Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral
Because of the length constraints a completely specified argument is impossible, indeed it would take a small book. I will however assert some premises which I hope are self-evident to my opponent. If they are not those topics must be clarified before meaningful debate on the resolution can be had.
1. Legality and morality are inherently linked, if something is moral it should be legal and if is legal it should be moral. The difference between them is the difference between what people think and what is. Morality is that which is right, the law is that which people (a majority of) think is right (as expressed through a democratic government).
2. To make moral claims one must have moral principles, to have moral principles one must have a moral theory. That is one must be aware of the field of philosophy which is ethics and subscribe to some system of thought in that field.
3. Baring a full derivation and support of a moral theory, the relevant theory in the case of bestiality/zoophilia is mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage. For those interested I hold a more constrained view as a universal principle for human society, i.e. volition is the prerequisite of all moral interaction between humans.
From these premises I would like to preempt possible strategies of my opponent by implication.
#1 means I will not entertain the notion that even if bestiality/zoophilia is moral it is detrimental to society and that constitutes a legal basis for banning it. For those who consider this unfair I ask you to think of all those things demonstrably detrimental to society that the law does allow for on the basis of personal freedom.
#2 means that I will not entertain sentiments which associate the term morality with emotional appeals, religious dogma, or mindless. If it is not wrong and you wish to merely point out how it can sometimes be dangerous or play a negative role in someone’s life then I’ll leave you to it; that is not the resolution I wish to argue.
#2 also means that there is no such thing as ‘one case at a time’ moral judgments, nothing is good or evil in a vacuum but can only be so in the context of a mountain of previously derived facts. Identifying and challenging double standards is a key technique in discovering moral fallacies. If someone can, on whim, use one standard of moral judgment in case A and another in case B then no moral debate is possible. Therefore if you are someone who thinks comparing zoophilia to homosexuality or to the practice of eating animal meat is a red herring then you should not accept the challenge.
#3 means you are willing to debate the matter of consent, I love to debate ethics and no doubt I will on this site but if you do not believe consent is the moral principle involved here you are almost certainly going to turn this into a philosophical debate.
Some notes on terms:
I use the term Bestiality/zoophilia, some other people make distinctions between these terms; I mean the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species.
Is zoophilia a sexual orientation? I think so, as far as the word has objective meaning. Bottom line is that some people desire sexual relations with animals. I do not believe the causes of this phenomenon are relevant to the debate nor do I believe there is enough scientific ground work to attempt to answer that question. The homosexual movement has been chugging away for decades and nobody really has a clue what causes it.
Consent, and this is important, is defined as “permission for something to happen or agreement to do something” http://oxforddictionaries.com...... . I am fully aware that the idea of informed consent in legal circles is different and much stricter. I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent. No one who has a pet, no one who has partook in any animal derived products has ever had informed consent from any animals. It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent because it presupposes that both parties are perfectly aware of the consequences of an action. Something that requires the ability to predict the future with 100% certainty.
In practice what is meant by informed consent is that one party discloses any information about the interaction which may reasonably be expected to affect the other’s decision. If one party does not have the information it cannot be given. If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement.
For instance, you bring an unconscious stranger into a hospital, the doctor will still treat them on the presumption that they want to be healed. There is no consent informed or otherwise.
Under the constraints set out above the question is:
A.) Can an animal give permission or agreement to a member of another species for sexual interaction?
There are two possible reasons why the answer to that could be no in all cases:
1. No species is capable of communicating permission, agreement, or anything really to a member of another species implicitly or explicitly
2. No species is psychologically capable of granting consent to another species
We can knock out #2 by the mere fact that this is an issue. Humans must be capable of granting consent to another species if they pursue sexual relations with them. Surely you could say humans are an exception but that would require some explanation. Why would humans be the only species capable of accepting interspecies sex? How could you reconcile this with observed instances of interspecies sex between two non-human species?
Even if a creature is incapable of choosing between acting and not acting a certain way it cannot be said that it does not consent. Instead it is more accurate to say that consent is not conceptually applicable to that species.
