Artificial insemination without consent is rape. Natural insemination without consent is rape.
Cows cannot give consent to humans. No animal can. Hell, even if we discovered another human-like species but couldn’t have meaningful communication with them, it’d still be rape.
So the only thing stopping you from raping your own slaves would be that you think owning humans is wrong. Otherwise you would be ok with raping your own slaves, is that correct?
Again, I can’t answer the question, because I do not think owning slaves is ok and I can’t imagine how somebody that does think is ok, thinks about rape, because that person is not me.
If someone was accused of enslaving and raping a woman and you were in the jury, the defense says “it’s not rape, it’s artificial insemination of my property”.
You would verdit them as guilty of enslaving, but not rape because artificial insemination of his property is not rape. Did I get it right?
Artificial insemination without consent is rape. Natural insemination without consent is rape.
Cows cannot give consent to humans. No animal can. Hell, even if we discovered another human-like species but couldn’t have meaningful communication with them, it’d still be rape.
You can get consent from the cows owner. Definitely don’t inseminate some else’s cow without asking.
Consent from the owner?
And what if chattel slavery still existed? Would you be free to rape a black woman if her “owner” said yes?
No, because owning humans is wrong.
If owning humans were ok, nothing else would be stopping you from going into your slaves?
I can’t really answer that because I’m apparently having different moral values in this hypothetical scenario.
So the only thing stopping you from raping your own slaves would be that you think owning humans is wrong. Otherwise you would be ok with raping your own slaves, is that correct?
Again, I can’t answer the question, because I do not think owning slaves is ok and I can’t imagine how somebody that does think is ok, thinks about rape, because that person is not me.
Just to make a bit more clear:
If someone was accused of enslaving and raping a woman and you were in the jury, the defense says “it’s not rape, it’s artificial insemination of my property”.
You would verdit them as guilty of enslaving, but not rape because artificial insemination of his property is not rape. Did I get it right?
Why is it wrong?
Same reason anything subjective “is” wrong, because it feels wrong. Just my opinion.
Something that might feel wrong to you might feel good for someone else.
Is it right for a serial killer to kill humans because they get enjoyment out of it?
Well, not in my opinion. But there is probably some serial killers that do think that they are right in doing so.
Should we allow serial killers to kill other humans for fun even if they think they are right in doing so?