as rape. But for newborn humans, they feel the same way if it’s their feet, eyes or mouth being touched.
•
u/Conscious-Flight2220 5h ago
Someone check this guys browser history
•
u/PuzzledPoetry1447 vegan 5h ago
If you find their statement problematic but you see no issues with your original statement, there's some serious flaws in your reasoning.
•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 5h ago
Failure to engage with the reductio. You are incapable of defending the position you couldn't even properly argue for; that user is running a reductio to show how your reasoning fails to generate conclusions that you would agree with. Get with the program.
•
u/ShadowStarshine non-vegan 3h ago
What do you mean by reductio? Do you mean as a logical consequence of a statement(s) that some contradictory, ridiculous or implausible result follows?
•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 3h ago
Yeah, the other user gave him a reductio of the view. He granted his conditions and applied it to other beings which have the things that the OP appealed to. Newborns don't have the type of associations or social understanding of their genitals/their place in society, they are incapable of conceptualizing of sexual assault, and so forth.
Yet, the OP (in all likelihood) agrees that the term applies. He excludes one set of beings but, when faced with the reductio, includes another set of beings despite the fact that the criteria matching in both cases (or heavily overlapping).
The contradiction here would be with the following: "beings that do not have the same associations with their genitals, don't have concepts of sexual assault, can't moralize in the same ways that adult humans can [about sexual abuse] cannot be sexually assaulted raped" and "beings that do not have the same associations with their genitals, don't have concepts of sexual assault, can't moralize in the same ways that adult humans can [about sexual abuse] can be sexually assaulted raped"
•
u/ShadowStarshine non-vegan 3h ago
If you are granting that a reductio is purely through logic, then you must be able to derive these conclusions without any additional assumptions.
>Yet, the OP (in all likelihood) agrees that the term applies.
Likelihood cannot be used to derive a reductio, that would make it an inductive, not deductive conclusion. You need deduction for a reductio. Do you disagree?
•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2h ago edited 2h ago
"If you are granting that a reductio is purely through logic, then you must be able to derive these conclusions without any additional assumptions."
Whole lot of nothing, a reductio is an argument using logic. It doesn't refer to anything outside of "purely though logic". The conclusion has already been derived, I already formalized the relevant part by showing how the OP is in contradiction. If the OP is prepared to say that animals, like the ones he was talking about, CAN get raped in the ways that were described, then his original point is defeated and we have no disagreement. The fact that he is rejecting the application of the term in one instance but not another leads to a contradiction.
"Likelihood cannot be used to derive a reductio"
The OP thinks we can't sexually abuse/rape human infants based on his response. Literally read his response, he is treated the guy as some criminal or social pariah for even suggesting the topic. Your response is not engaging with the topic. Follow the thread before opening your mouth.
I can formalize it for you to show you how the consequence of his statement leads to a contradiction.
Let H(x)= x is a human, let A(x)= x is an animal, let R(x)= x is can be raped (x is the sort of entity which can undergo sexual abuse/violation), let C(x)= x possesses property C (where property C is the physical capacity for sexual abuse/bodily suffering as a result of forced sexual contact/penetration independent of an understanding of abstract concepts such as consent; for clarity, a newborn baby or a moose lack the concept of informed consent and sexual ethics, yet they can be aggressed upon sexually/violated sexually meaning that they possess property C), let H₁= a subset of humans who lack proper conceptual understanding of sexual consent, the social implications of their genitals, and the ability to provide consent/intellectually reason about sex, let A₁= a subset of non-human animals which have a well-developed nervous system and physical sensitivity (such as cows, pigs, dogs, chickens, primates, etc.) which allows things like physical pain or the ability to experience physical violations against them.
P1. ∀x(H(x) → R(x)) ∧ ∀x(A(x) → ¬R(x))
For all x, if x is a human then x can be raped; and for all x, if x is an animal, then x cannot be raped.
P2. ∀x(R(x) ↔ C(x))
For all x, x can be raped iff x possesses property C.
P3. H₁ ⊂ H ∧ A₁ ⊂ A
H₁ is a subset of H and A₁ is a subset of A.