If a wasp stings you, you might think it was merely the sum of stimuli up to that point that caused it. There is not enough of an independent consciousness in a wasp brain to ever decide not to sting you given the same inputs. It is incorrect to say that the wasp accepts or refuses the interaction. It does neither but if you had to choose, it would be acceptance because if it did have the ability to choose obviously its actions would reflect its choice.
#1 is a little harder but not by much. Consider the following premise
It is impossible for a creature to pursue an action to which it does not consent provided it does not fear retribution for failure to comply.
This can be established easily by looking at its negation which is “It is possible for a creature to pursue a course of action it does not consent to, even if there is no fear of retribution for failure to comply”. It’s a contradiction in terms. If it can agree with anything it must agree with itself.
Therefore even in the absence of verbal or body language, if an animal pursues a course of action where no negative consequences have ever been employed as the result of failing to pursue said course of action, then it has implicitly communicated its intention and its acceptance of the action. If that action is in fact an interaction it must also consent to the interaction.
To compound that point most animals which zoophiles are interested in mating with are quite capable of body language and vocal communication of a basic sort. Note that “Yes” and “No” are very basic communications which any higher animal owner can attest to understanding.
Whether that decision is the result of some faculty of self-determination or is pure instinct is actually irrelevant. If it is pure instinct then the creature never had any freedom to violate. If it has self-determination then it is determining things for itself.
In summation if there exists any example of an animal showing through action absent negative conditioning the acceptance of sexual relations with another species the answer to question A is Yes, at least in some cases. If in some cases an animal can consent to interspecies sex, then surely in some cases an animal can consent to sex with a human, thus on the consent principle it is moral to have sex with an animal.. in some cases.
I want to wrap up with an example question: Horseback riding. Do you believe a horse can consent to being ridden? How would you know?
You have stated two reasons why an animal would be incapable of giving consent and I do believe that both apply... somewhat. The central point of this debate is about consent, so I will start there. Can an animal communicate consent? You seem to handle this by appealing to several different explanations and statements, one being "If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement." You then proceed to support this with an example of an unconscious man being operated on in a hospital. The doctors do not need consent to operate on him. This analogy is not sound when compared to animals. They are very different because an animal (assuming it is incapable of receiving the information), is incapable even in its strongest cognitive state. The unconscious man will be returning to a state in which he will understand what the situation was entirely (assuming in this example he doesn't receive brain damage). Any rational individual would want to be saved by a doctor if possible which is why we can operate on them without technical consent. We can not say with certainty that any animal wants and is giving to consent to have sex simply because it can't process information.
Animals are simply not intelligent enough to know what is best for them. This is a key idea, as animals have developed very specific and observable mating signals. An obvious example would be birds with a particular mating song. However we are not discussing birds but sheep have very distinct mating rituals as well. An estrus ewe (female sheep in heat) will urinate and the ram will then lift it's nose and curl its lip (referred to as a Flehmen response). He is then able to detect pheromones from the female sheep1. This is a specific mating pattern that took thousands of years to develop and is in place, guided by natural selection to protect sheep from mating with other animals or not mating at all. If a sheep were intelligent enough to understand it needs to reproduce to pass on its genes and should find a suitable mate it wouldn't need this ritual. It's not intelligent enough though, so for humans to take advantage of an animal's inability to determine what is good for it is immoral. Even if the animal gives basic body language suggesting it is enjoying what is happening, it can not be said whether that is the correct thing for the animal. For example, if an owner offers his dog some of the leftover meat he needs to get rid of, most dogs will eat the meat. The dog may wag its tail to show it wants the meat and by eating it it's giving consent. But what if the owner keeps feeding the dog more and more? Contradictory to the dog's "consent" and body language the dog will become sick and may later puke or have diarrhea. We can't take advantage of an animal's inability to perceive consequences when we are fully aware there may be consequences. We simply do not know what the consequences are of having sex with animals but we do know there may be. Does the animal experience any negative psychological effects? Are there any biological, even if not immediately apparent? Will the animal become sexually confused? There's not enough research on these things so the moral approach is to "play it safe" and not have any sexual relations with animals.
As for your question with horseback riding, I'm confused? Is the point of the question to illustrate that a horse does give consent to be ridden? I don't think a horse does give consent to be ridden and if we wanted to put the practice of riding a horse under the microscope it is an immoral action, assuming your moral theory values animals at all.
