Interesting that someone could look at a normal (albeit unpleasant) veterinary procedure and immediately think of beasiality.
“This is the police! Hands up you FREAK!”
“…im a farmer”
“omg thats so cool, can i bring my kids to watch and maybe they can try?”
Look, I just like cheese okay?
…My cow can’t get pregnant no matter how many times I… Hey there buddy! Wrong hole!
For those who are curious, the reason they do this is so they can feel the cervix to make sure they get the semen in far enough.
This fuckin comment section.
I think this post might be too powerful for lemmy shitpost.
I’m genuinely impressed by the amount of reports I’ve gotten from this thread. This is top tier shit.
Can we get a peek? Sounds juicy
How on earth is this a shitpost?
You guys are doing it for the meat and that’s weak. I don’t need a reason.
Society had to implement bestiality laws because vegans loved animals a little too much.
It’s not like vegans wants animals inside them. Or that they financially support fisting cows like in OP’s picture.
If people are willing to mastrubate bulls for money, then just imagine what else they are willing to do to earn a buck.
Bull*. Earn a bull. Bucks are deer, silly.
Some will fuck horses for money, just ask the italians.
Context?
Wasn’t expecting a Cicciolina reference in the wild
Also, fun fact: she ran as an MP
this entire post and thread.
dude i’m not one to kinkshame, but, uh, your kink is showing
also I’m just happy to see such engagement in the fediverse. really brings out the lurkers.
Veganism is unnatural because we’re all omnivores, and evolved eating both plants and animals.
Impregnating cows this way is also unnatural.
Both can be true.
Impregnating cows this way is also unnatural.
Definitely. Aren’t their hands in the anus?
Fun fact, we evolved to eat raw meat, that’s why we have an appendix. Then, when we stopped eating raw meat, we started to evolve away from the appendix.
Evolutionary arguments don’t support the naturalist fallacy, because evolution doesn’t work like that. It responds to environmental pressures. It’s not some guiding light for what we’re “meant” to be doing, it’s the tools we’ve got to support what we already did.
This article says it was for raw vegetables:
For our ancestors, the appendix most likely evolved to help them digest a diet rich in raw vegetables and cellulose, as it still does in many herbivorous mammals. Thousands of years ago it would have functioned as an extension of the cecum, involved in the bacterial digestion of fibrous plant materials.
That is not proven though, the appendix part, that’s the explanation I like the best as well. Other explanations, I forget, the aliens had it for some shit we don’t even know about, oh yeah, the more likely non joke one, and it could be what you say and this both many organs do multiple things, is to provide a reservoir of gut bacteria, to repopulate the gut after the system is flushed. That would go right along with digesting raw meat, as using independent bacteria is large part of the human body we’ve come to learn.
I forget what the other theories are, but there are others for the appendix, I believe the raw meat and reservoir of bacteria both though is most likely.
While still technically a theory, the appendix acting as a reservoir for healthy gut bacteria has largely been proven. That function could very well have helped with digestion of raw meat as well, especially if eating raw meats caused issues with diarrhea.
To quote Meatloaf: 🎵🎶 IIIIIIIIIIII WANT MY
MONEYAPPENDIX BACK!🎶🎵I want my money back
That wasn’t fun
The bricks and the gravel and the mud and the blood
Another wild teenager in search of success, welcome to the jewel of the modified westLook. If you want it to scan, it’s got to be "‘ppendix’, otherwise there’s an extra syllable there. :)
It’s probably got more to do with eating less rotten meat than eating less raw meat. It has functions for the immune system it is like the surveillance system for what is being introduced to the body.
we’re all omnivores
Except, you know, the vegans.
They are still omnivores who choose to limit their diet. Acknowledging that is a choice gives it meaning, which would be lost if it was treated as something similar to being an herbivore.
I am not personally a vegan or vegetarian, but respect the choice to limit one’s diet for the purpose of limiting animal suffering.
being an herbivore.
That’s in Japan.
that’s a choice by an individual. doesn’t change how their body behaves due to millions of years of evolution.
ironically, the thing that gave them the ability to make the choice to be vegan is the thing they are rebelling against. high volumes of protein, specifically those from consuming the brains and muscle of prey, allowed the species to grow larger and more complex brains.
in a few million years vegans are going to be too stupid to make the choice for themselves and will return to consuming meat because they’re omnivorous.