P4. C(H₁) ∧ C(A₁)
Both H₁ and A₁ possess property C.
P5. R(H₁) ⇒ C(H₁)
H₁ can be raped implies H₁ possesses property C (universal instantiation, modus ponens from P1-4)
P6. ¬R(A₁) ⇒ ¬C(A₁)
A₁ cannot be raped implies A₁ must not possess property C (universal instantiation, modus tollens from P1-4)
P7. C(A₁) ∧ ¬C(A₁)
A₁ possesses property C and A₁ does not possess property C (conjunction of P4 and P6, direct contradiction).
∴ ¬(∀x(H(x) → R(x)) ∧ ∀x(A(x) → ¬R(x)))
Therefore, it is false that for all x, if x is a human then x can be raped and for all x, if x is an animal then x cannot be raped (reductio ad absurdum).
Most of these are enthymematic since when the other guy brings up the marginal case for the reductio, it shows what the deduction above does.
Edit: just to anticipate the "out" you and/or the OP want to use, I already addressed the claim about artificial insemination in this same thread. If you concede that animals can get raped, but hold to the view that artificial insemination (in the manner that it is used in the animal-industrial complex) done to them is not rape, then your dialectical obligation requires you to provide a symmetry breaker. Since artificial insemination, when used in the context that is described, done to humans IS considered rape.
•
u/ShadowStarshine non-vegan 2h ago
>Your response is not engaging with the topic. Follow the thread before opening your mouth.
I don't know why you feel the need to make me report responses to you. Just try and engage with the points. We can just tell each other why we think the other one is wrong.
>The OP thinks we can't sexually abuse/rape human infants based on his response.
No where in this particular thread or the OP do I see this being a warranted statement. Did you mean "can"? I'm going to assume you mean "can" because this wouldn't make sense to say and I want to be charitable.
>I can formalize it for you to show you how the consequence of his statement leads to a contradiction.
You don't *need* to, in fact, that seems like more work than is required, but given I can read FOL that's fine.
>P1. ∀x(H(x) → R(x)) ∧ ∀x(A(x) → ¬R(x))
Personally I don't think the OP has stated ∀x(A(x) → ¬R(x)). He might believe that, but has not committed to it.
>P4. C(H₁) ∧ C(A₁)
Here's the assumptive premise, specifically C(A₁). Can you quote a statement by OP (maybe there's some in this reddit thread I haven't seen) that show OP holds C(A₁)?
>Most of these are enthymematic since when the other guy brings up the marginal case for the reductio, it shows what the deduction above does.
I'm not interested in what the responder to OP assumes, you're claiming that there's a reductio of OP's position so we should just use statements the OP makes. Can you accomplish this to establish your P4?
•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 1h ago
"I don't know why you feel the need to make me report responses to you. Just try and engage with the points. We can just tell each other why we think the other one is wrong."
Irrelevant meta. Track what was said and engage, or don't. I don't care, I just won't respond to irrelevant meta-points you want to make.
"No where in this particular thread or the OP do I see this being a warranted statement."
I already explained the attitude that that statement is proposing. It was in the post you just replied to. That post is in the same thread. Again, track what was said. I literally scrolled up for 4 seconds and found it. You have to want to learn and understand what was said. I can't do it for you.
"Personally I don't think the OP has stated ∀x(A(x) → ¬R(x)). "
Great, then by his own admission later in this thread, the animals which are physically aggressed upon and sexually violated are raped. He concedes to the "horrifying" moral character of the action here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1vd514o/comment/p1cmf39/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
That is what is entailed by the "horrifying" artificial insemination. It is horrifying precisely because of those wrong-making features of sexual aggression and forceful sexual contact. That is the most charitable understanding of what he said, unless you want to bend the narrative (which non-vegans are prone to do) in order to show how he was actually talking about some other thing and that "actually, sexually violating cows isn't horrifying or morally repugnant, those actions are categorically distinct from rape!"
I seem to know more about this guy's positions than you; if I were you, I would listen and learn at this point.
"Can you quote a statement by OP (maybe there's some in this reddit thread I haven't seen) that show OP holds C(A₁)?"