My question is... if a child offers consent (based on the definition and reasons you've provided... "action absent negative conditioning", "It is impossible for a creature to pursue an action to which it does not consent provided it does not fear retribution for failure to comply", "If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement.") does that mean sex with children based on "the consent principle" is moral... in some cases?
"From that statement I believe the "bestiality should be legal" in your initial title for the argument should be removed. I think that while morality is usually the way we determine what is legal, this is not always the case."
It should always be the case. If something is legal but not moral the law is insufficient. If it is moral but not legal the law is tyrannous.
So many mistake the lack of an expected benefit for detriment and thus make debate on that subject quite tiresome.
"Any rational individual would want to be saved by a doctor if possible which is why we can operate on them without technical consent. We can not say with certainty that any animal wants and is giving to consent to have sex simply because it can't process information."
I can see you are a bit confused, and that is understandable since we are talking about an extremely wide category when we say "animals".
Let me clarify, not animals can communicate consent, many animals (such as arthropods and fish) likely do not have the mental abstraction to even possess a true power of volition. i.e. the concept of consent is inapplicable to them. They behave in a 'mechanistic' way and should be treated then as mechanisms, consent should not matter. To require it would be projecting an element of our own minds onto creatures to which it is irrelevant.
Some animals which are more like us do possess a power of volition, it is only in these cases where consent should matter.
It is not necessary to attempt to categorize every animal into one of these two types because of the simple dichotomy I posted. Either they act according to their own volition or they don’t, but in either case if they act towards a certain end they must either consent or be inherently incapable choosing between consent and non-consent.
All the relevant animals (large domesticated mammals) fall into the category of volitional organisms. If they couldn't choose based on learning (which is the essence of volition and the antithesis of instinct), they couldn't be trained or live socially with humans in the first place.
The example with the hospital was meant to show that there is such a thing as implied consent, which is typically considered mutually exclusive with informed consent. The patient did not receive the full risks as understood by the doctor, and won't before he is exposed to those risks. You point out he can wake up, yes but at that point it's too late for him to decide. When the act was done it was done without explicit consent. The only way to intepret this is that since the subject was incapable of recieving information about the interaction, his explicit consent to the interaction was not considered a requirement.
Animals aren't unconcious but they will never be able to receive all the information a human partner might know about a sexual act. Why is it a requirement to tell them what they can't know?
"Animals are simply not intelligent enough to know what is best for them."Then why does everyone seem so worried about what animals think of interacting with humans in this way?
I have been down this road many times, and I know the only issue at the end is this: Copulating with a human might be something that the animal and human wants, but the human knows that it will lead to something bad like an infection or other STD. A consequence that the animal cannot predict but the human can. Well what if there isn't anything like that? What if the human doesn't know?
"If a sheep were intelligent enough to understand it needs to reproduce to pass on its genes and should find a suitable mate it wouldn't need this ritual."
No species mate because a cold logical observation of the need to propogate the species, that includes humans. The primary motivatoror relevant species is pleasure and sexual attraction.
"so for humans to take advantage of an animal's inability to determine what is good for it is immoral."
Do you think finding cocaine is good for a dog? Or riding in a horse in a race is good for a horse?
What about giving an animal a treat?
Why is it immoral to let an animal do something they want to do if you yourself cannot see why it would be bad for them?
"Even if the animal gives basic body language suggesting it is enjoying what is happening, it can not be said whether that is the correct thing for the animal."
Why not? If humans aren't to decide what's best for animals, and animals can't decide what's best for themselves; then who the @#&% is deciding what's correct/best for them?
"For example, if an owner offers his dog some of the leftover meat he needs to get rid of, most dogs will eat the meat. The dog may wag its tail to show it wants the meat and by eating it it's giving consent."
Excellent example, please remember that you noted that eating the meat is implciit consent to being fed the meat regardless of what the dog knows about the meat.
"But what if the owner keeps feeding the dog more and more?"
Then he/she has done something known to be harmful to their animal. If they make a habit of it they are guilty of animal abuse. Now what if the meat was fresh? No reason to expect it to hurt the dog, and it in fact never does.
What about the morality of feeding the dog meat in that case? The dog is no more able to "know what's best for itself" when it is being fed wholesome food than when it was being fed rotten food. The human is still interacting with them despite that.