By your logic, obligate carnivores would have the larger brains. Humans are obligate omnivores. Studies show no significant differences in cognitive function, cardiovascular risk, or bone health when vegan diets meet recommended dietary allowance levels. Animal protein contributed during the evolution of the human brain, but the development was driven by cooking. Cooking externalized the energy required for digesting food, which allowed for a reduction of jaws/jaw muscles, and especially gut size, freeing energy that could be used by the brain instead.
Also, the brain is fueled by glucose, not protein …
Video of me after I found an actually good vegan wing place
wait what i am having diffuchfeuai where
i cannot eat the wings, but when i want my fried chicken fix i go get the pork schnitzel. it tides me over. i miss the wings.
vegan wing
so what are these, saitan? er?
good vegan food is hard to find. anything I’ve ate almost always has to be made at home.
Look for Indian, look for Thai, look for Greek/Türkiysh(sp?)/mediterranean and i think falafel is vegan maybe? just tell them to hold the yogurt even though it is delicious it has garlic and dill and cucumber in it (it is called tzatziki). they are probably used to the falafel folk being vegans.
It’s interesting how you seem to believe your stance is based on science and facts yet you conducted no research to find out what vegans actually eat. Else you’d have found out vegans do typically eat a lot of protein and generally have healthier diets than the general public. The reason being vegans by definition spend time thinking about what to eat and looking stuff up, whereas many people just eat whatever.
I’m an omnivore, but god, imagine being so fragile that even talking to someone about veganism without resorting to #MEATPOSTING when your comfort food is a drive through away…
Imagine having an ego so fragile that pointing out misused terminology turns into a flamebate where the person feels personally attacked.
I couldn’t care less about vegan or vegetarian lifestyles and the people who follow it. it’s a personal preference like sucking dick or being a Jets fan. but personal preferences don’t change biology.
stick a devout vegan on a liferaft with only fish to eat and they will eat fish. that is, unless they have magically evolved out the will to survive.
your meatposting gave me a good chuckle and reminded me of cannibal holocaust.
am I meatposting right?
Never stop posting comrade, it shows you in your best light.
Our monkey, or rather ape, ancestors were more vegan than meat eater.
Today, most people are “more vegan” than meat eater, too, as in they eat more grains and vegetables than meat. If that’s what you meant.
Not if rfk and the beef lobby have anything to say about that
More vegan.
What a curious phrase. Not just for the substitution of vegetarian for vegan, but for the use of “more”. More vegan. I thought it was binary. Are there partial vegans? I thought that wasn’t allowed.
Because my diet includes more calories and nutrition from plant matter than meat most days, am I more vegan now?
Its more fun to highlight that veganism is about ethics so its not dietary its about ethical consumption of animal products. Which humans are animals.
And you could be a carnivore vegan - all you’d have to do is find volunteer meat to eat, so you’d need to be a cannibal or find that talking cow from the Douglas Adams books.
And I’m sorry but why add the fucking picture I don’t get how that is applicable to anything
I was going to add a picture of Epstein and his super pals from a mural in sydney but I don’t even see how to do that.
The picture is of “the vegan police” from Scott pilgrim vs the world (2010)
In prehistory the are not eating dairy, but may eat dead animals, insects, shellfish, etc.
So not all vegan, but moreso than not.
Humans evolved to proccess dairy, not once, not twice, but 3 times. Some studies even suggest up to 5 times.
Seems like it was definitely advantageous to consume dairy
Outside of mother’s milk our ape ancestors weren’t getting any dairy though. Maybe the last 10k, even longer, years. Not the last 100k, to say nothing of the last 10 million.
You are right it is a newer adaptation, but one that was clearly advantageous to our species. There are not many evolutionary changes that occurred independently in 3-5 different populations.
There’s no evidence to support that. Best evidence is that our ancestors for the longest time were likely opportunistic omnivores. Plants of course were a large part of the diet, but looking back to about 3.9 mya meat was on the menu.
They overwhelmingly ate more plants than meat we can safely presume. Meat they could get would be mostly insects, and an already dead or sick animals. Later when they came out of the trees shellfish.
Yes scavenging for meat is generally considered a very important part of human evolution. Our stomachs are particularly acidic when compared to other great apes. This is believed to have evolved due to a high consumption of scavenged meats.
You are right though plants generally did form a large portion of our and our ancestors diets.
