CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I just don't want to add the feeling of being owned even more. And I don't think there is any better way in saying I own you by taking away parts of your body. I mean come on people it not right.
I don't feel that it is truly wrong. But I would not do it. I don't like that people neuter just because of any reason. I have a fence so I don't have no reason to do something that doesn't need to be done. I like my boy I respect him just like I would want to be respected like if I was a dog. I don't have a female for him but I am know thinking about getting a spayed female for him.
Neutering is wrong. People say if you do not neuter them they will have bad behaviors. No it not training them more that does. This what I got to say to people that neuter there dog just because there to lazy or do not have the time. If you do not have the time to train them then you don't have the time to own them. Spaying is okay I am all for that. To help stopping the overpopulation. But neutering is not the way to go. You would not do it to your sell or do it to other human. Do not do it to the dog. Would you like being hold down and get your right taken away. Men go to work and get to go home to the he loves. Dog go's to work and get hold down and get there male hood taken away. Some people say will he lucky that I save him. Thank you for saving me but that does not mean I give you the right to take my right away. I take 10 minutes to watch my dog outside. If you can't do that than you should not own a dog. It not right for him to lose his stuff but you get to keep yours.
It's true that training is always necessary to curb bad behaviors. But how can you be pro-spay due to overpopulation, and anti-neuter? It is far far more invasive for the female of the species. And technically, neutering is for both males and females, as it encompasses the whole process. Spay is females, and Castration is for males. Also, like hell I wouldn't do it to another human - if only it were legal (sigh...). And men do choose to voluntarily have the procedure done - it's called a vasectomy. Neuter both male and female dogs, cats, etc. and overpopulation will drop radically.
human choosing to cut off his dick. Is different then making him cut off his dick. It go's the same with animals. But animals can't say yes or no to that. But we can guss what they would say. Ok do you see male humans asking to have there dicks cut off. No so why would a animal want tthere's off. They wouldn't and by forcing them to cut there dick off is wrong.
It's not the same as cutting it off. It's snipping a couple of tiny tubes inside so that he can't reproduce - like a vasectomy. Do you actually understand how minor the surgery is? They don't even notice it. At the vet's office, we always sent pain pills and a e-collar home with the animal, for pain and so that he wouldn't like the stitches, respectively. Rarely did either ever get used. The dogs would wake up and go right back to normal life.
ok yes I see why it not ok to neuter but it ok to spay will it not ok to spay but it better than chopping dicks off. I see women gets spay all the time my wife is spayed LOL.
Actually, neutering is the easier of the two surgeries, with a shorter recovery time and less complications. And - the dog can still have sex, so he's not really losing anything.
Not only is it wrong to deform an animal's genitalia in an effort to get them to behave, but it's limiting a species potential to little more than human entertainment.
I don't think their is a greater way to say "I own your entire race" than to limit how many of that race are even allowed to be born.
The reason I asked why it was objectively wrong is because I place little to no value in the subjective. If your entire rationale is subjectively derived I will not even bother debating this matter with you. The exchange would basically be you asserting that your belief is correct, me asking you why, and you saying because you feel that it is. There really is no point to that.
Further, things can be considered objectively wrong depending upon how you semantically distinguish wrong and right. Traditionally most people identify right and wrong on a subjective, emotional basis. However, right and wrong may be contextualized within an objective system of probable preferentiality. That is an entirely different subject however.
I agree that there really is no point in arguing. I feel, like you said, that it is my belief that to dominate an animal in the manner that humans do is, wrong, but obviously because it's legal, someone somewhere found a more convincing reason to saying it was right, or acceptable.
My initial reasoning behind it being wrong is to look at it from the animals's perspective. In the nigh impossible possibility that the human race is toppled by another species, if that species had decided to neuter us to keep us behaved and to keep us from overpopulating what they call their planet I wouldn't be very pleased.
The probability of that scenario is not only exceptionally unlikely, but is an altogether different one from the present dynamic in question. Humans are cognitively distinct from most, if not all, other species with respect to our capacity for consent, reasoning, awareness, etc.
I wouldn't say that because you can reason it out, makes it right. Serial killers often have reasons for their kills and they are still imprisoned for doing something wrong.