Is the human 'taking advantage' now?
"We simply do not know what the consequences are of having sex with animals"
Of course we do, and it's nothing but good unless you do something idiotic or cruel. If you don't mind I would like to introduce an acronym. DRC - Done with due Research and Consideration, meaning the human investigated the act they planned on performing, proceeded only once all known risks were dismissed or dealt with and continued only with the implicit consent of the animal (meaning if they communicate pain you stop).
This does concept is not just relevant in the context of sex but all human animal interactions. Including feeding a dog meat or riding a horse over a jump."Does the animal experience any negative psychological effects?"
DRC, no. The reactions vary from bored to very happy depending on the species, the individual, the specifics of the act, and the time in the reproductive cycle at which it occurs.
"Are there any biological, even if not immediately apparent?"
If there are undiscovered affects we are not responsible for them until we discover them. Any other outlook would be placing an irrational standard on the interaction. A standard we could not adhere to even with other humans.
"Will the animal become sexually confused?"
I'm confused, what does that mean?
"There's not enough research on these things so the moral approach is to "play it safe" and not have any sexual relations with animals."
Excuse me but that is laughable. There is little research because the acts are illegal and highly taboo and it is thus all but impossible for a public study to do experiments in a controlled environment. That doesn't mean we don't know anything. Zoophiles have figured out plenty on their own.
Well it's a no win scenario for my opponent and I don't make any apologies for it. You proceed on the premise then that all human animal interaction is immoral because no animal can consent to it. Can they consent to other animals?
please make an argument that an animal can't consent to being ridden, or sex, or anything else under the sun just because it is being done with a human.
"does that mean sex with children based on "the consent principle" is moral... in some cases?"
Yes, it is absurd to say a human child cannot consent to sex. I remember being seven years old and there was no question about whether I had the power of volition.
Even so different societies have thrown out arbitrary answers about when a human is ready to take sole responsibility for their consent. Some say 16, 18, 21. Long ago it was more like the onset of puberty.
In sumation an animal has neither the intelligence nor insticnts to feel cheated or degraded over sex.
FourthsCharter forfeited this round.
ADreamOfLiberty forfeited this round.
FourthsCharter forfeited this round.
ADreamOfLiberty forfeited this round.
Saying a law is "tyrannous" if moral but not legal to me does not seem legitimate. Taking my earlier example of abortion I will explain how it can be immoral and legal without being tyrannous. One may think abortion is immoral, however understand that legalizing it will not actually benefit anyone. If abortion is illegal for example, women may be more inclined to attempt abortion at home in unsafe conditions. The number of abortions may very well not decline and the law will be putting more women at risk. Additionally, one may feel having abortion will have other positive affects such as lowering crime rate (Donohue, Levitt, 2001) Factors such as these do not make a law unjust or random.
"Why is it a requirement to tell them what they can't know?"
This is a rather important point. Engaging in something with someone, when they are unaware of the consequences (whether that be because you have withheld information OR they can not understand the information) is almost the definition of taking advantage of someone (or something). You're in a superior position and aren't qualified to proceed. Is it fair to take a baby bungee jumping if there is a 90% chance the baby will die? It looks like it's having fun when you throw it in the air and catch him (that seems to be the definition of consent for you) and it can't understand the consequences. Why should that be a requirement? It's a crucial requirement for the well-being of the individual/animal in question. Relating this back to bestiality, there are diseases (zoonoses) that can be transmitted that put everyone involved at risk (see source 2 for academic conformation). It's not fair to an animal, to put it at this risk without it being aware of it. As the holder of this information it is your responsibility to refrain from taking the risk.
"No species mate because a cold logical observation of the need to propogate the species, that includes humans. The primary motivatoror relevant species is pleasure and sexual attraction."
Let me specify more what I meant. It is true that no animal does this, and that's because the ritual is there. Humans are capable of this observation or else we couldn't be discussing it. It may be true humans currently are not mating because of the need to continue the species, however in a hypothetical situation with only two people left in the world, they could understand this concept and apply it.
"Do you think finding cocaine is good for a dog? Or riding in a horse in a race is good for a horse?"