Important to note that as our brain size increased it did correlate with increased meat consumption as well. This all goes into calorie densities, available nutrients, and evolutionary pressures.
that’s like comparing us to the primordial plankton that use to eat microbes.
it’s just really stupid.
let’s ignore 25 million years of evolution.
Pandas would like to have a word wich yu
Evolution is on a long scale, we have a lot longer as vegans than we do eating any meat to speak of outside insects and scavenging. Only a blink of an eye hunting our own meat to a large extent, a small fraction of a million years, compared to millions, and tens of millions, vegan ish.
Longer when you include like passive meat eating, like shellfish, which is what people were thought to be following as they colonized the middle east and asia.
“outside insects and scavenging”
So, scavenger and omnivore… never vegan
I guess you are right.
if your argument is that we were herbivores longer than omnivores I’ve got some news for you. we ate planktons for alot longer than plants, mostly because plants didn’t even exist for millions of years.
so by your logic we should be eating phytoplanktons instead of plants and animals.
you can’t just dismiss millions of years of evolution on a whim based entirely on an emotional reaction.
be vegan all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that you are an omnivore.
Not millions though, tens of thousands eating meat, millions eating mostly vegan. I’m not a vegan btw don’t have a dog in this fight.
“mostly vegan” meaning “omnivore”.
Vegans will NEVER have the political clout to force their way of life on everyone, and they’re mad AF about it.
to force their way of life on everyone
So fascism?
It’s not just political clout. Attempting to politically force veganism on the world would result in a war, not just votes against it.
This isn’t about veganism, no?
Uh, the guy in your link wasn’t fucking around though, he got lynched by an angry mob but did nothing wrong.
ITT: Animal abuse apologia
no one is defending animal abuse
Just supporting
no one said they support it either
I mean, it’s not really bestiality if it isn’t sexual. A gynocological exam also isn’t fingering.
Is your gynecologist jerking you off?
No, but I’ve seen some video evidence …
Eww, no. Gross.
My gyno jerks off my cows like a civilized person.
I’m not sure on the specific definition of “bestiality” and whether “sexual pleasure of the executing party” or whatever you want to call it is a necessity, but consent should certainly be a part of it.
Animals are, similar to children, students etc, fundamentally incapable of giving consent. If your gynecologist sticks a finger up your vagina without your consent, then it’s rape.
If your gynecologist sticks a finger up your vagina without your consent, then it’s rape.
So they’re supposed to ask every fucking time you’re spread at the table May i please insert my finger in your vagina to do my fucking job, pretty please?
And are you sure students can’t consent?Animals are, similar to children, students etc, fundamentally incapable of giving consent
Well … I agree with most of your points. But animals are not humans, so consent works fundamentally different. Domestic animals are owned, so humans act as the legal guardian. Yes, there should be regulation regarding general animal welfare.
But I don’t think artificial insemination of livestock falls into the category of bestiality. It’s a fun meme and shitpost, though.
I don’t think artificial insemination of livestock falls into the category of bestiality.
If the perpetrator of the act (or the beneficiaries from the act) derives pleasure from it, isn’t it bestiality?
I think I know where you’re going with this … mh. Depends of what kind of pleasure. If it’s sexual, that would be bestiality, I guess.
If someone likes doing it because their arm feels good inside the cow’s anus, fisting a cow wouldn’t be bestiality?
Sure, but I think there is only a very small number of people that are in this business for that reason. Most of them just want to get their job done.
Say Alice fists a dog and films it, let’s say she derived no pleasure from fisting the dog, just wanted to get her job done. But she then posts the video online for many others to derive pleasure from it. Did she commit bestiality?
A gynaecologist “treats” the patient, benefitting the patient.
Forcibly impregnating someone is also called rape.
Artificial insemination is a treatment.
it is not a needed treatment for the health and well being of the cow, it is a unecessary treatment forced upon the animal
Right, but we do need more cows in the long run.
If the recipient asked for it and the donor is giving it out of free will with the explicit intention then yes it is a medical treatment.
Ah yes so when I give my dog antibiotics for an infection against his will it’s definitely not medical treatment
Making an animal pregnant isn’t solving a medical issue. How do you not see the difference?
Personally I view it the same as giving medicine to a baby. They don’t understand, sometimes you have to make decisions in their best interests.
Key point: in their best interests, not for personal gain.
Are you planning on eating said dog?
If we’re gonna eat it then same goes for my chickens
Yes.
