BEASTIALITY

[Catholic_Lady]

Killing and eating animals is fine.  That's not mistreatment.  That's raising food.

You can euthanize a pet without their consent if they are in failing health, because you are effectively their legal guardian.  If a doctor says that a mentally ill patient who cannot give consent is terminally ill, with no chance of recovery, and is suffering (much like a pet) then I think a legal guardian should have the right to give the doctor authorization to euthanize the patient to end their suffering.  

Remember the case of Terri Schiavo?  It was around the same time as John Paul II died and Michael Jackson had his trial.  That was all that was in the news at the time.   Michael Jackson, the pope, and Terri Schiavo.  That's a case I think of when I think of this.

Now should there be a strict review of the third parties decision for euthanasia?  Sure.  But should someone have to suffer until they finally die if they have no chance for recovery?  I don't think so.

Well I think taking someone who is essentially brain dead off of a machine is not the same as euthanize a terminally ill mentally handicapped person without their consent... which is what we do to our pets. We are comparing apples to oranges here when we refer to a brain dead person who we pull the plug on, verses euthanize someone who can't give consent due to their handicap.   

I guess I don't really understand how it's ok to kill/eat an animal without their consent, but not ok to put peanut butter on your junk and have them lick it off without "consent." It isn't making much sense to me.   

Don't get me wrong, I do think doing the peanut butter thing is wrong, but wouldn't use "consent" as an argument for why it's wrong unless I can apply it to other scenarios.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It is theoretically possible to make secular argument based on natural law but very very few atheists would embrace that position since they are nearly all nominalists.

[Clueless Morgan]

You can euthanize a pet without their consent if they are in failing health, because you are effectively their legal guardian.  If a doctor says that a mentally ill patient who cannot give consent is terminally ill, with no chance of recovery, and is suffering (much like a pet) then I think a legal guardian should have the right to give the doctor authorization to euthanize the patient to end their suffering.

Exactly.  

The fact that 47 states in the US will let a suffering animal be put to death and not a suffering human is despicable to me.  In this regard, we treat animals better than we treat people.

In cases where death is imminent and it's very clear that the person is suffering, I think euthanasia should be an available option.  I went through an extremely traumatic experience the night a family cat died (we basically rushed to the vet for emergency euthanizing), I cannot imagine that it would be preferable to put a human through what my cat went through.  In the case of my cat, my family had to make a judgement call about whether a slow, painful, natural death was preferable to putting him down immediately, and we determined the more humane way to end his life was the immediate route.

Before this experience, I watched my grandfather die, and suffer all the way up until his last breath.  If I could have done for my grandfather what my family was able to do for my cat I would have.  100% absolutely.

In the case of mentally handicapped individuals, or people in positions to not give consent (due to dementia, coma, or other factors), who have been diagnosed with terminal illnesses or conditions and who are clearly suffering and have no chance of recovery, the family would need to decide how much suffering is acceptable before deciding to intervene and end the life and that's, unfortunately, a judgement call because we don't have a good way to judge pain levels in others.  The more humane action to take, IMO, is to alleviate suffering and end the life rather than let the person persist in a prolonged state of suffering and pain.

Now should there be a strict review of the third parties decision for euthanasia?  Sure.  But should someone have to suffer until they finally die if they have no chance for recovery?  I don't think so.

Third party review would not only need to happen to confirm a terminal diagnosis, but also as a way of preventing rogue individuals from taking advantage of such an option for personal gain.

Well I think taking someone who is essentially brain dead off of a machine is not the same as euthanize a terminally ill mentally handicapped person without their consent... which is what we do to our pets. We are comparing apples to oranges here when we refer to a brain dead person who we pull the plug on, verses euthanize someone who can't give consent due to their handicap.

I rather agree that these are apples and oranges here.

I guess I don't really understand how it's ok to kill/eat an animal without their consent, but not ok to put peanut butter on your junk and have them lick it off without "consent." It isn't making much sense to me.

It makes sense to me in the sense that the person is going to die no matter but the animal isn't going to be fucked no matter what.  In the case of the person, the action you're taking is deciding whether to let that person persist in a prolonged period of suffering before dying or whether to end that suffering by ending the life, whereas with the animal you are actively taking action that very well might be harming the animal.  You're attempting to alleviate known suffering in the one case, and potentially causing suffering in the other.

[Angrboda]

I think there's a little bit of the Catholic response in our revulsion at the thought of bestiality. There's plain sex, and the further we get away from plain sex between a man and a woman, the more uncomfortable we feel. Sex that is a bit unusual is 'kinky', ie. not straight. It hasn't been that long since gay sex was considered abnormal, and sex with animals just takes strangeness one step further. There is a sense in which anything beyond just plain sex makes us nervous. Perhaps that's part of the thrill of fetishes like BDSM. At the same time, I think the Catholic response is a bit of a lie, as it hasn't been that long since the Catholic church endorsed arranged marriages. You can say what you want about the issue of consent in arranged marriages, it nevertheless is a significant deviation from a marriage united by love between a man and a woman. And that seems to be the norm that the encyclical is trying to use as justification for its moral stance; not the other.

[Catholic_Lady]

I guess I don't really understand how it's ok to kill/eat an animal without their consent, but not ok to put peanut butter on your junk and have them lick it off without "consent." It isn't making much sense to me.

It makes sense to me in the sense that the person is going to die no matter but the animal isn't going to be fucked no matter what.  In the case of the person, the action you're taking is deciding whether to let that person persist in a prolonged period of suffering before dying or whether to end that suffering by ending the life, whereas with the animal you are actively taking action that very well might be harming the animal.  You're attempting to alleviate known suffering in the one case, and potentially causing suffering in the other.