No I do not. From a most strict objective level, subjecting animals to these activities is immoral. They don't really have a choice, and we are taking advantage of them.
For the answer to "who the @#&% is deciding what's correct/best for them?", my point is that animals should be deciding even if they do not know what's best from them. Just because they do not know what's best for them doesn't mean they don't get to decide. They have a right to wrong, we should not interfere.
For your suggested research, I'd like to see academic studies or I will not be taking them very seriously. "Zoophiles have figured out plenty on their own". I'm not going to listen to evidence from this because obviously zoophiles are going to support bestiality; the bias is grossly apparent.
"non-existence is always the proper assumption in a vacuum of evidence". This may be true for things such as the spaghetti monster but that's because there's no reasonable evidence that would lead anyone to believe the monster may exist. If we all acted under the assumption that non-existence is the proper assumption we'd have an interesting world. You can justify just about anything and defend yourself saying "I assumed there were no consequences because there was no evidence that there might be". If we can reasonably suspect there may be consequences we have a duty to proceed with cautious. "The Precautionary Principle" is an important concept. The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action. This action is perfectly applicable to many cases such as bestiality.
Your defense for pedophilia is interesting but it does not cover the mentally handicapped. Because they can not "grow up", by your standards it is perfectly acceptable to have sexual relations with them (assuming there is no indication from them to stop what you're doing).
In summation the other party in sexual relations MUST be able to provide consent and it is not possible to obtain consent from animals.
“The number of abortions may very well not decline and the law will be putting more women at risk.”
None the less the law is insufficient if it permits an immoral act. Releasing slaves without skills or jobs ready demonstrably leads to suffering and death, yet slavery is wrong and laws upholding it are unjust.
Furthermore I find your choice of example interesting, I would say bestiality being illegal doesn’t significantly reduce its occurrence. Just ruins people’s lives if they are discovered. According to your premise that would mean it should be legal even if it’s immoral so at least they can get medical help if they hurt themselves.
“Additionally, one may feel having abortion will have other positive affects such as lowering crime rate (Donohue, Levitt, 2001) Factors such as these do not make a law unjust or random.”
The ends do not justify the means. Killing males before the age of twelve if they don’t meet breeding requirements would significantly reduce crime. Such a law is practical towards a specific goal but it is immoral and thus tyrannous.
What if there are no relevant consequences you can be aware of, such as in the case of DRC sex?
What about putting a baby in a car seat?
“You're in a superior position and aren't qualified to proceed.”
What would qualify me?
“Is it fair to take a baby bungee jumping if there is a 90% chance the baby will die?”
I wouldn’t think so, so what risk is too great?
“Why should that be a requirement? It's a crucial requirement for the well-being of the individual/animal in question.”
No it isn’t. All that is crucial is that significant negative consequences are avoided. If a dog consents it perceives no insult. Psychological harm avoided. The human reads up and consults a vet when in doubt. Biological harm avoided.
If it was a crucial requirement and animals are incapable of receiving the information they ‘need’ about sex then wouldn’t breeding animals with each other destroy well-being just as surely? So where are all the unwell animals who have been parents?
“It's not fair to an animal, to put it at this risk without it being aware of it. As the holder of this information it is your responsibility to refrain from taking the risk.”
They can be transmitted in many ways. If it’s not fair to have sex with an animal because of the risk of transmitting a disease you are not aware of then it is also unfair to let them lick your hand or anything else that might transmit a disease. In essence it would be unfair to keep pets except in sterile bubbles.
This is picking a constant risk of living on earth and attributing it to one single spreading vector. You may have well said it’s not fair to let your animals in your house because it might burn down, at least that is unique to living with humans.
If a human is aware of any such infection they should treat it immediately and try not to spread it to other humans or animals. That is the standard responsibility and I see no reason to make bestiality an exception.
You say we have greater responsibility because of our greater knowledge, I agree, but we do not have greater responsibility than our knowledge implies. We are no more responsible for unforeseen consequences than another animal of the same species would be.
“No I do not. From a most strict objective level, subjecting animals to these activities is immoral. They don't really have a choice, and we are taking advantage of them.”
We are taking advantage of them but it is not immoral. They consent so I say it’s fine. Who am I to say that good food and a pat on the back isn’t worth finding some drugs or a bomb for a dog? Who are you to?
