I’ve gotten in so many heated debate on that one, as someone who grew up on a dairy farm. People see the gross factory farms in the US and get incredibly offended at me “lying” by claiming that plenty of farms are not like that, and it just comes down to ethical sourcing.
They’re animals. Artificial insemination is no more or less rape than any other means of reproduction. Bulls don’t exactly get consent, or give a shit if the cow is actively resisting for that matter. This is an instance where nature is more fucked up than what happens on farms, not less.
The former requires consent that removes boundaries (as a result of conscious choice made by a couple that is incapable of reproducing - or not); the latter violates consent that destroys boundaries.
We can’t communicate with animals directly so there little to no way we can ever ask for consent to do these things to animals. Any animal insemination is forceful insemination.
Bulls don’t exactly get consent, or give a shit if the cow is actively resisting for that matter.
Cows can communicate between each other, meaning that there is a possibility that consent is given, if said concept is even comprehensible by cows.
Consent as a concept might not even be necessary for bovines, however. I’m no ethologist, but it appears that one of the main ways cows communicate that they’re in heat is by emiting pheromones that bulls then cross-confirm with other signs of estrus like mounting (see Cow Talk namely Chapter 4). Outside of matings seasons, however, the source indicates that wild cows tend to separate themselves according to sex: males with males, and female with females/young. There isn’t a tendency here for wild bulls to seek out heifers unless it’s the right time of year and heifers communicate that they’re looking for sexual interaction. This is a form of consent since some information is communicated indicating a desired behavior from the other party.
Contrast wild cattle with domesticated cattle and it’s been shown that bulls tend to be put in isolation from heifers, and that primary introduction between the sexes results in isolated bulls exhibiting “excessive mounting (buller-steer syndrome)” where “injuries to the bull being ridden, decreased weight gain and even death” happen (see Social Behavior in Farm Animals, namely Chapter 5).
If anything, domestication leads to unnatural social patterns that can allow for even more suffering than in nature. Again, I’m not an ethologist so we would need to review the literature more.
We artificially inseminate cows when they are in heat. This argument of heat == consent is nonsense to pad out the argument and make it sound more grey than it is.
I’ve gotten in so many heated debate on that one, as someone who grew up on a dairy farm. People see the gross factory farms in the US and get incredibly offended at me “lying” by claiming that plenty of farms are not like that, and it just comes down to ethical sourcing.
I’m not sure there is anything ethical about forcefully impregnating female cows for our gain.
Just think if we thought doing so was ethical for humans. Rape, the sex slave trade, etc. would be morally acceptable.
They’re animals. Artificial insemination is no more or less rape than any other means of reproduction. Bulls don’t exactly get consent, or give a shit if the cow is actively resisting for that matter. This is an instance where nature is more fucked up than what happens on farms, not less.
Since animals cannibalize others of their own species, does that mean humans should?
Artificial insemination != forceful insemination (rape).
The former requires consent that removes boundaries (as a result of conscious choice made by a couple that is incapable of reproducing - or not); the latter violates consent that destroys boundaries.
We can’t communicate with animals directly so there little to no way we can ever ask for consent to do these things to animals. Any animal insemination is forceful insemination.
Cows can communicate between each other, meaning that there is a possibility that consent is given, if said concept is even comprehensible by cows.
Consent as a concept might not even be necessary for bovines, however. I’m no ethologist, but it appears that one of the main ways cows communicate that they’re in heat is by emiting pheromones that bulls then cross-confirm with other signs of estrus like mounting (see Cow Talk namely Chapter 4). Outside of matings seasons, however, the source indicates that wild cows tend to separate themselves according to sex: males with males, and female with females/young. There isn’t a tendency here for wild bulls to seek out heifers unless it’s the right time of year and heifers communicate that they’re looking for sexual interaction. This is a form of consent since some information is communicated indicating a desired behavior from the other party.
Contrast wild cattle with domesticated cattle and it’s been shown that bulls tend to be put in isolation from heifers, and that primary introduction between the sexes results in isolated bulls exhibiting “excessive mounting (buller-steer syndrome)” where “injuries to the bull being ridden, decreased weight gain and even death” happen (see Social Behavior in Farm Animals, namely Chapter 5).
If anything, domestication leads to unnatural social patterns that can allow for even more suffering than in nature. Again, I’m not an ethologist so we would need to review the literature more.
We artificially inseminate cows when they are in heat. This argument of heat == consent is nonsense to pad out the argument and make it sound more grey than it is.