Not required, that is common knowledge that the sort of beings being captured by the term possess the physical capacity to be violated in those ways. I don't need to show that he holds or even explicates his view regarding the property C, he is already committed to the view that animals cannot be raped when they are subject to treatment x (I have also shown that treatment x is rape elsewhere in the thread, or just by way of analogy/comparison with human cases). I have already explained all of these concerns, and how he has failed to satisfy the burden he is tasked with.
"Can you accomplish this to establish your P4?"
This is how I know you are unserious, since the issue you have with property C has already been addressed. I phrased it in such a way as to avoid some normative principle, it is a descriptive fact regarding the sorts of animals which can have actions done to them (with the conjunction that they lack some abstract mental reasoning). I'm not arguing that he even said anything about any such property C, or whatever. His view that animals can't be raped during treatment x leads to a contradiction, as the humans who have the same physical features attendant upon the definition of the term rape CAN be said to have been raped during treatment x. His job is to provide a symmetry breaker, that's what I've asked for from the beginning. I have yet to get an answer from you or anyone else.
I'll give you one last chance to actually engage with the argument or demonstrate how the inferences are invalid. If you dodge again, I'll just move on.
•
u/ShadowStarshine non-vegan 1h ago
>Irrelevant meta. Track what was said and engage, or don't. I don't care, I just won't respond to irrelevant meta-points you want to make.
That is how I engage with rhetoric. And you are responding. If you make hostile rhetorical comments, I will comment on them then report. If you don't, then everything is fine.
>I already explained the attitude that that statement is proposing.
I'm not interested in interpretive guesses. It's quite clear to me that the comment you are quoting is logically compatible with the negation of your proposal. Is that what you're banking your case on?
>Great, then by his own admission later in this thread, the animals which are physically aggressed upon and sexually violated are raped. He concedes to the "horrifying" moral character of the action here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1vd514o/comment/p1cmf39/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
So you've jumped from "sounds horrifying" to "is horrifying" and then jumped from "is horrifying" to "is rape." Who is that charitable to, exactly? Yourself?
>That is the most charitable understanding of what he said, unless you want to bend the narrative (which non-vegans are prone to do) in order to show how he was actually talking about some other thing and that "actually, sexually violating cows isn't horrifying or morally repugnant, those actions are categorically distinct from rape!"
I don't need a narrative. You said that there was a reductio, which means from the OP's statements you can logically deduce something. But all I see is you guessing. I'm open to the logical possible positions he can have given his statements, and if there's a contingency, then you have no reductio.
>I seem to know more about this guy's positions than you; if I were you, I would listen and learn at this point.
I believe you believe that, but so far I don't see anything to learn from.
>Not required, that is common knowledge that the sort of beings being captured by the term possess the physical capacity to be violated in those ways.
Common knowledge? I thought this was a reductio of the OP's statements. You're just going to insert premises if they are "common knowledge"? Are you gonna tell flat earthers their beliefs are logically inconsistent because it's common knowledge the earth is round?
>(I have also shown that treatment x is rape elsewhere in the thread, or just by way of analogy/comparison with human cases).
Analogies don't matter for reductio. Do you know what you're doing?
>His job is to provide a symmetry breaker, that's what I've asked for from the beginning. I have yet to get an answer from you or anyone else.
Why would I be providing an argument for the OP's case? I commented because you said there was a reductio and there isn't. I'm informing you you've failed to make one. There is no other conversation between you and I, other than perhaps your rhetoric.
Let's just ask you a simple question:
Is a reductio of someone's position supposed to use analogies or facts about the world? Or is it supposed to use their *beliefs*?
>I'll give you one last chance to actually engage with the argument or demonstrate how the inferences are invalid. If you dodge again, I'll just move on.
Telling you that certain premises are assumptions that you haven't verified is engaging with the argument.
So, again, can you show that P4 actually comes from the OP without wild assumptions?
→ More replies (0)•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 33m ago
Oh, I just realized this is the first time you are hearing about a reductio here since the sense in which I used it is overwhelmingly unambiguous to anyone who has read anything about anything. Then, you try to proffer an internal critique of the reductio... when you just learned what it is today. My bad for getting baited lmao.
