Leif Erikson wrote:
> lead-pipe-wielding Mary Huber blabbered:
> > Leif Erikson wrote:

> > > No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
> > > artificial insemination.
> >
> > There is certainly no sexual gratification for the female.
>
> So what? What an inane comment!

I gave you more credit than is due. The point is clear within the
context of my post. The process of artificial insemination, including
the harvesting of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female and
is gratifying for the male.

If sexual release for an animal is the basis used to determine whether
the human participant in sexual manipulation of an animal is a
"diddler", ranchers are clearly "diddlers".

> Why would anyone care about sexual gratification in livestock?

Indeed, your kind cares nothing about the gratification of any
instinctual needs for non-human animals. (That's why you keep
nocturnal animals like your cats cruelly confined in carriers
throughout the night.)

> > > > as long as people can make money doing it.
> > >
> > > Making money is moral.
> >
> > "Making money" by any means is not moral.
>
> Straw man: no one defended making money by any means conceivable.

You categorically asserted, "Making money is moral." Period. Be
careful what you write, your true colors are showing.
>
> > Making money by
> > appropriating the life and death of another creature is not moral.
>
> It most certainly is.

No, it isn't. It's morally reprehensible and, like many morally
reprehensible activities, it's done all the time in the name of profit.

It's curious that the current thinking on animal hoarders is that they
are criminals, mentally ill or both. Their animals are seized and they
are barred from owning animals. Yet, when livestock operators do the
same thing to animals in their care they are called "good businessmen"
and are exempted from laws governing the treatment of animals.
>
> > > Animal agriculture is moral.
> >
> > Husbandry pratices which prevent an animal from engaging in instinctual
> > behaviors are not moral.
>
> Not necessarily.

Without exception. Animal insticnts evolved with a purpose, to serve
the individual animal and its species as a whole. When we thwart these
instincts we do so at great cost to the quality of life for individual
animals. Such disregard for animals wholly dependent on our care is
not moral.
>
> > Chickens can't scratch, ducks can't preen,
> > mink can't swim, pigs can't build nests, cows can't nurse their young
> > and on and on. Thousands of years of domestication have not destroyed
> > these animals instincts, so we must prevent them by restraint.
>
> Which is not inherently immoral.
>
> For the most part, it isn't by restraint; it's by removal.

Worthless semantics. Okay, we "remove" the ground from the reach of
chickens when we restrain them in cages. We "remove" water from the
reach of ducks and mink when we restrain them in cages. We "remove"
the ability of highly intelligent and very social pigs to nest when we
restrain them in concrete-floored, indoor pens or, worse yet, farrowing
crates.. We "remove" bawling calves from lactating mothers when we
restrain the females in milking pens.

Does that make you feel better?
>
> > This is profoundly immoral
>
> ipse dixit; also based on nothing more than your hyper-emotionalism.

It's simple respect and humility.
>
(snip)
> >
> > For an extremely limited number of humans,
>
> No - for consumers who have greater access to more nutrition at lower
> cost.
>
The only reason meat is cheap is because taxpayers prop up the meat
industry
through grain subsidies, over-generous water allocations, give-away
leases on public ranges and passes on soil, air, water pollution
violations. If prices included the real costs of meat production, only
the rich could afford to eat animal products. You know this, but
you'll say anything to create an "us" vs. "them" scenario.

> It's not as if animals will not breed on their own.
>
> They don't breed enough.

Natural breeding schedules evolved to balance the needs of the species
with the bodily integrity of females. Humans commandeer the bodies of
female animals, over breed them until they are exhausted at an early
age, then slaughter them and sell them as cheap meat cuts. This crass
utilization of one of the most intimate of physical processes is cruel
and immoral.

> There is nothing immoral about humans
> exercising control over livestock animals' breeding. In fact, that's
> pretty much the definition of modern livestock.

That's why modern animal agriculture is a moral outrage.
>
> > What they won't do
> > is birth offspring in rapid succession. What they won't do is select
> > mates according to characteristics more uselful to man than to the
> > species.
>
> We are morally justified in promoting our interests by selectively
> breeding livestock.

No, we are rendering animals more and more useless to themselves as
they become more useful to us. This is among the worse exercises of
raw power. It's a disgrace.
>