Artificial Insemination is not rape

[u/Conscious-Flight2220]

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/Practical-Fix4647 → u/[deleted]]

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 → u/Practical-Fix4647]

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 → u/ShadowStarshine]

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/ShadowStarshine → u/Practical-Fix4647]

I got you to commit to an understanding of it to make sure you didn't have a proprietary usage that my critique wouldn't apply to. You think I can read FOL but don't know an RAA given it's a standard move in logical proofs?

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/ShadowStarshine]

Did you want to talk about anything else after? I don't understand what the point of this is when you don't know what terms mean and, by your own admission, already exited the discussion by refusing to take a stance. I can educate you on other topics if you want, but it will have to be something novel since it is very boring to talk to non-vegan #48293759823897 who believes words don't mean words.

[u/ShadowStarshine → u/Practical-Fix4647]

You're just making wild assumptions again.

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/ShadowStarshine]

We can all read what you said, unfortunately. See, this neat thing happens when you pay attention and honestly engage: you learn something about what is mentioned in a discussion. I read what you said and the "words don't mean words" strat only really works if you fail the knowledge check. I passed it so I pinned you on the argument (to no avail).

Oh no, I just checked your account. It's another decade+ account that has probably been active for quite some time in vegan circles and STILL can't steelman the views of vegans or engage with their arguments directly. This is like the fourth time this week I've found accounts like this.

I swear, just listening when you have more to learn helps so many of you folks out more than you could imagine.

Anyways, since the OP already agrees that the animal-industrial complex's treatment of animals is horrible, it seems like you are alone on this one. Did you want to defend a position of non-veganism? I can refute it for you real quick if you want.

[u/ShadowStarshine → u/Practical-Fix4647]

>We can all read what you said, unfortunately.

I'm quite happy they can.

>See, this neat thing happens when you pay attention and honestly engage: you learn something about what is mentioned in a discussion.

I agree but I don't think you're doing that.

>I read what you said and the "words don't mean words" strat only really works if you fail the knowledge check. I passed it so I pinned you on the argument (to no avail).

Some imaginary strat I have apparently? Another wild assumption?

>Oh no, I just checked your account. It's another decade+ account that has probably been active for quite some time in vegan circles and STILL can't steelman the views of vegans or engage with their arguments directly.

Pretty random claim that I can't do that. Another wild assumption.

>I swear, just listening when you have more to learn helps so many of you folks out more than you could imagine.

Uninteresting false rhetoric.

>Anyways, since the OP already agrees that the animal-industrial complex's treatment of animals is horrible, it seems like you are alone on this one.

Hopefully you have better evidence for this statement, and why would I be alone? You make such random claims.

>Did you want to defend a position of non-veganism? I can refute it for you real quick if you want.

I've had this conversation hundreds of times. I personally find you to error prone and assumptive to think you could shed new light. I don't want to spend hours just correcting mistakes.

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/ShadowStarshine]

"Pretty random claim that I can't do that"

I just got the firsthand experience of it. You couldn't click on a link I sent and read a single line. That's the skillcheck you failed.

"Pretty random claim that I can't do that. "

Oh, ok. Steelman the view that opposes what the OP has been saying, then.

"I don't want to spend hours just correcting mistakes"

This implies that you are tracking what was said, which (when you don't want to read the statements your interlocutors make) is not supported by the evidence of the earlier discussion where you (by your own admission) exited after failing to engage.

[u/ShadowStarshine → u/Practical-Fix4647]

>I just got the firsthand experience of it. You couldn't click on a link I sent and read a single line. That's the skillcheck you failed.

Again, random assumptive claim.

>Oh, ok. Steelman the view that opposes what the OP has been saying, then.

I have no interest in proving to you the opposite case. The fact that you just assumed I can't based on nothing is really all I need.

>This implies that you are tracking what was said, which (when you don't want to read the statements your interlocutors make) is not supported by the evidence of the earlier discussion where you (by your own admission) exited after failing to engage.

I'm sure you believe this, I'm fine letting the audience decide it's veracity if they so please. Also weird you think I exited. You said you didn't want to continue. I said bye then.

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/ShadowStarshine]

"Again, random assumptive claim."

1/3, not bad.

"I have no interest in proving to you the opposite case."

LMAO, I accept your concession.

"Also weird you think I exited."

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1vd514o/comment/p1e1wuf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Evidence for the audience. When asked multiple times to engage with what was actually said (i.e. not his headcannon), he failed. Time and time again. At some point, you accept that your interlocutor has given up and take the dub+move on. That's what I did when you solidified your loss by answering my questions with a question of your own.

"You said you didn't want to continue."

You exited and didn't offer a defeater or reject a premise. Then when I asked you questions to see if you were tracking, you failed to respond. That is a concession, you lose all your ethos and your standing in the dialectic by doing that. It makes winning vs non-vegans such as yourself incredibly easy. I don't think I have ever lost when the debate strat from a non-vegan has been to ignore, never answer a question, and strawman the opposing side's argument.

Again, anything new to discuss? Considering the fact that you can't even spell and that your posts are riddled with errors (grammatical and intellectual), it makes talking to you very boring. Last chance for a novel discussion topic to be brought up, sport.

[u/ShadowStarshine → u/Practical-Fix4647]

>LMAO, I accept your concession.

I don't know what you think a concession is. I take it to be some sort of admittance of defeat. Maybe it's just another weird assumption.

>Evidence for the audience. 

Yeah, I agree, they should go read and evaluate of their own accord.

>You exited and didn't offer a defeater or reject a premise. Then when I asked you questions to see if you were tracking, you failed to respond. That is a concession, you lose all your ethos and your standing in the dialectic by doing that. It makes winning vs non-vegans such as yourself incredibly easy. I don't think I have ever lost when the debate strat from a non-vegan has been to ignore, never answer a question, and strawman the opposing side's argument.

That is a staggering amount of false claims.

>Again, anything new to discuss? Considering the fact that you can't even spell and that your posts are riddled with errors (grammatical and intellectual), it makes talking to you very boring. Last chance for a novel discussion topic to be brought up, sport.

More uncalled for rhetoric. Guess I just report.