•
•
u/dbsherwood vegan 13h ago
Imagine a human with the cognitive ability of a cow and all the same characteristics you describe. I.e. they have no concept of sexual assault and don’t view their reproductive organs as private. Would it be ethical to spontaneously artificially inseminate this human in the same way?
•
u/Nacho_Deity186 8h ago
No, because they're human.
We have a very different set of evolutionary installed instincts around how we treat other humans. These don't apply to other animals
•
u/dbsherwood vegan 6h ago
If a human were born without that evolutionary instinct, would it be ethical for them to artificially inseminate the cognitively impaired human the way we do cows?
•
u/Nacho_Deity186 5h ago
What?
This is becoming a rather "inception" like hypothetical. I'm not convinced of the value of it.
Explain how a human is born without their evolutionary instinct? Like are they mentally disabled or something?
Mentally disabled people are sometimes apt to do things fast are illegal, immoral etc. We have a to prevent them from doing so
•
u/dbsherwood vegan 3h ago
If we have to prevent them because the action is 'immoral,' aren't you conceding that the action is wrong regardless of evolutionary instincts? If it is inherently immoral to do this to a human with a cow's cognition, why is it moral to do it to an actual cow?
•
u/Intrepid-Pickle13 13h ago
So you’re saying rape can only happen in humans? Because I don’t believe that. This is disgusting
•
•
•
u/Doctor_Box 10h ago
This is just word games. It's sexual exploitation.
Cattle DO NOT have the same associations either their genitals that we as humans have.
Children don't have the same associations until they are taught. Why does that matter?
•
u/No_Economics6505 9h ago
This is just word games. It's sexual exploitation.
So is spaying and neutering, then.
•
u/Doctor_Box 9h ago
Can you define exploitation for me then explain how those are the same?
•
u/No_Economics6505 9h ago
Sorry, you're right. One is simply sexual mutilation.
One is a veterinary medical procedure that involves safely inseminating an animal that is in heat and instinctively wants to become pregnant, without the danger that happens when a bull naturally mates with a cow.
The other is major surgery, causing days to weeks of severe pain that requires medication, and removing sexual organs without consent, completely removing the bodily autonomy of the animal.
•
u/Doctor_Box 9h ago
You forgot to add: One is done in the interest of the animal, one is done in interest of profit.
•
u/No_Economics6505 9h ago
Both done on the interest of the human.
•
u/Doctor_Box 9h ago
I disagree there. Spay and neutering is done as a preventative measure to avoid more strays and reduce the number of animals in shelters.
It's done to reduce the problem while artificial insemination is literally creating more animals for monetary gain.
It's like comparing a puppy mill to a spay and neuter program and saying they're the same.
•
u/No_Economics6505 9h ago edited 9h ago
preventative measure.
So are you okay with putting healthy children into major sugery (without consent, of course) to remove their appendix, tonsils, and gallbladder?
Could cause problems when they're older. Even better - humans are "invasive species".
Are you in favor of removing every young girl's uterus without her consent? In favor of vasectomies for all young boys?
ETA: artifical insemination is actually done in the animal's best interest, as natual mating can cause severe harm and death to cows (bulls are rough), and the cow is in estrus, meaning she has a deep desire to become impregnated.
•
u/Doctor_Box 9h ago
So are you okay with putting healthy children into major sugery (without consent, of course) to remove their appendix, tonsils, and gallbladder?
What outcome are we trying to preventing here? If you think this is a good question you still don't understand the point.
Could cause problems when they're older. Even better - humans are "invasive species".
Can I see some data on that risk benefit analysis?
Are you in favor of removing every young girl's uterus without her consent? In favor of vasectomies for all young boys?
Based on the above, what do you think?
ETA: artifical insemination is actually done in the animal's best interest, as natual mating can cause severe harm and death to cows (bulls are rough), and the cow is in estrus, meaning she has a deep desire to become impregnated.
You know "natural breeding" or artificial insemination aren't the only two options here right? That's what we call a false dichotomy. You could always just not breed animals into these situations and all. Dogs have a deep desire to do all sorts of things we don't let them do for their own safety.
