Scented Nectar wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:

>>>>pearl wrote:

>>>You approve of people "diddling" animals

>>No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
>>artificial insemination.

> There was also no sexual gratification for Glorfindel when she allowed
> the bird to do its thing. She only said that she thought it was sweet
> that the bird was getting some enjoyment in its difficult life. Since
> she did not get sexual gratification, and since the cattle ranchers
> who, um, 'milk' the sperm from the bulls do not get gratification, they
> are on the same moral level. Possibly Glorfindel's morals are even
> better than the ranchers. Her motive was for the bird to be happy, and
> their motive was to sell the sperm for money and then impregnate the
> females without regard to letting the animals do it their own way.


That is why I feel artificial insemination is wrong at both
(bad pun ) ends of the process. The bull does not choose
to be forced into this process. He may get some gratification,
but that is not the purpose of the activity. The purpose
is to *USE* an animal, make the animal a thing, a slave, a
tool. The person doing it doesn't *care* if the bull enjoys
it, only that the bull produces. That is wrong. The same is
true of the cow: she gets no enjoyment from the insemination
at all. That's why the restraint used is called a "rape rack."
It is rape for her, and she gets no more moral consideration than
the bull. She is an economic tool for the farmer. He gets
milk (by taking the calf away and turning him into veal
and her into another milk-machine slave) and eventually sells the
spent cow for meat. It is a thoroughly evil system and
both inhumane and harmful to all the animals involved -- bull,
cow, and calf.

It is, simply, morally evil and wrong.