View Single Post
  #143 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-08-2006, 08:36 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.religion.christian.episcopal
Derek[_2_] Derek[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 215
Default Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as bleagh 'glorfindel'

On 23 Aug 2006 11:35:17 -0700, " wrote:
Derek wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 14:56:16 -0700, " wrote:
Derek wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 13:28:27 -0700, " wrote:

The process of artificial insemination, including the harvesting
of male ejaculate, is not gratifiying for the female and is
gratifying for the male.

Then, according to your view where gratifying animals
sexually is permissible, you have no objection to the
harvesting of animal semen.

I object on the grounds of animal commodification.


No, you don't object at all.


I believe my objection is crystal clear.


You believe, as Karen does, that it is right and proper
to sexually gratify animals, and so you have no valid
objection to the harvesting of animal semen.

I have no relationship with animals requiring "fiddling".


You believe, as Karen does, that it is right and proper to
sexually gratify animals by being their sexual partner.
You endorse and promote zoophilia.


I believe zoophilia requires a pleasure-seeking human.


No, it only requires that a human has sex with an animal.
Karen regularly availed herself as a sexual partner to her
pet, and you condone it. You endorse zoophilia.

I don't think Karen qualifies.


She regularly availed herself as a sexual partner to her pet.
Ergo, she's a zoophile.