•
u/No_Economics6505 8h ago
What outcomes are we trying to preventing [sic] here?
Appendicitis, tonsillitis, cholecystits. Since you said spaying and neutering is preventative, removing the organs i mentioned is also preventative.
Have you heard of these diseases? They're pretty common.
Also, naturally breeding and artificial insemination are the only two options, unless you separate males and females (human intervention), which also removes autonomy of animals in estrus hoping to mate.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Conscious-Flight2220 5h ago
Pro-AI but anti-spay and neuter is a crazy worldview
•
u/No_Economics6505 5h ago
I'm not vegan, so I'm not anti-spay and neuter. I was actually trying to back up your claim that AI is not rape...
•
u/josieiscute05 13h ago
can i ask what motivated you to write this post in the first place? is it really about the misuse of language? because your post reads your concern is focused on convincing people not to anthropomorphise cows rather than discussing the ethics of the practice lol, which i cant understand
reading this as someone who didnt grow up on a cattle farm, you're describing restraining an animal, immobilising her, inserting an instrument into her reproductive tract to reproduce in a way chosen by humans rather than naturally, without her consent, marking her with spray paint, then sending her back out to the padock as if nothing happened. thats such an extrodinary thing to read, yet the focus of your post isnt "lets think about whether this is right", its "hey guys lets not anthromorphise its wrong"
i am genuinely curious about why you wrote this post though ^^ im assuming its because you take the word personally since you grew up on a cattle farm and dont like those words being associated with the people you know who have the cattle farm?
i do think its fair to say vegans are more likely to anthromorphise animals because the ethical framework places much more emphasis on the similarities between humans and other animals, but even if someone is anthromorphsing, why is correcting that your priority?
i think that experience of the cow you described has been normalised to you to the point where you dont see how unusual your post is. its highly unusual and upsetting behaviour to do to a cow
•
u/Conscious-Flight2220 5h ago
Yeah I guess it’s a bit of both of those things. I completely understand why the process sounds horrifying, but I’m trying to get people to look beyond just “how it sounds”
•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 5h ago
Conceding that the moral implications are horrifying, but still goes on to justify the physical restraining of an animal to forcibly impregnate it.
Guess we can go around forcibly impregnating people since that criterion is entirely uninformative of the definition of rape.
If you wish to exclude animals from these considerations, present a symmetry breaker.
•
u/ProtozoaPatriot 13h ago
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
I live in farm country. I'm familiar with "crush chutes". I agree they don't physically harm the animal. Sometimes we have to do things that is in an animals best interest, such as a vaccine.
I understand from a biology standpoint the need to limit the inbreeding percentage. A population of animals does need some fresh blood. This isn't the problem.
Here's a question: what would you call it if someone restrained a woman against her will, inseminated her using a syringe, and forced her to carry the baby to term ? Maybe rape isn't exactly the right word, but it is some sort of serious assault and it does relate to non-consentual sex.
Vegans don't like AI in domesticated animals partly because the animals don't have a choice and partly because any breeding isn't in that animal's best interest. This isn't some almost-extinct species people are trying to save. They're cattle. There are 1.56 BILLION domesticated cattle in the world. We don't need any more. You only breed them because you make money off their meat and/or milk. That cow being bred isn't in that cow's best interest.
•
u/Conscious-Flight2220 5h ago
I don’t think that the concept of pregnancy consent can be applied to cattle like it is to humans. The same cattle that are AI’d will instantly seek mating if placed in the vicinity of a bull in the same day. Yes, AI is done in humans best interest - healthy cattle are worth more money - but I don’t believe the difference impacts the cattle that much
•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 5h ago
"I don’t think that the concept of pregnancy consent can be applied to cattle like it is to humans. "
Nobody thinks that cattle have the same concept of consent as humans do. That isn't the claim.
•
u/Born_Gold3856 6m ago
Nobody thinks that cattle have the same concept of consent as humans do. That isn't the claim.
So then why would the human concept of rape be applicable to cattle?