I have positively no idea in what manner this relates to my arguments, other than that perhaps you are side-stepping my most recent one and returning to my premise of the value of objectivity.
Serial killers do not have objective reasons for killing; they have subjective rationalizations, at most. The comparison is also pointless, unless you can demonstrate why applying a standard of objective reason to the case of neutering would lead to something compellingly "bad".
You stated that humankind's doings, namely neutering isn't wrong, because humans have a different thought process and we have things more thought out than animals. I submit that serial killers have things more thought out than non killers, yet they are still 'wrong'.
It seems to me you are saying neutering isn't wrong because more people are okay with it.
That is not what I said. What I actually said was not that people think more, but that we think differently. The difference between an average human being and a serial killer is not remotely comparable to the difference in cognitive function between a human being and any other species. Perhaps most notably, human beings possess a capacity for self-awareness that enables reflection upon the past, conscious awareness of the present, and future projection. Humans possess the cognitive capacity for consent; other species do not.
In some sense, however, I am saying that neutering is acceptable because people are okay with it. Human beings have never, do not, and very probably will never perceive animals as intrinsically and independently valuable. Most people eat animals, use and consume animal products, own animals, etc. Why should neutering be an exception when murder, consumption, and slavery are not?
human beings possess a capacity for self-awareness that enables reflection upon the past, conscious awareness of the present, and future projection. Humans possess the cognitive capacity for consent; other species do not.
.............
Animals are capable of all that.
.................
In some sense, however, I am saying that neutering is acceptable because people are okay with it.
..................
I am not ok with it and alot of other people are not ok with it.
Although substantiation of your claim would have been nice, I appreciate your pushing back on the matter. It prompted me to revisit the body of research pertaining to animal cognition, which I had not done with any great detail for a couple of years now. What I found:
+ The 2012 the Cambridge conference on "Consciousness in Human and Nonhuman Animals" passed a statement observing that: "Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. (Source A)
+ However, different animals may have different kinds of cognitive processes and these are better understood in terms of the ways in which they are cognitively adapted to their different ecological niches, as opposed to an hierarchy. (Source B, Reznikova)
Effectively, cognition is a fairly consistent attribute across species but this does not inherently mean that that cognition takes the same form. I found no research indicating that other animals have a conception of consent, rights, or related issues. To the best of our knowledge these do remain subjectively formulated concepts unique to human beings.
I am not ok with it and alot of other people are not ok with it.
Even if my analysis above were not true, there is no inherent reason as to why such conceptual replication across species necessitates any modification in our behavior. This was rather more my point with respect to the majority behavior trend, and something you appear to have completely overlooked. It is not that majority conduct makes the action acceptable, but that this majority conduct is strongly indicative that evolution has predisposed us to prefer our own species above others (much as other species are largely predisposed to prefer their own species to others).
Do you eat meat or any animal byproduct? Do you wear any products using leather, wool, or other animal products? Do you have a pet? Do you object to others who do any of these things to the same extent as you do to the act of neutering. If the answer to any of these questions is "no" then my point is further proven. If this were a matter of respecting the cognitive integrity, consciousness, or rights of other species none of these other things would be acceptable.
I would love to debate with you on this but I am sick so I can't think straight right know. I would just like to say. I know what there capable of. I have worked with dogs all my life. And when I am feeling better to answer your really long and boring argument. I will do so but that when I feel better.
I doubt very much that you would. You clearly find a fully developed argument substantiated by evidence to be "boring". I can only conclude that, as with basic spelling and grammar, you find evidence and analysis wholly superfluous. I really cannot be bothered to engage in such a farcical debate with you.
I find it boring because I am just going to read it all then make a big argument saying how your argument is false knowing that it is I just don't feel up to debating right know. I have alot of work to do if I want to get my job back because fucking walmart is not paying the bills and I just don't need to debate with someone on something that I know is for fact truly wrong
Ah, I see. You categorically assume that you are always right and that everyone else is wrong, and when someone presents a full argument that actually requires effort it's boring and you can't be bothered. How convenient.
P.S. For the record, busy and bored are not synonyms. That you will reply later because you have to work is totally reasonable, and I never remotely objected to that.
Humans may have the capacity for consent but the animal that they are destroying the genitalia of, do not. So how does that statement prove that it's right?
