alt Hacker NewsI'm not sure what your point is, to be blunt. It seems like you wanted to make some weird argument about the semantics of the word "abuse", and are now implying one of:
1) Beastiality isn't sexual abuse
2) Beastiality laws are pointless because it was already illegal under existing abuse laws (it wasn't, as we've repeatedly discussed)
3) Sexual abuse requires physical harm
all of which are pretty gross (1,3) and/or pointless (2). I don't really feel the need to argue any of this any further, so I'll leave you to it.
You got 2 wrong. It's: 2) If the existing abuse law doesn't include sexual abuse, we need to fix that law, not add a new one.
And that's not a pointless argument. If we're still allowing the whole category of non-physical abuse to animals, except for bestiality, that's a terrible job of lawmaking.
And just on a tangent here now that I'm reading the law they added, does it really make sense to have a blanket exemption for "accepted animal husbandry practices"? Some of those procedures are just as exploitative and unnecessary. It makes me think this law isn't putting animal welfare first.