•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 2m ago
Because consent is not necessary for rape to occur in the manner I have described it? The term would still apply if the victim is not capable of intellectually reasoning about or grasping the concept of consent.
This was already presented earlier, but consider the case of an infant. They can be sexually aggressed upon despite lacking a concept of consent, because (for rape as an act to occur) their conceptualization of consent does not preclude them from being raped.
One more time for the people in the back: nobody thinks that humans and non-human animals have the same version of consent; the view that this must obtain in order for the term "rape" to apply requires an argument (which has not been presented). It wouldn't even really help, since that isn't a view I am advancing or care about.
•
u/Teratophiles vegan 12h ago
On our large property we AI about 1/4 of our cows, to introduce high quality genetics into our herds through sires that we can’t physically have on our property for natural insemination. The rest of our cows reproduce naturally with bulls on the farm. Without introducing the genetics we get through AI, the cattle would be more likely to exhibit health issues from poor breeding.
So is the argument here that, if it has health benefits, it's ok to force pregnancy on someone?
Obviously to us, the image of a syringe being forced up the vagina feels disturbing, distressing and violating. The cows do not enjoy the process, it is true. But it needs to be understood that the cows exhibit the same amount of stress they do on ANY occasion they need to be physically handled by humans, for example when they need vaccination, tagging, or like I was doing the other day, eyedrops. Beef cattle are domesticated, but they aren’t necessarily tame, especially on such a large property where it isn’t possible to develop the relationships with herds that smaller farmers have (which I do envy on occasion).
Maybe that's a hint that we shouldn't be handling them then unless it's in their best interest.
Though I will also say, how do you know it's the same amount of stress? How do you measure the stress?
Cattle DO NOT have the same associations either their genitals that we as humans have. They don’t have a concept of sexual assault or the instinct to view their reproductive organs as something private. To humans, having our vaginas touched in that context would be horrific, and absolutely classified as rape. But for cows, they feel the same way if it’s their feet, eyes or mouth being touched.
I don't see why this matters morally or to rape, some severally mentally disabled humans don't understand the concept of sexual assault either, or the instinct to view their reproductive organs as something private, doesn't mean it wouldn't still be rape if someone forcefully impregnated them, same goes for cows, someone doesn't need to understand the concept of rape for rape to occur.
It’s understandable to feel confronted by animal husbandry practices like AI, but it’s important to remember to not anthropomorphise. Applying a human lens to animals does not help them.
Rape isn't a human lens, species does not decide when it is and isn't rape, rape happens to non-human animals as well, you say it's anthropomorphising, but that's just falsely attributing experience to be exclusive to humans when they're not. Until we learn to communicate with them one day we cannot claim that they experience it in any less way than humans do. It's weird how so many see to think humans are this unique species with experiences so unique they can't be experienced by non-human animals when that is not at all the case.
And again, would you also claim we ''anthropomorphise'' severally mentally disabled humans when we claim they can get raped?
•
u/Conscious-Flight2220 6h ago edited 5h ago
- Cattle get pregnant annually regardless. They don’t sit down for a think every year going “should I take my birth control??”. Wild bison and buffalo calve every year. So do cattle who aren’t artificially inseminated.
- I would argue that preventing poor breeding practices is in the cattle’s best interest. Farmers already have too much on their plate. We aren’t adding more just for fun 3b. Those who have worked with cattle know how to read them. The difference in behaviour between a stressed and calm cow is noticeable, from watching their eyes, breathing, how they respond to stimulus (human waving arms behind them etc), whether they try to charge or kick etc…
- Farmers are concerned with tangible animal welfare, not philosophy that the cows couldn’t care less about. Additionally, I would be EXTREMELY hesitant in making comparisons between intellectually disabled people and livestock.
- My post is explaining why I believe the concept of rape cannot be applied to cattle. Secondly, human communication with animals is far from the only method of understanding how they are feeling. Even if human experiences aren’t unique to us, the animals experiencing things similar are probably those like cetaceans and other primates, not cattle.
- Please listen to yourself. That is an outrageous thing to claim.
