Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1283 - Sexual activity with animals bill 2017 Watch

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So you believe in animal rights but not the most basic right which is the right to life? Please be consistent.
    Can you not see the difference between slaughtering an animal for sustenance and raping an animal for sexual gratification?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    These are not exactly the same thing though. In social animals like ours rape can have a huge effect on somebodies life. Can the same be said of an animal? In cases where the animal is not harmed is there a reason for this to be illegal?
    So is it ok to rape a 1 year old as that one year old will not remember it and it will not have a huge effect on their life? Have a word with yourself for god sake.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tyguhb)
    So is it ok to rape a 1 year old as that one year old will not remember it and it will not have a huge effect on their life? Have a word with yourself for god sake.

    A one year old is likely to be hurt in the process and it will have an impact on them going forwards due to us being social animals. It will also effect those who care about the child. This is not even similar to my example of having sex with a willing animal.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    A one year old is likely to be hurt in the process and it will have an impact on them going forwards due to us being social animals. It will also effect those who care about the child. This is not even similar to my example of having sex with a willing animal.
    Well an animal is likely to be hurt in the process. How will it have an impact on a one year if they are never told about it? Can you remember anything from when you were 1? because I certainly can't. And it only effects those that care about the child if they find out about it.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I can't be intellectually honest and vote against this, as I see animals as morally irrelevant. However, this brings relatively little benefit and I'm concerned about the public health implications. Abstain.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Animals are friends and food, not sexual partners
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tootles)
    It is relevant because your motivation is questionable. You have openly shown distain and a lack of compassion for animals, which is rather distressing.

    Allow me to ask a different question, given the tone of your proposal: why are you proposing to allow sex with animals? Historical cases of zoophilia are almost always linked with other forms of abuse, so it seems fair to follow that your intention would be to allow other forms of abuse eventually too.

    Is that not your motivation? Or are you simply of a mind to shag a horse, this evening?
    I’m of the opinion that people should be free from government interference unless they are infringing on someone else’s rights.

    May I ask you why you support animal rights but are ok with them being killed? The right to life is the most basic right
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    Can you not see the difference between slaughtering an animal for sustenance and raping an animal for sexual gratification?
    Prove that there is no consent.

    Can you not see the hypocrisy in supporting animal rights except the most basic right of the right to life?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tyguhb)
    Well an animal is likely to be hurt in the process. How will it have an impact on a one year if they are never told about it? Can you remember anything from when you were 1? because I certainly can't. And it only effects those that care about the child if they find out about it.
    That depends on the animal I guess. A larger animal is unlikely to be hurt and if it's a human woman then she is more at risk than the animal, again dependant on size.

    A young child will almost inevatibly be hurt. An older child will be effected due to us being social animals. More likely in either case both of these things would be true.

    We as a society have decided, rightly imo, that the lives of animals are not worth the same as a humans. We have also decided that being cruel to animals is not morally acceptable. We are fine with slaughtering thousands of animals daily and most of us are willing to turn a blind eye to factory farming practices that certainly cause more harm than this would allow (if the bill was tightened up to prevent harm to animals). I put it to you that if we get past our natural squeemishness towards anything that is both sexual and taboo we would find the proposals in this bill nothing more than a moral grey area, especially when compared to other more important areas of animal cruelty.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tootles)
    If that were true, why would cases of animal cruelty be getting successfully convicted? Why would the RSPCA have the authority they do? Are you proposing to rescind all protections currently afforded to animals?
    Naturalistic fallacy, just because something is, doesn't mean that it ought to be.

    Your argument is not logically valid.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tyguhb)
    So is it ok to rape a 1 year old as that one year old will not remember it and it will not have a huge effect on their life? Have a word with yourself for god sake.
    Human rights are called HUMAN rights for a reason - they apply to men and women, not beasts.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No. Animals cannot give consent to sex with humans.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Prove that there is no consent.
    How can an animal consent? Arousal is not consent.

    Can you not see the hypocrisy in supporting animal rights except the most basic right of the right to life?
    No, people often support human rights but make exceptions for necessary things, such as the right to liberty being removed for offenders.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    How can an animal consent? Arousal is not consent.



    No, people often support human rights but make exceptions for necessary things, such as the right to liberty being removed for offenders.
    I asked you the question as you made the claim it is rape and that requires you to prove there is no consent.

    And in this country we do not take away the most basic right from any human as it is immoral yet we do from animals despite them apparently having rights.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I can't be intellectually honest and vote against this, as I see animals as morally irrelevant. However, this brings relatively little benefit and I'm concerned about the public health implications. Abstain.
    For the very reasons you mention I would urge you to vote against this. This is attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist and in the process opens up many social and health issues.

    As the bill stands there is nothing to stop any form of beatiality. I tend to agree with you that morality towards animals is misplaced, but people do form sentimental attachments to small animals and these can be killed by a human male having sex with them leading to emotional distress.

    Onto the health implications, we as a civilisation are undergoing a problem with antibacteria becoming innevective due to drug resistance. We are running out of antibacterial drugs faster than bacteria are developing resistances. To add to the problem by opining the opportunities for these infections to cross species at this time is foolheardy. Some of the deadliest diseases have come about in this way.

    For these reasons I would urge you to vote against this bill, even if only for me if you plan not to vote anyway and as I cannot.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I asked you the question as you made the claim it is rape and that requires you to prove there is no consent.
    An inability to properly indicate consent, being one.

    And in this country we do not take away the most basic right from any human as it is immoral yet we do from animals despite them apparently having rights.
    So the right to liberty is not a basic right?

    We take away the rights of both humans and animals where the circumstances are necessary.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    An inability to properly indicate consent, being one.



    So the right to liberty is not a basic right?

    We take away the rights of both humans and animals where the circumstances are necessary.
    The most basic is the right to life, if your life can be ended at anytime then the other rights are worthless

    Also you have not shown that there is no consent
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    For the very reasons you mention I would urge you to vote against this. This is attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist and in the process opens up many social and health issues.

    As the bill stands there is nothing to stop any form of beatiality. I tend to agree with you that morality towards animals is misplaced, but people do form sentimental attachments to small animals and these can be killed by a human male having sex with them leading to emotional distress.

    Onto the health implications, we as a civilisation are undergoing a problem with antibacteria becoming innevective due to drug resistance. We are running out of antibacterial drugs faster than bacteria are developing resistances. To add to the problem by opining the opportunities for these infections to cross species at this time is foolheardy. Some of the deadliest diseases have come about in this way.

    For these reasons I would urge you to vote against this bill, even if only for me if you plan not to vote anyway and as I cannot.
    This is obviously going to fail so I feel free to make a conscience vote.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. I have heard the arguments on both sides, but as previously said we have no way of knowing whether or not the animal has given consent. Some may be okay with animal cruelty, I am not.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The most basic is the right to life, if your life can be ended at anytime then the other rights are worthless
    Are other rights worthless in this country because police marksmen can end our lives at any time if we pose a threat?

    Rights have never been absolute. There are always exceptions - many of them necessary.

    Also you have not shown that there is no consent
    So because you cannot show that a severely disabled person is not consenting, even though they are unable to verbalise or indicate consent, that means people should be free to have sex with them?
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 16, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.