In your saying that "neutering is acceptable because people are okay with it" is comparable to saying Hitler's actions were okay because the nazis were okay with it, and that just like my initial argument is not objective.
To your final question, "Why should neutering be an exception when murder, consumption, and slavery are not?" I don't consider any of that to be right. Slavery is wrong for the same reason i believe neutering to be, and eating is only acceptable as far as surviving goes.
When it comes down to it, we seem to at least both agree that this is entirely subjective.
So how does that statement prove that it's right? & Hitler
You are thoroughly missing the distinctions in my argument, repeatedly. The lack of a capacity for consent does not make the action okay. That most people find it acceptable does not make the action okay. What these two realities indicate is that rights are a human construct and that humans further have an evolutionary predisposition to prefer our own species over others. This is entirely natural, and is evidenced in our historically consistent conduct towards other species (and of others species towards others species, generally... would you think a tiger was wrong to kill a human being? or an antelope?). My argument is that because animal rights do not objectively exist and there is an evolutionary basis for our personal species preference, it is not wrong to neuter animals.
As far as Hitler, I refer you to Godwin's law. If you persist in making inaccurate and non-comparable comparisons to intra-species genocide and homicide, I will terminate my involvement with you on this thread.
I don't consider any of that to be right. Slavery is wrong for the same reason i believe neutering to be, and eating is only acceptable as far as surviving goes.
If you believe pet ownership is wrong I presume you do not and never will own a pet, and that you morally condemn those who do. With respect to eating animals, this is not actually necessary at all and is a demonstrably inefficient source of nutrition. That you qualified the consumption of animals in this respect indicates your own moral ambiguity and contradiction on the matter (or an ignorance of basic nutrition). For your view to be validated, you must believe that anyone who eats meat or consumes any animal byproduct is immoral.
Would you also believe that using any animal product or byproduct for medicinal reasons is morally wrong? Even if it cost human lives not to do so? If so, you are arguing not only that we should ignore our evolutionary species preference but that we should put other species before our own.
When it comes down to it, we seem to at least both agree that this is entirely subjective.
No, we do not agree on that. I consider your perspective to be a subjective emotional compulsion, whereas mine is objectively founded in an analysis of evolution and human behavior.
Your example is it wrong for a tiger to kill an animal, is flawed. It can't be compared to a human's cutting the testicles off of an animal. Even as you said humans have distinct reasoning. A tiger wouldn't kill a human for no reason the reason would be for survival means. How would neutering help human survival, that's rhetorical because it does not.
For your assumption of of my dietary habits, it is also wrong. Eating meat is something humans have been doing for ages, their's no reason to stop it, thus no reason I would.
I am not arguing that we put other species before our own, if testing a drug on an animal will save our species then it is what needs to be done for our survival, but spaying and pet ownership do not further our survival, it's strictly for entertainment or show. If the animal were more sapient it might as well be called slavery, and I think we both can agree that that was wrong, even though based on your logic of how we should further our own race at the detriment of others, the white race might see it as right.
Your closing arguing is completely wrong. Objectively castrating an animal is in no way okay. It is my personal opinion that neutering is wrong, it is the human opinion that it is okay, but I believe no species alive is okay with that nor do that want it.
You say that so long as it furthers our race it is okay evolutionary, but I say that pet ownership does not further our race, nor does anything involved with it.
I believe that surgical procedures should only be performed without the consent of the patient when it is a necessary procedure to save the patients life.
I extend this to both humans and animals.
I understand that spaying and neutering is used primarily to prevent unwanted breeding- but can't this also be done simply by simply not allowing an animal to mate? Seems to me that it's a copout for people who want to have a pet but don't want to care for and supervise said pet properly.
Instead of performing surgery on Spot, why not install a fence?
An unwanted pregnancy in a teenage human is certainly far more of a disaster than an unwanted pregnancy in a pet; should we mandate that all teenage girls be kept on birth control?
There's other benefits to these procedures than just overpopulation. For one, an unspayed female is at significant risk for pyometria, while a spayed female has no risk - and that can kill them. Male dogs are likely to get testicular cancer at a young age, as well as any number of urological issues. Overpopulation is simply the most obvious and well known of the reasons to neuter. Once any of the diseases have started, it is significantly more difficult to solve the problem. This is more relatable to the woman who's at great risk for breast cancer, so she has a proactive masectomy, or in a guy's case, is at risk for testicular cancer and has a vasectomy.