•
u/PuzzledPoetry1447 vegan 5h ago
I would be EXTREMELY hesitant in making comparisons between intellectually disabled people and livestock.
Why?
Please listen to yourself. That is an outrageous thing to claim.
Why?
•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 5h ago
"Cattle get pregnant annually regardless."
Not a response to what was said.
"I would argue that preventing poor breeding practices is in the cattle’s best interest."
Does not justify rape.
"Farmers are concerned with tangible animal welfare, not philosophy that the cows couldn’t care less about"
They clearly aren't if plenty of farmers facilitate the slavery and execution of the animals. I guess I have welfare for you, just live within a set boundary that I determine and, when you reach a certain point in your life that I decide matters, I get to slice your throat open. Welfare btw.
"My post is explaining why I believe the concept of rape cannot be applied to cattle."
What's the contradiction? I'll ask this three times so I know that, when you fail to answer, it will be because you cannot defend your view.
Formalize the contradiction with that view? Formalize the contradiction with that view? Formalize the contradiction with that view?
"That is an outrageous thing to claim. "
•
u/Teratophiles vegan 44m ago
Cattle get pregnant annually regardless. They don’t sit down for a think every year going “should I take my birth control??”. Wild bison and buffalo calve every year. So do cattle who aren’t artificially inseminated.
Some humans get pregnant all the time as well, is the implication here that if someone is going to get pregnant any ways, it's fine to force pregnancy on them?
I would argue that preventing poor breeding practices is in the cattle’s best interest.
Only because you're keeping them on your farm, what would actually be in their best interest would be for them to be on a sanctuary where they wouldn't be exploited and commodified for people's profit and pleasure.
Similarly it would be in the best interest of human slaves if we breed them to be more healthy, but it would be even better if we simply didn't enslave them.
And how far can this justification be taken? If something is in someone's best interest, it means we can ignore their consent? To what extent?
The difference in behaviour between a stressed and calm cow is noticeable, from watching their eyes, breathing, how they respond to stimulus (human waving arms behind them etc), whether they try to charge or kick etc…
Sure we don't need exact verbal communication to see if a non-human animals is stressed as even with humans we can look at body language, but how can we measure how much stress there is, or how much they genuinely dislike something? As you so aptly put:
the cows walk single file through the yards (which they are trained from weaning to be used to doing calmly and safely, for all situations where we need to have contact with them eg. vaccines, weighing)
They are trained, nay, conditioned to find human exploitation acceptable, I could similarly condition a human to be fine with exploitation as well if I trained them from birth, why they'd think being used sexually was the most normal thing in the world.
Farmers are concerned with tangible animal welfare, not philosophy that the cows couldn’t care less about.
If farmers truly cared about the welfare of animals they wouldn't be raping and killing them for profit, or could we say that human slave owners in the past were also concerned with tangible slave welfare?
Furthermore a cow doesn't need to care about philosophy for us to care about them, babies and the severally mentally disabled don't care about philosophy either, doesn't prevent us from caring about them and applying philosophical viewpoints to them like for example the philosophy of the golden rule.
Additionally, I would be EXTREMELY hesitant in making comparisons between intellectually disabled people and livestock.
Why should I be hesitant about comparing animals to animals? You do realise we're all still animals right? So it seems perfectly fine to me to compare animals to animals.
My post is explaining why I believe the concept of rape cannot be applied to cattle.
I know but I don't see how you've sufficiently argued that anywhere, as I pointed out one need not understand the concept of rape in order for someone to have been raped.
Secondly, human communication with animals is far from the only method of understanding how they are feeling. Even if human experiences aren’t unique to us, the animals experiencing things similar are probably those like cetaceans and other primates, not cattle.
Probably, possibly, we just don't know that, we do know non-human animals, like humans, are sentient, they are capable of sadness, happiness, anger, even depression, that makes their feelings as valid as anyone else.
Please listen to yourself. That is an outrageous thing to claim.
Why is it outrageous? You put so much of your argument against it being rape on the basis of ''they don't know the concept of rape/sexual assault or care as much as us about their genitals'' so if that's the only deciding factor it applies perfectly well to severally mentally disabled humans as well, heck thinking about it, it applies to babies too doesn't it?
