That's because we considered them as they are- side effects...apart from the dying from internal trauma one, that's one hell of a side effect. This is to say I claimed they are not pertinent to the issue of moral judgment of the deed in and of itself.
But of course it is a can of worms. I do know for a fact that a common position of an animal-rights activist would be to say engaging in any kind of sexual act with an animal would be tantamount to abuse ("they're like children: they don't know any better"). First this is an over-generalisation; were this to be the position, I can easily provide any number of counterexamples. Otherwise it's back to those original posts in this thread (refer to first principles), and unless you attack those, I believe I have it covered 
That said, South Park's Vote or Die episode had a pretty good parody of PETA activists. Still not quite as good as the P.Diddy "Vote or die muthaf**ka" song.
NB: I also see you've used the term bestiality, whereas I've referred specifically to zoophilia. There is a significant difference in the definitioins and connotations of those terms, so care must be taken to ensure proper usage. If I have to, I'll post the definitions, but I'm feeling lazy now.
And my dear lady, I believe certain parts of Europe are waaaaayyyyy ahead of you 
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1458080.ece
As the article does state, there are concerns regarding animal abuse, cruelty and accidental injury, which are a major factor in reviewing legislation allowing/regulating such practice. It's a sad reality and personally I don't think the idea of 'animal bordellos' is a particularly good one. But I do think that the current laws that prohibit 'bestiality' (the legal term) in most countries is a vestige that needs reviewing too.