What other diseases? I know there have been a few studies indicating such but those studies are relatively inconclusive due to the way they were executed. Further research is obviously necessary, but with the information we have now, neutering is the best option, (excluding professional breeders).
I will have to remember them. I have not seen them in awhile. But still disease or no disease it just wrong. You can't watch the animal for 10 minutes or at lease buy a finance than you should not be owning it. Ask me this why should he pay just because your lazy.
Because it's not just about the overpopulation thing. I have a fence, and I always watch my dogs when they're outside. All of them are neutered. I have cats who remain indoors at all times. All neutered. I go out of my way to keep them safe, and a result of that is doing a surgery that has little to no effect on their quality of life and keeps them safe and healthy.
their quality of life and keeps them safe and healthy. will till me would you want to be safe and healthy or would you want your freedom and your respect.
A general populationwide risk is not a reason for a surgical procedure- being in a specific risk category MAY be. Your note regarding a proactive mastectomy is actually quite relevant here- A woman at great risk for breast cancer has a proactive mastectomy. But ALL women have some risk of breast cancer, and double mastectomies are not the norm. We aren't talking about spaying particularly at-risk female dogs here; we're talking about spaying all female dogs because there is a general risk. Not valid, as far as I'm concerned. Same deal with testicular cancer- and a vasectomy does NOTHING to reduce the risk of testicular cancer, and some data suggests it may actually increase the risk.
Every unspayed female dog is at 25% risk, while typically 20% risk of breast cancer is enough for prophylactic treatment in women (Cancer Research Society), so while pyometria is a general risk, it's a highly likely general risk...
As for testicular cancer, removing the testicles definitely reduces the risk of testicular cancer, and it can lower the risk of prostate cancer.
Do you have a source for your claim regarding the risk for unspayed female dogs? That level is nowhere close to anything I've observed among unspayed dogs, though admittedly that's not a statistically significant sample.
Of course an orchiectomy would remove the risk of testicular cancer, but your claim was a vasectomy. Possibly was it just using the wrong term?
You're right, it would be an orchiectomy in male humans. I had vasectomy in my head because I've been using it for comparison on how minor the surgery is. In dogs, castration does involve removing the testicles (not the penis as some believe), but it is a ridiculously minor surgery in the big scheme of things, taking about fifteen minutes to do, and the dog is back to normal typically by the end of the day.
never mind but it doesn't matter about anything it still wrong. I would never do it. I may not be a breeder but I still buy and sell dogs I most of time sell a female and a male together to the same family.
don't be mad I make sure that each male comes with a contract saying that he can't be neutered. And I have them invite me over to there home before I give them my dogs. I also get my dogs most of the time at a good breeder that I know. But I most only sell them to old people are family that has kids.
I get what you're saying here. But where I grew up dog fences aren't really an option for a lot of people and having a dog is often times necessary.
In the event of a population problem, your options become neutering Spot today, or shotgunning his kids tomorrow when they come after the chickens.
In addition to my above argument, I think it's incorrect to hold animals as having rights in the sense that humans do. Humans may have certain obligations to their pets, but refraining from preventive medicine isn't one of them.
Animals are capable of consent in there language. But they can learn other languages. Just like we learn other languages. I would care because to show that they would say no to being neutered.
We are already debating this elsewhere and there was no need to intercept my attempt to engage with another debater on the matter. It is entirely redundant, and just as equally unsubstantiated as the last time you made it.
studys show that there is no real overpopulation of animals. there is only a overpopulation of a species. so the bigest species population would really be humans. so lets pick dog species. way are we neutering dogs when there species is not overpopulation. studys show there is 317,000,000 humans in america and there is 73,000,000 dogs in america so why are we neutering dogs? and there is 76,000,000 cats in america so why are we neutering cats? even add them together we humans are the real overpopulation. so why aren't we neutering humans?
You falsely presume that the overpopulation argument in favor of neutering cats and dogs refers to natural environmental overpopulation. When the overpopulation argument is advanced in this context it is a human oriented perspective, and refers to a non-human animal population which exceeds our desired population limits for that species. Your argument is misdirected, and thus rendered ineffective.