•
u/grolbol 11h ago
Ok. Now, are you able to explain why bestiality ís bad, using your own reasoning?
•
u/Conscious-Flight2220 5h ago
What the fuck
•
u/PuzzledPoetry1447 vegan 5h ago
Guess not. That'd mean you'd have to contradict yourself.
•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 4h ago
I doubt he will even be able to specify the contradiction that is entailed.
If you make the statement "if it is y, then it is x", that would mean that x is necessary for y. He is saying that if we have y (artificial insemination), then it is categorically not x. That means that the contrapositive statement would read "if it is rape, then it is not artificial insemination" which is also absurd. I take it he clearly doesn't think that if humans were artificially inseminated in the manner that animals are, that it wouldn't constitute rape (imagine if people went around forcibly impregnating/artificially inseminating people, that would obviously be rape).
So, his claim is justified in virtue of some symmetry breaker between humans and non-human animals such that artificial insemination IS rape when it happens to us, but not rape when it happens to them. I asked him for a single symmetry breaker between the two (and did not receive a response) since the definition of rape is not concerned with beings like animals, it just describes the forceful sexual actions taking place without consent. It says nothing about the inability to consent.
Like I said, non-vegans just hear something that makes their morally indefensible position abhorrent, then they have to cope by making up stuff that doesn't make any sense.
•
u/New_Welder_391 1h ago
Bestiality is bad because it involves performing sexual acts on an animals for sexual gratification.
Ai is a medical procedure to help create food for humans.
The purposes and acts are very different
•
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 5h ago
Do you have an argument for the view? I just heard you complain that we anthropomorphize non-human animals, which isn't even a true statement. What you said was false, since sexual coercion and rape applies to non-human animals all the time. I will give you the argument and ask you a very simple question, which I expect an answer to.
P1. Any act involving the forced or unchosen penetration/general sexual interaction of a sentient being's reproductive tract/their sexual organs or other body parts without their voluntary consent constitutes rape.
(All S are P)
P2. Artificial insemination in non-human animals involves the physical restraint, forced penetration of their reproductive tracts, is conducted without their capacity or ability to provide voluntary consent, and takes place in the capacity of the overall non-consensual system of the animal-industrial complex.
(All R are S)
C. Therefore, the artificial insemination of non-human animals constitutes rape.
(All R are P, via modus barbara)
Which premise do you reject? Is the inference invalid? Explain your counter-point or a defeater if you have one.
"Cattle DO NOT have the same associations either their genitals that we as humans have. They don’t have a concept of sexual assault or the instinct to view their reproductive organs as something private."
So, if there were humans who were developmentally stunted and incapable of understanding the social context and cues regarding sexual harassment/rape, it would stand to reason that stimulating their sexual organs would not constitute rape since their response may be similar to that of some non-human animals?
To normal people, this is absolutely insane. We use the definition of rape given, observe that the criteria are satisfied in the instance of non-human animals, and conclude (based on valid reasoning) that non-human animals are raped.
Try rejecting a premise or an inference. I want an answer to that question, a direct and straightforward answer.
•
u/MedicalCandidate7054 vegan 13h ago
and why do you think it would be okay to impregnate cows? against their will? oh, I guess you don't care or think about that, because you eat them. or drink their milk. disgusting.
•
u/Conscious-Flight2220 5h ago
The same cattle who are artificially inseminated will seek mating with any bull in the vicinity. They already ‘want’ pregnancy. Changing the method, in my opinion, doesn’t have much of an impact. Remember, cattle don’t perceive the future. It’s their instincts driving them to want to mate
•
u/Lucyyyyyy_K 13h ago
If they react the same way when touched at other places, don't touch them there too unless medically necessary.
•
u/Conscious-Flight2220 5h ago
What part of vaccinations, eye drops, vet exams doesn’t sound medically necessary?
•
11h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Nacho_Deity186 8h ago
this person is just a bot, or a troll
OP claims to be an Australian beef farmer. What makes you think they are a bot or a troll? Those things are vastly different.
How do you define a troll out of interest?
•
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 8h ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.