The Importance Of Bestiality

According to Merriam Webster, bestiality, once known as beastiality, is known as sex between a person and an animal. People consider this practice to be unethical and morally wrong, but, in the opinion of those who support this practice it is okay to engage in. The big problem in this debate is that people have varying ideas about what is and is not acceptable. This debate is centered on whether having sex with animals is rape or not. “Newbiehere” is the first debater and is pro-bestiality. He uses a comparative strategy to persuade us that bestiality is acceptable. “Grape”, the second debater, takes the same approach to do the exact opposite and convince the audience that bestiality is not okay. This topic is difficult to debate being such …show more content…
He leads with a direct statement he is not interested in partaking in this practice but believes that those who are interested should have the right to do so. The first thing he uses to support his comparative argument is that we have been using animals for our own selfish purposes for centuries for “friends, guards, clothes and even food.” He says that to support his first claim that if we do those things which considered norms, then are having sex with animals which would not be the cruelest thing on that list and should be acceptable. Newbiehere talks a good bit about bestiality compared to the slaughter and eating of animals. He questions that “If it is okay to kill animals for their meat, is it really any worse to make love to them first? Or better yet, make love to them instead of killing them at all? The answer is no: it is not any worse.” Newbiehere concludes that if we are going to kill and cook animals, we should be able to have sex with them too since it is the less cruel choice. His second point focuses more on health risks where he compares bestiality to prostitution. This claim is a little far-fetched because one, animals are less likely to have STI/D’s. Second, the diseases that animals can contract seldom transfer to the human species. However, when diseases cross species, they are not as dangerous as the ones we think of contracting from a prostitute. Based on his knowledge, he assumes that sex …show more content…
However, he argues that although it is, that is irrelevant to the debate because animals rape each other when they are in the wild where most animals live anyway. “The way animals behave toward one another cannot be considered a logical basis to determine how humans should behave towards animals.” To consider that a logical basis would be to say that animal on animal rape is okay but human to animal rape is not. This is a hypocritical statement that has no substantial support behind it. His next point is that non-consensual sex is immoral regardless of if animals do it to other animals or if humans do it to animals. We are not animals and we consider ourselves as humans to be more valuable than any animal. He considers non-consensual sex to be the same as violent rape. He stretches his claim because although animals cannot consent, not all of them would be opposed to it. To continue with his point, he says that committing an act of violent rape is going against the principle that “one does not initiate an act of violence except in response to an act of violence or an anticipated act of violence, and the violence used must be to prevent further violence from being carried out.” The information he uses is referring to humans and other humans rather than humans and animals which makes his point null and void. To compare the two, animals and humans would have to be equal which he already