Point taken. However rape is still considered a form of physical abuse.
We can survive without eating meat—now. Before agriculture and technology made it possible to not only grow sufficient nutrients and to be sure you’re fulfilling the nutrients your body needs for good health. Still, meat is a fantastic and efficient way for humans to acquire a great portion of proteins, amino acids, fats, etc.
I’m as filled with as much sorrow or compassion over the swift death of an animal (for food or euthanasia), as a cheeta is over its kill. However, I do wish for more humane ways in farming and caring of animals before the slaughter, as it’s not natural with obvious suffering, even though it’s a means to an end; humane or not.
Normalcy is not a defence, nor is abnormality criminal.
Yes, but comission and mens rea come into play when the death of a human animal occurs.
How about buying animals to kill (humanely) and then have sex with (or deface)? Or purchasing animal corpses for the same purpose? Should that be legislated against?
That’s not the question I thought we were considering. I thought the question was “should we have a legal obligation to treat animals ethically” not “should we change the law”.
I don’t understand why people in the legal profession are incapable of understanding these kinds of questions.
Consent in the human sense isn’t really a concept that works well when extended to animals; by human standards they can’t consent to anything, including sex with each other. Despite that, there are clearly cases where animals have consensual sex with each other, and other cases where it’s rape.
Sure you can, regardless of what the law says. Rape is forcing sex, regardless of whether the law recognizes it. It wasn’t so long ago that it wasn’t regarded as rape if a husband forced sex on his wife; the lack of legal recognition didn’t make it any less rape.
Rape is forcing sex on a human being. Because you would like the law to be different doesn’t make it different.
So we prosecute all people who engage in bestiality as rape? How do we know that the animal didn’t consent? Does the dog get on the stand to testify about his objections to the sex? What about the sixth amendment?
This is ostensibly because we are hardwired with empathy for each other. It’s not entirely rational to apply the same empathy to a non-sapient creature. It can be a slippery slope into anthropomorphism.
What is the difference between thinking we should have a legal obligation for something and thinking we should change the law? Don’t we acquire legal obligations by changing laws?
There are numerous articles and reviews showing that animal cruelty can either be a sign of abuse (for example, a kid abusing an animal), or that it can lead to later abuse of fellow humans. In any case, the person doing the abuse is not right.
While Pubmed gives various reviews, the following was the only review I could find publicly available with the search words “animal abuse” and “child abuse”.
I’m at home, so I cannot do a full search on other related articles, but there are more, and newer. Veterinarians are told to recognize the signs of abuse, both in animal and in humans, and to report said abuse.
In my area, I see the end result of animal cruelty. It baffles me, again and again, how can someone do that to an animal that has no way of fighting back. It also makes me cautious because I cannot imagine someone mistreating an animal in such an extreme way and then being all roses and sunshine to most of humanity. And the evidence so far points out that that is not true, that someone who is that way with animals is likely not a nice person overall.
So in a way, criminalizing that behavior perhaps makes the abuse stop before it reaches to humans. Or recognizing that it is not “right”, that there is something wrong with the person who does it, may lead to help for the abuser (at the very least).
Not that I’m into dolphin sex, but it seems a practical question if you’re raping it, couldn’t it just swim away? I mean it can dive underwater and drown you if you don’t let go. Are people hauling them on land? Cause the hauling on land would be very cruel, no doubt. However if you’re in the water seems like it’s giving consent by not swimming away, or mauling you or whatever dolphins do.
Are you making the argument that they’re not mentally developed enough to give consent? That seems a lot more solid of a case.
Thank you, Karl. As I read through the thread, I was hoping you would contribute.
As a lawyer, I can state that in my jurisdiction, cruelty to animals is prohibited. See s. 445 et seq. of the Criminal Code of Canada.
As an aside, I recently represented a young person accused of animal cruelty in court. I was only the “lawyer for the day”; the lawyer who is there for all unrepresented parties. Personally, I was repulsed by the facts in this person’s matter; professionally, I got the person an adjournment so they could retain and instruct their own lawyer (and I strongly recommended that they retain a lawyer and I also gave them contact info for the local Legal Aid society in case they could not afford one). Their matter needs to go farther than I can take it in one day and on their first appearance.
But I will say this: when I do the “lawyer for the day” gig for young people, I see many tough guys, druggies, jocks, sportos, motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, goths, and dickheads (thank you, Ferris Bueller). But this person was none of the above. This person was just … not all there, unlike the majority of people I represent for a day. I did my best to protect the person’s rights, as I am obliged to do professionally, but I also hope this person can get the help needed. If they do, perhaps they will recognize and understand that what they did is both unacceptable and criminal in my jurisdiction.
:rolleyes: And what do you call it when one animal forces sex on another? What does refusing to call it “rape” do but confuse the issue? Your argument sounds like the sort of thing that would be used by someone to justify genetically engineered people into sexual slavery with the claim that it doesn’t count as rape because they aren’t human.
Raping dolphins (which yes, they do to each other) and for that matter non-rape involves a third dolphin pushing to hold the female in place.
At the risk of having more ignorance fought that I’d like to keep. I think the discussion is about humans raping dolphins. Not cetacean on cetacean crime.
I’m seeking clarification if cmyk meant it was a lack of communication, or a lack of mental development when he said dolphins can’t consent.
Well, I was more or less using dolphins as an outrageous example.
But in all seriousness, no, they or any other animal can’t give consent since there’s no real form of communication (I’m talking pragmatically here). But more importantly, I don’t see why forcing sex onto any other sentient creature can’t be considered “rape” for lack of a better word. Even if it might not carry the same emotional trauma as in humans, there is still a physical element of coercion and most likely pain.
As to how you actually go about raping a dolphin, I couldn’t say, other than perhaps a lot of scuba gear, bungie cords, underwater grace and… tenacity.