Horses may not think a human on their back is that great, but they may well feel the opportunity to run around and see new things is better than sitting in the same old paddock or stall.
Why is it that people take the ‘most strict objective’ level for sex but nothing else? What is it in the popular psyche that associates sex with something particularly dangerous? Something for which extreme caution is warranted?
You say it is objective, on what objective moral principle is it so? Not the consent principle, it’s got to be something else; an informed consent principle? Why apply that only for sex to creatures who can never be informed by our standards as if nature herself created all life to be eternally the victim…. except us?
“Just because they do not know what's best for them doesn't mean they don't get to decide.”
I agree completely. That means you let them decide who they have sex with. If you know something bad is going to happen, it’s you who shouldn’t consent; not some silliness about not accepting the consent of the animal.
What exactly do you want to know? There are studies on the phenomenon of zoophilia but they mainly focus on the humans and their psychology. In that category:
There is the classic ‘Kinsey report’ i.e. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948), and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Here is a survey in German http://othes.univie.ac.at...If you want specifics on how the animals react, why don’t you read one of your own sources? The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application; On Page 210 under “The Question of Consent” it cites Beetz 2002, Beirne 2000 and Dekkers 1994 as support for the enjoyment and initiation of sex by animals.
Even as they try to argue for abuse they admit the animals are fine with it, it’s quite amusing (or would be under other circumstance).
“’Zoophiles have figured out plenty on their own’. I'm not going to listen to evidence from this because obviously zoophiles are going to support bestiality; the bias is grossly apparent.”
Then you aren’t going to listen to evidence at all, they are the only ones who have gone all the way and built the knowledge base. What the few professionals who research know, they know from zoophile cooperation; and you or I wouldn’t know if those professionals were zoophiles themselves unless they admitted it.
As for bias, why should I assume a non-zoophile isn’t just as biased against zoophilia as a zoophile would be towards it?
Following your premise to it's logical conclusion, homosexuals couldn’t do objective research on homosexuality, blacks couldn’t do objective research on civil rights or slavery. Yet I’ve been told only they are qualified to understand these things (but I didn’t believe it).
I do so act, and all the laws of logic so imply.
There is no reasonable evidence that would lead anyone to believe the monster may exist, that is what is called a vacuum of evidence. So to with these invisible harmful consequences of sex you refer to.
“If we can reasonably suspect there may be consequences we have a duty to proceed with cautious.”
If we reasonably expect consequences then no assumption is necessary. Also proceeding cautiously is still proceeding.
“’The Precautionary Principle’ is an important concept... This action is perfectly applicable to many cases such as bestiality.”
Even if I subscribed to such a principle it is not applicable to bestiality, there is no reasonable risk posed to the public or environment from having sex with or indeed even raping animals.
If you don’t think the suspicion need be reasonable, how about I tell you that I suspect that if you open your fridge the wrong way the continent of Australia will explode like a nuclear bomb. Are you going to go out and get a scientific consensus as fast as I can make up absurd propositions?
Well that depends, if it’s a permanent condition from birth like down syndrome you can say that they are in their right state of mind and therefore their consent should be considered sufficient if they understand those consequences they can comprehend (which certainly includes socially induced shame).
You see, you like to talk about consequences of sex with animals but there aren’t really any. Now for humans with humans, children are a huge consequences. If children are impossible (I mean impossible not just improbable due to contraception) then that’s not an issue. If STDs have been ruled out that’s not an issue. Psychological harm can be an issue which is why you would want to spend a lot of time making sure the mentally handicapped person understood what people might think or say should they learn etc... but for all that I don’t think it is inherently immoral.
If someone went into a coma or something it’s a different situation because their last awake and conscious state of mind provides the basis for implied consent or non-consent. Most people would certainly prefer that you not have sex with their unconscious bodies so that is what you would have to assume unless they specifically said otherwise beforehand.
If someone is in a mentally handicapped state but there is reason to believe they may grow in intelligence or awareness in the future, they like children haven’t finished ‘growing up’ so you have to wait.
I am not aware of any such handicap but if you’ve got the equivalent of an animal mind in a human body, I say it’s OK for the same reasons it’s OK with animals.
FourthsCharter forfeited this round.