In message , NY writes
"T i m" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 14:57:02 +0000, Jimmy Stewart
wrote:

snip

I take it having sex with an animal is a no no then ? ......

You would think so eh, but that's exactly what we effectively do with
many live stock, especially those species no longer able to reproduce
on their own / naturally (because of how we have genetically mutilated
them).

I presume you're talking about artificial insemination. Isn't AI done
to avoid each farm having to keep (or have easy access to) a bull/ram,
and maybe to give genetic variation, rather than because species are
unable to breed naturally if they are allowed "access" to a bull/ram?
Waste of time giving Tim facts:-(

Going back a few hundred years, when most farms kept a male or each
species for breeding, I wonder if neighbouring farms shared/swapped
males to give greater genetic variation.

Still done but movement rules and regulations can interfere.

If keeping animals for food and other products became illegal, I wonder
what would happen to the animals that were still alive when the law was
introduced? Would they be killed so they didn't starve when their
fields were needed for additional crops? Would they be released into
the wild and allowed to breed at will, while still being kept out of
crop fields. I imagine if there was some advance notice of the law
change, breeding would stop and animals would gradually die out but not
be replaced.
The bulk of Tim's propaganda originates elsewhere in the world. I don't
suppose he contributes to the *send a cow* charity helping impoverished
Africans.

--
Tim Lamb