What about for killing an animal to eat them without their consent though?

[Divinity]

Well I think taking someone who is essentially brain dead off of a machine is not the same as euthanize a terminally ill mentally handicapped person without their consent... which is what we do to our pets. We are comparing apples to oranges here when we refer to a brain dead person who we pull the plug on, verses euthanize someone who can't give consent due to their handicap.   

I guess I don't really understand how it's ok to kill/eat an animal without their consent, but not ok to put peanut butter on your junk and have them lick it off without "consent." It isn't making much sense to me.   

Don't get me wrong, I do think doing the peanut butter thing is wrong, but wouldn't use "consent" as an argument for why it's wrong unless I can apply it to other scenarios.

But again, we're assuming in this case that the mentally handicapped person is incapable of giving consent.  Just as Terri Schiavo was incapable of giving consent.  If the mentally handicapped person is capable of consent, then you can't euthanize them without their consent.  Animals however aren't capable of giving consent.  They can't say "Yes, please put me out of my misery."

It's also a bit different if a guy uses peanutbutter to get a blowjob from his dog (desperation) and if he actually has sex with the dog (same with a woman).  When the animal initiates the action, then it's not really abuse.  But when a person initiates the action it's abuse.

[Mister Agenda]

Lol, ok. So I know how this looks. 

Let me first say that I'm definitely against it. And that I am NOT  equating this to gay marriage or anything like that. This is a completely independent issue.   

I am curious to know though, what is the secular argument for why beastiality acts should be illegal? I know you will all say that animals can't give consent, but if you're doing it in such a way that is not hurting them physically, mentally, or emotionally, and if they don't understand sex or what is going on, then why would we need their consent for it? We don't need their consent to do anything else to them as long as we're not hurting them. So why should sex acts be any different if sex can be purely a physical thing and nothing more, as I'm assuming most of you believe? Let's say someone puts peanut butter or something on their own private parts, for example. Why should that be illegal if the animal is just licking peanut butter and isn't being hurt in any way?    

Along with the fact that it's just completely ew, my core reason for thinking it's immoral go together with my religious beliefs regarding sexual morality, so I'd like to hear the reasons from someone who is not motivated by religious beliefs.    

Throughout this thread, I will be playing devil's advocate, and I'm sure it'll get gross and taboo. But make no mistake, I do not support these acts in any way shape or form.

For starters, bestiality is legal in 13 states in the USA. Just wanted to put that out there. Sorry if someone beat me to it.

[Catholic_Lady]

Lol, ok. So I know how this looks. 

Let me first say that I'm definitely against it. And that I am NOT  equating this to gay marriage or anything like that. This is a completely independent issue.   

I am curious to know though, what is the secular argument for why beastiality acts should be illegal? I know you will all say that animals can't give consent, but if you're doing it in such a way that is not hurting them physically, mentally, or emotionally, and if they don't understand sex or what is going on, then why would we need their consent for it? We don't need their consent to do anything else to them as long as we're not hurting them. So why should sex acts be any different if sex can be purely a physical thing and nothing more, as I'm assuming most of you believe? Let's say someone puts peanut butter or something on their own private parts, for example. Why should that be illegal if the animal is just licking peanut butter and isn't being hurt in any way?    

Along with the fact that it's just completely ew, my core reason for thinking it's immoral go together with my religious beliefs regarding sexual morality, so I'd like to hear the reasons from someone who is not motivated by religious beliefs.    

Throughout this thread, I will be playing devil's advocate, and I'm sure it'll get gross and taboo. But make no mistake, I do not support these acts in any way shape or form.

For starters, bestiality is legal in 13 states in the USA. Just wanted to put that out there. Sorry if someone beat me to it.

Seriously???   

Ugh. Not cool.

[Mister Agenda]

Okay, first off an animal cannot give consent, and without the ability to consent the animal is freightened and scared with no ability to understand what is happening. It's hurts the animals and it leads to potential harm for humans as well. Now imagine a world where beastiality is okay. Imagine animals being cultivated for nothing more then to be fucked. You see what we do with factory farming now, so picture that only, fucking animals before you kill them. Imagine a world where you have to leave your husband because he fucked a horse.
Now here is what I find ironic. I'm here arguing against it using my reason and empathy, your reasoning is "its bad because gawd said so." So your using this to try to make religious morality look good when in fact if your Bible said every woman must fuck a goat you'd be telling how great it is and I would still be arguing its wrong.

This seems equally (or more) an argument against raising them for food. Really, animals can't give any kind of meaningful consent to anything we do to them or for them, which makes it an argument against having pets as well.

[Catholic_Lady]

Okay, first off an animal cannot give consent, and without the ability to consent the animal is freightened and scared with no ability to understand what is happening. It's hurts the animals and it leads to potential harm for humans as well. Now imagine a world where beastiality is okay. Imagine animals being cultivated for nothing more then to be fucked. You see what we do with factory farming now, so picture that only, fucking animals before you kill them. Imagine a world where you have to leave your husband because he fucked a horse.
Now here is what I find ironic. I'm here arguing against it using my reason and empathy, your reasoning is "its bad because gawd said so." So your using this to try to make religious morality look good when in fact if your Bible said every woman must fuck a goat you'd be telling how great it is and I would still be arguing its wrong.

This seems equally (or more) an argument against raising them for food. Really, animals can't give any kind of meaningful consent to anything we do to them or for them, which makes it an argument against having pets as well.

Agenda, what would your argument be for why it's immoral to do anything sexual with animals, as long as they are not harmed?