Right, so this is an instance where grammar would be helpful. Even an approximation of English syntax would be nice, because I have no idea what you are saying.
Why is it wrong to neuter. Will if you look at it would you want someone chopping your dick off. And sure if your a woman that doesn't have a dick. Will still women do you want your boy dick cut off. I would not think so. so why is it ok to do it to a animal. I thought you loved your pet and you make it apart of your family. why would you cut off your sons dick do not want grand kids. or is it because your just to lazy to watch your pet. or is it because you don't care about him.
will if you don't have money than you should not own the dog. And ok yes even if you have money to feed it but not for it to have puppies. then you should take care of the dog watch it 10 minutes a day why it go's out side. if you can't even do that get a fence than.
There are a lot of places where "not letting them run in the streets" means shooting them. The option becomes neutering a dog today, or shooting dogs later on.
your being stupid about this. what you do is you go and get the dog. And not let it run in the streets in the first place. you don't have to neuter him. he should not pay just because you can't watch him.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to assume that you aren't from a farming community.
A farm dog will watch your property and protect it as well. He can do this even when he is neutered. He can't do his job if he is kept in the house or in a fence.
If he is not neutered, the population of pack dogs in the the near by woods will increase. Pack dogs are generally more dangerous to people than other animals because they often times lack the fear that keeps other animals away. Inevitably, pack dogs come into contact with people and they are shot.
I lived with my dad on a farm. put a collar on him or make a bigger fence. you should not have your dog fight other wild dogs. it something like dog fighting you should not do it. if you want protection yes fire some shots at them but it no reason that your dog should be risking his life after you neutered him. that is wrong. My dad has shotguns and he has kill bears that tryed to attack him. will they tryed anyway lol. but there are so many other ways to keep your dog from making babys there still is no reason to neuter him.
What about cats, who wander where they may, causing stray cat problems and decimating songbird populations? Or working dogs, who by purpose must run free? Or someone who has more than one dog? How about horses, where neutering makes them less dangerous towards other horses/people(two stallions may fight to the death, and certainly until injury)?
So that's why we take way there feelings because we are to lazy. There is no animal overpopulation but there is a human overpopulation and we just keep growing and blaming other species for being on there land that we build on for some stupid reason.
Animals fight to the death because of are population size but a lot of people still don't realise that it's are fault.
Of course there are overpopulations of different species! The UK has many problems with cat overpopulation, giving an example for domestic animals. Stallions fight each other because it's in their nature. the stongest male gets the mares and gets to reproduce and pass his genes on. This is how it all works for animals. It's nothing to do with population. Castrating the colt will ensure him a longer and more peaceful life with more freedom to socialise with other horses. Spaying a female cat makes sure your house doesn't suddenly become a furry messy nest of hundreds of cats, and castrating a male likewise for other owners. For feral cats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_cat explains how much of a problem these can be. Feral cats are often a result of unexpected kittens, there also being a horror story of kittens being drowned in a ucket of water which I know is quite common in European culture, featured in famous novel series such as Heidi and the Discworld novels. Neutering causes these problems for pet owners to vanish.
There is a human overpopulation and that causes people to think that other species populations are getting bigger but really it's just human that are.
Yes it's in there nature to do that but at least they die with respect and not some neutered/spay house pet.
Yes feelings and attracting other animals do sometimes causes problems with pet owners and that's why they need to watch them more and teach them more and not be lazy about it by removing there feelings.
This is not about the good of humans but the good for other species.
Having a broken leg wouldn't be dieing with respect, it would be being put down by a vet. Over populations of animals are often caused by humans, for example the overpopulation of deer in the UK is caused by medieval peoples killing the wolves, their natural predators.
I don't think you can control an animal's mating instict. It's true that there are some terribly inbred dogs out there that can't physically mate without 'help' (ew, wtf, what is the point in allowing these breeds to continue?), but most will just go at it... and have you ever tried teaching a cat anything? It's just not a practical solution. If you have a rabbit or some other pet you can cage keep away from others without denying them their freedom, sure, don't neuter them. I don't think sexual instinctss really matter, because neutering will allow annimals to experience deeper bonds that aren't linked to sex with other animals. And really... no-one wants or likes the dog that just humps everything.
