God does not give humans the right to use machines to stimulate animals.

When and where did God say that??!!

Yes.
Practicing AI on animals leads the way to AI  on humans.

Are you serious?

1. No, that is a classic example of the "slippery slope" fallacy. http://www.softschools.com/examples/grammar/slippery_slope_examples/391/
2. This assertion is even more ridiculous, since we ALREADY have artificial insemination of humans. Have you never heard of In Vitro Fertilization, fertility clinics, and so forth?

AI of animals and AI of humans are two separate issues, not to be mixed up or confused with each other. Unless you want to put humans and animals in the same boat. Protip: They are NOT in the same boat.

Continuing to proclaim error after correction by someone in authority.  

That is the definition of "pertinacity in error," isn't it?

We have to learn that JayneK, the Holy Inquisitor of Cath Info, is always right. Her word is the word of God, after all.

I am not always right, but I am very passionately opposed to heresy.  Since I am occasionally accused of being a marrano or a judaizer due to my ethnic background, I am especially sensitive on the topic of this heresy.

Uh... no?

The only thing me and TruthIsEternal (a misnomer if there ever were one) have in common is that he lives in my town.

Sorry about that, my mistake, I confused you for truth is eternal.  

We've been eating animals since the dawn of time and as far as I know eating other humans has never been in fashion.

We have not however been practicing artificial insemination on animals since the dawn of time.  So, your argument is very poor.  The slippery slope that you and matthew are attributing to fanny is not accurate.  Slippery slope might be a legitimate criticism if Fanny's AI on animals were as you say something that has been occurring since the dawn of time.   Instead, AI on animals is not an insignificant unrelated event that leads to a significant event like AI on humans.  AI on animals is significant, novel, and scandalous.  Not only that, but it better facilitates the success of implementation on humans, tangibly and intangibly.  So, I see this as more of a near occasion conversation.  And, catholics do not avoid sin.  Catholics avoid the near occasion of sin.  But, matthew censored my prior comment about near occasion.  Perhaps he fears that slippery slope.

This is why I also criticize the renaissance and onwards dissection of dead human corpses.  I do not care that it not the dead remains of a citizen, but instead just the remains of a foreign prisoner.  That is a theosophist argument and mentality.  That dead body was created by God, who is the God of all men, and whose body must be respected by way of the divine teaching that it is a corporal work of mercy to bury the dead.  Your types would argue that this is slippery slope again, however we would not have what we might call this false dictatorship in healthcare without it, just like we would not have the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr(masonic) without usury(judaism)(= ʝʊdɛօmasonry).  All of these are twin sisters.  And, they are near occasions of sin at the very best.  These are not examples of slippery slope.  

Slippery slope regards the illogical connecting of contrasting and improbably unrelated events.  Slippery slope is not relevant to the conversation of proximate near occasions, which this is.