I’m not making an equivalency between raping an animal and eating it.

I’m saying the argument “raping an animal is wrong because it can’t consent” makes no sense unless you also believe “killing an animal is wrong because it can’t consent”.

This is because.. if you’re honestly concerned about the animal’s consent before having sex with it, why aren’t you concerned about getting its consent before killing it?

Especially since, from the animals perpective, it would probably rather be raped than killed... which would signify that murder is worse than rape. Does that mean the worse the crime — the less consent you need?

I’m not saying that eating animals is wrong.. nor am I saying that having sex with animals is right.. I’m merely pointing out that.. if you’re going to use the argument “of consent” to say sex with animals is wrong... then how do you square that away with killing animals for food?

I’m not surprise this is a controversial question and that I’m getting downvoted like crazy. But it’s an honest question and it’s a logical question. Any objective person would see that.