They do that to you because that's what they like is the feel of sex and also you got to understand that he/she as feelings and you should not let them breed because of your so called "overpopulation " and that's why you get them a vasectomy so they can have those natural good feelings and also let those feelings into another mates.
If they still die in pain that may hurt but it shows that he stand up and gave everything he had to live and that is respectful.
It's not about some pet owner feelings but the pet feelings too and like you and I said it's human fault for overpopulation and less population and also population that we think is overpopulated but really not and the reason we think that is because it's the view of looking at it in human view thinking that pet species over reached are desire that we want them at.
I think a happy and long life is better than a short and violent one. Don't forget that humans keep animals for a purpose. We don't keep animals for their sake. We keep animals because they are useful to us. By castrating animals, we ensure their safety and our own safety. We can't teach animals to "use protection", you know! I could imagine that without castrating bullocks, for example, a pen of bullocks would be a hellish fighting ring. Without castrating one of the farm dogs, if puppies couldn't be sold or given away they may be given to an animal centre or worse, killed. Without castrating cats your average crazy cat woman wouldn't be able to move for cats. Without castrating horses, riding lessons would be all-mare. The animal can't speak out against it but I'm sure they'd prefer a peaceful life to a hormone driven, more violent one. It's ony chemicals, does it really matter?
To a lot of people those feelings mean a lot to them and for some it means death with out those feelings.
It doesn't matter what you have to go though with there feelings but you should never neuter them just because you don't want to put up with there problems. This can be similar to having a kid just because they have problems doesn't mean for you to neuter them.
It would be good for all if we just vasectomy instead of neutering because I wouldn't want to be neutered or other beings wouldn't want to be neutered. The golden rule is treat others the way you want to be treated.
These animals will never be driven by these hormones, unless they are catsrated late. It won't matter to them. I don't think you can understand these problems, or how it would be impossible to deal with them for most people. As I said, when cats weren't spayed kittens were drowned in buckets. Nowadays they are set free, which poses a problem to wildlife, making certain species of native birds vulnerable.
There really isn't that much different, person-to-person, so yes I probably woud drown the kittens myself for my motivations and mindset would have been the same. These would be that I couldn't afford to feed them when they were weaned, so I'd kill them before my children got too attatched to them.
Other dogs would treat them different? Like, maybe, not attack them? My old dog Sweep, would find some way to escape and go missing for weeks if there was a bitch on heat before we had him castrated. Every time he escaped he would wind up at the local dog pound and we'd have to pay £40 to get him back, at a time when we could barely afford to pay household bills. Each time my mother said "Next time he does this, we're leaving him at the pound."
Cats roam no-end. You'd need a really large area with no houses in, which just isn't practical.
Not all cats, obviously. Some are kept for breeding.
I don't see how neutering an animal is wrong. nature isn't perfect, so sometimes we must shape it to fit us.
It is wrong because you would not do it to yourself or to a person and you need to realize that just because animals are not human that doesn't mean for you take advantage of them.
I good rule is treat other the way you want to be treated.
Yes, that's wrong for what she said it's like saying I don't want to put up with my sons or fathers feelings so I'm just going to take them away.
Training is always necessary and it's your job if you want to keep him but if you don't than find a home that will not take away ones feelings because of problems.
What my mother said wasn't wrong because we could barely afford to pay the dog pound. Sweep had been trained as a puppy, and there's not really that much more that could have been done.
I don't see how feelings matter. They have nothing to do with quality of life and are of no importance to a domesticated animal. Of the pets I own, only my rabbits haven't been neutered because they are both female and easy to keep away from males. What good are their 'feelings' if they will never see a male rabbit, mainly because of the risk of a sudden increase in the population of our pets? Our horses are castrated so they can enjoy a social life with the rest of the herd without causing chaos, incest, pregnant fillies of the underage variety and maiming innocent walkers, who most likely will have children in tow. The barn cat was castrated because a female kitten moved in to my family's barn. You can't train animals to ignore base instincts such as reproductive urges.
Doesn't matter that's not there fault and people need to at least respect them and vasectomy instead of taking ones feelings away for are stupid fault.