With humans yes, but in the case of non-human animals these decisions are up to the owner.
edit: clarification for the ultra-dense.
You are aware humans are animals? The differentiation “human” is artificial and made up…
The differentiation “human” is artificial and made up…
Uh… So the differentiation between ‘cow’ and ‘chicken’ is also artificial and made up, as well as the differentiation between ‘rock’ and ‘jetplane.’
What’s your point?
non-human animals … I didn’t think it needed spelling out.
The differentiation “human” is artificial and made up…
You share 25% of your DNA with a tree, is it slavery to own four apple trees?
If the recipient asked for it and the donor is giving it out of free will
…and it’s medically indicated
Not a vegan but if you think what happens to cows is a medical “treatment” then you are a dumbass
It is rape!
Remember there have been at least one-doctor that did this to women, not in his offices to become pregnant (warning, SP?). A famous case was a doctor that raped/impregnanted (SP?) a lot of women looking to become mothers, with his own sperm. The obvious results/proof came after birth,
Cows are not on the same level as humans
Arguing with vegans is like arguing with antivaxxers, they are positions based on emotions and they have their own version of reality they use to reinforce their believes. They often claim they have studies to back up their claims but the most shallow dive shows them to be bullshit.
It’s literally evident as they try to reframe this as rape. Their need to lean on rhetoric shows they have a strong basis for their believes.
What do we call a sexual act with a being that did not consent?
Does it matter if the being is human? And what if the being is a neanderthal?
Or say we find a lady on the street and DNA test her, find out she’s technically not human. What would we call sexually acting upon her without her consent?
If defining this action triggers you emotionally this much, that’s a reflection of your ability to have level-headed conversations. It’s not your interlocutor as much as you’d like to claim.
Forcibly impregnating someone is also called rape.
someone
Key word.
It’s not rape if it’s your dog
I would really like to see you try to get your dog pregnant.
There’s websites for that.
That’s correct, yes.
However, my dog is my property, and someone can only artificially inseminate my property with my permission.
If I own a human slave, me artificially inseminating them without consent isn’t rape?
If I DNA test the slave from earlier and discover they aren’t human, inseminating them without consent wouldn’t be rape?
If I own a human slave
…
If I DNA test the slave from earlier and discover they aren’t human
Uh… what are they, then?
I don’t think these absurd hypotheticals are helping your argument.
They are a nonhuman animal that has sentience, property of mine. Let’s call them hooman.
You know hypotheticals are used to test consistency in someone’s logic and answering these will end up in you admitting absurdities. If I wasn’t interested in the truth, I would avoid answering them as well.
So you’re aware, that’s a really fucked up thing to think. Let alone say.
But maybe we disagree only on terminology?
What would you call the act of nonconsensually sticking your dick into your dog, and do you think it’s horrible?
What would you call the act of nonconsensually sticking your dick into your dog, and do you think it’s horrible?
Raping a dog is bad, yes.
Raping a dog is bad, yes.
So a dog is someone and that’s what makes it rape? Where do you draw the line for someone? Is it the act of rape itself that’s bad, or is it the perpetrator getting sexual satisfaction from it? What if they don’t do it for that purpose, but some other more abstract reason? Is it okay then?
What in the fuck
Anti-vegans will go to any depths of depravity in order to deal with their cognitive dissonance. Once, on Reddit, I got a commenter to agree that he would be fine if someone had a dog in a cage they tortured for entertainment, rather than agree that it’s kinda fucked up that we slaughter animals because their flesh tastes nice.
Real question, what if there is no cognitive dissonance.
Like someone who knows exactly what’s going on and says “fuck it, it’s delicious” ?
So let me get this straight, you were arguing with someone, tried to lead them to a contradiction, but they actually had a consistent view on it that you didn’t like, and your conclusion is that they have cognitive dissonance?
My friend, I do not think that means what you think it means.
“I lead someone who disagrees with me into saying something stupid once, therefore everyone who disagrees with me must have cognitive dissonance.”
Lol
Ah the tried and tested “it’s ok if it’s my property” which historically(and currently) is a universal guideline for what is and isn’t ok.
If it applies to one animal it should apply to all, but go ahead and be a special snowflake instead
no. different things are different.
Like, what a fucking stupid answer that can apply to anything and nothing at the same time.
Animals are animals, and humans are animals. Kangaroos are not cows, but both are also animals - different things ARE different, but at the same time, in some aspects, they are not.
