Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: Doin’ like they do on the Discovery Channel.
First, a little mood music:
Every civilization and culture that has had domesticated animals has practiced animal husbandry, and had no problem with selectively breeding the tastiest critters or for the tastiest milk.. until now: Oregon wants to ban that and declare that breeding domestic livestock to be rape.
“People wrongly think of the animal-rights movement as a more energetic form of animal-welfare advocacy. It is not. Rather, animal-rights activists intend to eventually outlaw all ownership of animals, a project they recognize as multi-generational.
“Often, activists mask their actual intentions. But a proposed Oregon constitutional amendment, currently in the petition-signing stage, illustrates the extent of animal-rights radicalism.
“The proposed amendment would essentially criminalize many of the practices required to raise and slaughter food animals. First, it would remove current exemptions in the law for ‘good animal husbandry’ practices that protect ranchers and others from being charged with abuse for injuring an animal.
“And here’s the real kicker. Breeding animals, other than through animal intercourse, would be considered a sexual offense, akin to bestiality:
Section 6. ORS 167.333 is amended to read:
(1) A person commits the crime of sexual assault of an animal if the person:
(a) Touches or contacts, or causes an object or another person to touch or contact, the mouth, anus or sex organs of an animal or animal carcass for the purpose of:
(A) [a]Arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of [a person] either party; or
(B) Breeding domestic, livestock, and equine animals as defined in ORS 167.310; or
(b) Causes an animal or animal carcass to touch or contact the mouth, anus or sex organs of a person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of [a person] either party
“This provision would make artificial insemination of a cow a sexual offense because it involves touching that cow’s sex organs with the sperm-containing syringe! It would also prohibit the acts necessary to obtain bull sperm for that purpose.”
I guess we can’t “eat the bugs” either…
“Rejecting human exceptionalism turns the world upside down and people’s brains inside out. We have seen opponents of human exceptionalism promote animal rights and nature rights. We have even seen one professor declare the supposed personhood of peas. Now, it is insects’ turn at being anthropomorphized.
“Insects are people too:
“‘Insects engage in some behaviours that suggest a capacity for positive and negative experiences. For example, fruit flies seem to be capable of anhedonia, a loss of interest in activities previously found to be rewarding, and a common symptom of human depression. If you expose flies to aversive vibrations over several days, their activity begins to change in predictable ways. The shaken flies show reductions in various voluntary actions, though their reflexive behaviour remains unchanged. In particular, shaken flies consume much less glycerol (commonly used as a reward in fruit-fly studies) than non-shaken controls, suggesting that the shaken flies have lost their taste for sweets.’”
Granting “personhood” to animals does not elevate them to the same status as humans; it lowers humans to the status of critters.
“Can a cow be protected in the courts from being turned into a burger? Does a fish have the right not to be caught and killed? Should it be illegal to keep animals in zoos?
“Academics in Cambridge have opened Europe’s first centre for the study of animal rights law to examine such questions in the wake of the push for animals to be treated as “non- human persons”.
“The Cambridge Centre for Animal Rights Law (CCARL) has ambitions to become the go-to resource for lawmakers drafting new legislation involving animals.”