It's still happening and until we start taking care of are kind we should not take advantage of other beings.
It's called forcing something to do something that it doesn't want and that's wrong.
Things die but that's ok as long as they die with respect and not be treated like less.
Then, O genius, suggest a solution other than castration that would manage the problems caused by the reproductive urges of animals. Perhaps complete and utter segregation of the two sexes? Killing unnecessary male cattle earlier (veal production)? Drowning kittens and puppies? Each one of these is much more cruel than castration.
I think the real question is, is it wrong to take away an animals ability to reproduce? For me the answer is no because it helps control the animal population (and besides, what would you do if you woke up to find your cat with a litter of kittens? Pet adoption agencies are already filled to the brim with pets needing homes).
so how about we all do that. I don't think any male would want to give up there rights unless there a homosexual or something. what do you mean overpopulation of animals studys show that there is no real overpopulation of animals. there is only a overpopulation of a species. so the bigest species population would really be humans. so lets pick dog species. way are we neutering dogs when there species is not overpopulation. studys show there is 317,000,000 humans in america and there is 73,000,000 dogs in america so why are we neutering dogs? and there is 76,000,000 cats in america so why are we neutering cats? even add them together we humans are the real overpopulation. so why aren't we neutering humans?
First of all, not everyone in America wants to take care of a cat/dog. From this point of view, there is overpopulation of animals because the amount of them is greater than the amount of people able or willing to take care of them.
And yes humans are overpopulated, but I don't think anyone is going to willingly consent to being neutered/spayed. Besides, there would be so many other complications forcing people to get neutered/spayed (who would do it? How would it be enforced?).
And yes humans are overpopulated, but I don't think anyone is going to willingly consent to being neutered/spaded. Besides, there would be so many other complications forcing people to get neutered/spaded (who would do it? How would it be enforced?).
you made my point people would not want to do it and by forcing them it is wrong. so neutering is wrong.
From this point of view, there is overpopulation of animals because the amount of them is greater than the amount of people able or willing to take care of them.
But just like I stated there is no real overpopulation of dogs or cats. there is points of view but no matter what they are not overpopulated. so it is wrong to neuter. even spaying is wrong.
Neutering isn't necessarily wrong. As I previously stated, it helps control populations. The problem with humans however is that nobody will willingly submit to it. Making the conclusion that because a person will not submit it must be completely wrong, is illogical.
To also clarify, I do not support the spaying of humans as it easily infringes upon their recognizable well being. Animals are different though; they do not have the capacity to realize what has happened. To simplify, animals that have been neutered will not care that they've been neutered. They will feel temporary pain after the procedure but that is all. Humans on the other hand will care and will feel the complications down the road (wanting to be father, not being able to).
Like seriously, have you ever heard an animal say "I wish I could have pups/kittens but I got neutered"? The answer is no. But with humans, it would be quite the opposite.
I have already given my reason as to why there is. So now tell me, for the animals that nobody can take care of/nobody wants to take care of, should we just release all of them into the wild? Let them fend for themselves? Possibly let them breed so much and that we will be up to our shoulders in cats and dogs? I'd love to see your answer.
Neutering isn't necessarily wrong. As I previously stated, it helps control populations. The problem with humans however is that nobody will willingly submit to it. Making the conclusion that because a person will not submit it must be completely wrong, is illogical
..............................
controling the population what population. it is logical to guss that if we would say no they would say no. And a human is a animal we are no different. just because they can't say no they still show that they don't like it.
Yes, animals don't like it at first. They feel pain from the procedure, but it goes away. Animals also forget the mental/emotional distress, while humans do not.
Yes, animals don't like it at first. They feel pain from the procedure, but it goes away. Animals also forget the mental/emotional distress, while humans do not.
............
animals don't forget mental/emotional distress, they will still feel the pain when they have sex.
To also clarify, I do not support the spaying of humans as it easily infringes upon their recognizable well being. Animals are different though; they do not have the capacity to realize what has happened. To simplify, animals that have been neutered will not care that they've been neutered. They will feel temporary pain after the procedure but that is all. Humans on the other hand will care and will feel the complications down the road (wanting to be father, not being able to).
......................
Animals are capacity to realize something has been done to them that they don't like. a female dog will feel just how a female human would feel down the road. animals do care if they been neutered.