Why doesn’t my dog have a right to vote? Why can a snake eat eggs but I can’t? Why is it OK for ants to farm aphids but not for humans to farm cows?
Different things are, in fact, different. There are lots of dead simple and airtight arguments for veganism without counterproductive emotional appeals. Talk about economics or ecology or health and not about sad puppy dog eyes.
Hell yeah! Morals are just a suggestion, lions eat their young, but I can’t? That’s bullshit and we all know it. If you wanna argue against eating our young (just the disabled ones, of course), please keep that melodramatic stuff out of here.
The attitude of someone who mistreats animals ☝️
I don’t mistreat animals. this is libelous.
paying someone to kill an animal so that you can consume its corpse is how you treat animals nicely, is it?
That’s what somebody who mistreats animals says
Pretty fucked up to try to equate animal husbandry with rape.
If you believe that animals should have rights like humans do, then animals can be raped. If slavery was still legal, would you write “it’s pretty fucked up to equate slave husbandry with rape”? Just because we have historically done something, that doesn’t mean that what we’re doing is in any way moral.
Animals can have rights and be protected from unnecessary cruelty without anthropomophizing them and granting full human rights. You’re equating full, sapient humans with a species specifically bred for a base purpose without higher levels of thought and expression.
I don’t even think that statement is anthropocentric hubris. If ultra-advanced aliens showed up tomorrow and started domesticating humans for food or some other purpose, I would have the default expectation of them having the same or similar morals. Maybe we’d get access to decent healthcare and good libraries before we went to the slaughterhouse.
Cows get more rights than trees or crops because they have an ability to express pain and convey emotion. They don’t have the same rights as humans because they could never give a passionate argument for suffrage to a jury.
And to be clear: there are plenty of real, tangible reasons to end animal husbandry and make everyone vegan without even touching philosophy.
Slaves can have rights and be protected from unnecessary cruelty without anthropomophizing them and granting full human rights. You’re equating full, sapient humans with a species specifically bred for a base purpose without higher levels of thought and expression.
Your ancestors, probably
Kind of racist to suggest that slaves were a different species
That’s exactly how people justified slavery in the past, and it is how the person I replied to justified their argument. That’s my entire point. It’s the same argument.
That’s the point
This is a ludicrous argument. If you truly believe that all animals have the same rights then the only internally consistent conclusion is the virtual extermination of the human species.
Life is a zero sum game. Something lives by consuming something else or displacing it for access to limited resources. Optimizing for the minimum harm to earth’s ecosystem is always going to be the end of agriculture, housing, hunting, industry and basically everything other human institution. We’re the most insidious invasive species ever and the world would be healthier without us mucking around.
So unless you’re stumping for that, don’t pretend to have the moral high ground. If you are, stop wasting your time shaming people and skip right to culling them.
Bro would rather exterminate all humans than admit that he should just go vegan
I advocate for humanity to live in harmony and balance with our environment, that is why I am anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist as well as vegan. Our history is plagued with exploitation, that can’t be denied, but I am trying to change it and you are arguing that it cannot be changed and that we shouldn’t even try.
Humanity’s relationship with animals and nature has historically been exploitative but it doesn’t need to be that way.
We have vastly increased our ability to produce food. There are ample resources available on the planet for all of us to share and live in abundance. Human greed and selfishness is rewarded by our society. That means our society needs to change.
I reject your argument that life is a zero-sum game. My happiness does not need to come at the expense of another’s unhappiness. We can all work together to create a better future for all living things on our planet.
Wow, comparing actual human slavery to cattle production. That’s certainly a take
Fucking hell, now you’re comparing slaves to animals? Seek help
deleted by creator
How is impregnating a treatment?
Dude, forcing semen into a vagina is not a fucking treatment. Disgusting rape apologia.
Aka the nudist defense.
I’m a little disappointed that everybody is appealing to ethics and professionalism.
Look according to biblical law its fine as long as they’re married.
And natural law: so many plants use “pollinators”. Imo these are human pollinators for cows. They pull out the bull honey (pollinators) and insert it into cows (flowers). The only part thats weird is unlike bees, the humans aren’t taking a nibble of the honey.
It is sexual, it sounds like they jack them off to acquire genetic material to impregnate the female livestock with
Trying to be “facts forward” so make of this what you will. Source: I was in FFA in highschool in a beef intense-ish area.