Please explain how a female dog and a female human would feel the same. And animals do not care. Have you seen an animal become horribly depressed from not having the ability to reproduce? The answer is no.
Please explain how a female dog and a female human would feel the same. And animals do not care. Have you seen an animal become horribly depressed from not having the ability to reproduce? The answer is no.
..............
yes the answer is yes studys do show that a animal can become depressed if she feels that she can't reproduce. they would feel same but they will show it in different ways but about the same thing.
Like seriously, have you ever heard an animal say "I wish I could have pups/kittens but I got neutered"? The answer is no. But with humans, it would be quite the opposite.
......................
I will samply say yes animals would say it if they can. so by taking away there rights it would be wrong.
I have already given my reason as to why there is. So now tell me, for the animals that nobody can take care of/nobody wants to take care of, should we just release all of them into the wild? Let them fend for themselves? Possibly let them breed so much and that we will be up to our shoulders in cats and dogs? I'd love to see your answer.
..................
I say don't be stupid. it easy to think will I shouldn't put a male with a unspayed female if I don't want puppies or kittens. I mean come on even kids know that. And we would have no problem with population.
Do I really need to critique your lack of grammatical skill to disprove this?
==================================
it easy to think will I shouldn't put a male with a unspayed female if I don't want puppies or kittens. I mean come on even kids know that. And we would have no problem with population.
Are you saying that as long as we don't put unneutered pets together there will be no overpopulation? So then how are we supposed to keep animals apart? Lock them in our houses forever?
Are you saying that as long as we don't put unneutered pets together there will be no overpopulation? So then how are we supposed to keep animals apart? Lock them in our houses forever?
...............
I say don't be stupid. no let them out just watch them or buy a fence or just spay your female. it easy
I don't think that it is. It doesn't lower the quality of life for the animal (it can still have sex, so it's firing blank rounds). You can't control dog reproduction in the same fashion that you can with humans, it's one one the few ways that you can keep it under control.
I was giving an analagy, hun. Spaying and neutering is contraception for animals. As a prochoice person, I would never think that contraception and abortion are wrong. We talked about this on DDO, remember?
I feel that sterilizing animals is good because it controls the animal population, therefore there are more resources to provide for animals, and less animals are euthanized. Is that better?
feel that sterilizing animals is good because it controls the animal population,
studys show that there is no real overpopulation of animals. there is only a overpopulation of a species. so the bigest species population would really be humans. so lets pick dog species. way are we neutering dogs when there species is not overpopulation. studys show there is 317,000,000 humans in america and there is 73,000,000 dogs in america so why are we neutering dogs? and there is 76,000,000 cats in america so why are we neutering cats? even add them together we humans are the real overpopulation. so why aren't we neutering humans?
myth I just looked at the top ten websites and most of them show up to date. on what I just put down I don't need to prove anything it is easy to look up. make sure there update !!!
Animals are not people, people are not animals. neutering animals is ok because they can be owned and controlled by people. People can not be owned. You can do anything you want to an animal, short of torturing them or raping them. Also, dogs are often used for work (bomb sniffing, helping the disabled), having to worry about controlling their reproductive urges is not possible in those situation.
We are animals and also in some country's you can own people so are you saying just because we can neuter them.
It wrong to use them as whatever and then just keep on down sizing them and also people have reproductive urges to that can't be controlled in different situations too.
We are animals and also in some country's you can own people so are you saying just because we can neuter them.
That is not what I am saying at all. I'm saying owning humans is immoral because there is a difference between a human being and an animal, thus owning a human and then castrating him would also be immoral.
Animals are simply slaves to instinct, they have no soul, they are not self aware, they can not contemplate their existence and make a decision besides one based on survival or training.
Human beings are self aware, are capable of discarding instinct or training, we have a soul. Our behaviors are dissimilar than any other known species.
At the end of the day, everyone has the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong. I suggest you use that capability better, before you find yourself dying alone, drowning in a pool of your own shame.
All the things that you just stated its truly false and if your believes are getting in the way of this than I think you should give up because your not going to win.
No because we need to be regulated and until that happens there will always going to be a overpopulation of animals and if your just trying to lower the animal population than just vasectomy them.