The method of collecting semen I’m most familiar with is when they take a female cow in heat and tie her up, then bring a male bull they want to collect semen from into the same pen. The male will smell the female is in heat, gets erect, and will attempt to mount her.
As the male is trying to mount the female, people in the pen with the cattle will have a large rubbery “sleeve” on a pole (imagine a cow sized condom on a stick) that they will maneuver around the bull’s penis as it mounts the cow. He does his thing in the condom thinking he’s inside the female (usually less than 30 seconds) dismounts and then the ranchers have their semen for artificial insemination.
I’ve been out of that area for over a decade now so a new method may have emerged since then, but in my Animal Sciences class, that’s how we were taught semen is harvested for most livestock.
Edit: I distinctly recall the “artificial vagina” being on a stick (and laughing about it in class), but best video I can find on the quick: https://youtu.be/-4ma3WeOxbo
there is a new method of eletrical rectal stimulation that stimulates the prostate through the anus, afaik only used on bovines
Ew.
So that is to say, as far as you know, the method I describe above more or less still applies for pigs, sheep, etc?
TBF that one sounds like no lines are crossed
Eh, I feel like the female cow is still getting a raw deal. Less raw than the classic “breed this bull with this cow” arrangement, but still somewhat not good.
You left out the rest, where the calf is seperated from its mother, tortured and killed for veal, while the mother mourns the loss of her child that the milk she produces is actually for, so the milk can be stolen from her for profit.
Unless they are jacking off themselves at the same time, it’s not sexual.
I get what you’re saying but it’s sexual assault, no?
If non-human animals cannot consent, isn’t all sex between any two non-human animals rape?
If that’s the case, isn’t this preferable to just letting the animals just rape each other indiscriminately?
Compare: it’s rape to have sex with someone underage, but two underage people can have sex with each other without it being rape.
isn’t all sex between any two non-human animals rape?
Non-human animals aren’t moral agents and can’t be subjected to the same moral outcomes that humans have. The same way we can’t say a hurricane has done something immoral.
Non-human animals are moral patients. When moral agents act immorally upon moral patients, the agents are responsible.
isn’t this preferable to just letting the animals just rape each other indiscriminately?
That’s not why people do it though. It is wrong to make up new justifications for actions after the fact. It exists as an industrial process to get animals pregnant more often than they’d naturally choose to.
isn’t all sex between any two non-human animals rape?
And no, not all sex between 2 animals is rape. Animals can consent to sex with other members of their species, animals can’t consent to sex with other species because of communication differences (the big one being any animal with a human).
If that’s the case, isn’t this preferable to just letting the animals just rape each other indiscriminately?
The same way that hunting is more moral than farming, letting animals go at it in a natural way is way better than 1. tricking bulls into ejaculating into tubes and 2. forcibly inseminating cows with that genetic material.
You need to quantify the rate at which animal rape is occuring to justify using this method on the basis of “preventing rape.”
Also if you sought to prevent any animal rape, you’d have to seperate them all by sex. As far as I know this doesn’t generally happen except for their specific breeding season, and it would be cruel to seperate male and female livestock for their entire existence, just as it’s cruel to deny them their natural sexual intercourse. Humans aren’t supposed to play God with every facet of an animal’s life.
Is artificial insemination of livestock sexual assault?
…
No.
If I were to artificially inseminate a woman with sperm from a spermbank without her consent, would that be sexual assault?
Unless that women is a literal cow, yes.
right mate, I am sure you can draw any equivalences with bestiality and such yourself, so I won’t explicate on them. I just want to say, you don’t have to defend the man-made horrors within our comprehension of animal product industries if you don’t want to be a vegan. I am not a vegan, because I can’t afford to. You can just say “that shit’s fucked up”.
Others Beings have rights!!! If you believe in god(s), then you are in real trouble after death, let alone those that do this.
Are they inseminating a cows with non-steers’ sperm from a sperm bank without their consent? I do not think so, as a regular practice, but sometimes greater abuse, I would never be surprised.
Yes, it is.
It is sexual abuse on Living Beings, let alone sexual.
it’s a veterinary procedure
Veterinary in the sense that “it’s a duty a veterinarian might perform do,” but in this context it’s done to create more animals for us to harvest food from. Because letting them do it at their own rate wasn’t fast enough for this industrialised society’s appetite.
It’s disingenous to call it a veterinary procedure; we’re under no illusions about why this is being done. The cow didn’t ask for a bloody sperm donor, lol.
