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.
if you think this is not wrong. then your a person that want to take all male dog rights away and then fuck them in the face. because you have no feelings for dogs are anyone. and you should burn in hell. it is not right to neuter. how would you like that someone owns you and can do what ever they want with you. neutering is abuse and should against the law. spay I am all for that because we humans do it.
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.
Not only is it morally wrong to do this, it's more wrong to own pets.
People justify snipping their pet's nuts by saying "we're controlling the pet population" and they justify owning a pet by stating how they wouldn't be able to survive in the wild.
That's balderdash, wolves, are dogs before they were bred to be pets. Wolves survive in the wild just fine by them selves, and they keep their population low enough by natural selection.
Cats, birds, dogs, and whatever pet you own, a species of it exists in the wild, they live, they eat, they die, and if we do nothing about it they manage to keep their populations large enough to survive, without anyone feeding them or chopping their dicks' off.
In fact it is. If you think about it. yes neutering does let them live a longer life and reduce some diseases. but they would not have a happy life plus neutering can also increase other disease. But till me what you would want a longer life or a happy life we all should know that we would want a happy life so would the dog and by neutering him it would be wrong. this neutering should be stoped. hate when I see a good dog get there stuff taken. it sad that people think neutering is not wrong
Yes, it is immoral to remove the reproductive organs of an animal. The single thing that is universal and fundamental to all life is its ability to reproduce and provide for the next generation. I find all arguments justifying the act simple contrivances that betray a deeply underlying selfishness on the part of humans who think they have a moral obligation to cut out genitalia.
Animals are spayed because the pet population is so great that all of the animals cannot be cared for.
I don't know if you understand what actually happens when an animal is fixed, but the dog keeps his penis or her vagina. They can still have sex. They aren't mutilated, or harmed.
They certainly aren't concious of their balls to begin with, nor do they care that they are gone.
My dog had balls one day, then the next he had a big plastic cone. All he cared about was the cone and the fact that he had a home with a loving owner.
A lot of animals would have to go without homes and vet care and love of a human if it weren't for spaying and neutering.
The selfishness is so pungent and thick. It's like a dizziying miasma. I can taste it. In all of your response, there isn't even the winking pretense of acknowledging that these animals are independent organisms that can and do live outside of the care of the doting human who tries to humanize them with psychobabble that really only makes them feel good. I mean, if you really think that dogs view humans as loving "owners" and not just another member of the pack, you've watched too many Disney movies.
"All he cared about was the cone and the fact that he had a home with a loving owner." I mean, really? This has nothing to do with the dog. It just brings you comfort by saying it. And if you think you're dog isn't conscious of its genitalia then you are absolutely out of your flipping mind and should be laughed at and ridiculed. And dogs tend lose interest in sex because a large part of the libido-system comes from the biochemical actions in the mammal genitalia.
Just think about the logic you're using. Forget the fact that dogs are animals that can hunt, form packs and live on their own, go feral after a few months away from human contact, we should cut out their genitalia because WE can't take care of them!! By golly, if a future dog might not have a human in its life, we might as well make sure it's never born! That is the ultimate in selfishness. Come on man. By your reasoning, it's morally right to spayed and neuter the homeless.
I'll go put him outside and leave him there. And when he scratches at my door to get back in I'll ignore it.
Because what you're adovocating is that stray dogs have an equal or better qualty of life than those with homes.
Only stray dogs have far shorter lifespans, suffer more painful deaths, go hungry in metropolitan areas, endure lifelong pain from untreated injuries, always have fleas and ticks feeding off of them....
... But hey, they have a healthy sexual appetite. Right?
Edit: I also forgot to mention that you're wrong. Dogs are domesticated. While cats would survive outside without humans just fine, dogs would not.
First, the term "domesticated" only refers to the adaptation of an animal for living with humans--both dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) and cats (Felis catus) have been domesticated. So, if you're going to argue that cats can survive without humans... I'm going to allow you to finish the logic. But the term "domesticated" doesn't mean that they require humans to survive. That is patently absurd.
Second, what I'm advocating is not that stray dogs have equally good lives, what I'm advocating is that it's immoral to spay and neuter dogs based on the assumption that some hypothetical dog in a hypothetical future will hypothetically give birth to a hypothetical pup that some hypothetical person may not want, and therefore the "moral choice" is to ensure that the hypothetical dog living in that hypothetical future won't even be capable of hypothetically giving birth to a hypothetical pup who hypothetically may not be wanted. That's the twisted logic of a psychotic human being.
By all accounts this argument: "stray dogs have far shorter lifespans, suffer more painful deaths, go hungry in metropolitan areas, endure lifelong pain from untreated injuries, always have fleas and ticks feeding off of them...." could very well be used to ensure the homeless or poor people around the world ought to be neutered. Let's agree that this is somewhat of a fact. Some stray dogs will live shorter lives. Some will suffer painful deaths (I don't know if it's more painful), some will go hungry in metropolitan areas, some will endure lifelong pain from untreated injuries, some "always" have fleas and ticks feeding on them.
So? Does that mean they should never be born because of a hypothetical scenario that some human has concocted in his or her selfish brain? What you're advocating, and this is necessarily implicit from your argument(s) thus far, is that if a dog MIGHT not have a standard of living acceptable to you, then we should ensure that it is never born by neutering or spaying its hypothetical father or mother. And we are moral to do so. And that's absurd and psychotic.
Oi... If you're not going to accept truth based on facts, then tell me now because I don't want to waste my time.
Dogs, unlike cats, evolved because of humans. Wolves, who were geneticaly less tempermental, trustee humans more and were fed by humans. Those particular animals survived and were anthropologically fitter. Which means that they bred more. So over time, through domestication, those wolves evolved into dogs. Some can survive in the wild, like huskys chows and such. Most can't, like my 12 lb. Poodle.
Secondly, that "hypothetical future" is the present. Animal shelters are overun with animals. So either we spay the animals now to prevent surpopulation, or we kill them in shelters. Your choice.
By suggesting that I want to spay the homeless human population, you admt your own ignorance. I advocate the spaying of all dogs, not just the strays. And by trying to make me seem somehow insensitive to homeless people, you only make yourself look stupid. Thanks.
It's birth control for dogs. It's humane, not immoral.
Oi... If you're not going to accept truth based on facts, then tell me now because I don't want to waste my time.
I'm not disputing facts. I'm disputing whether the facts make an action morally warranted. And that fact seems to have flown way over your head. Maybe this is an issue that's beyond your abilities and you don't recognize it, because you seem to be stuck in this conventional thinking that the ends morally justify the means. That if we want less homeless people we have a moral obligation to end their suffering by sterilizing the abjectly impoverished. Or that China is morally justified in its one-child policy.
Dogs, unlike cats, evolved because of humans.
Domesticated cats are just as artificially selected as dogs are. You don't know what you're talking about.
Wolves, who were geneticaly less tempermental, trustee humans more and were fed by humans.
Grey wolves, for example, are genetically identical to domesticated dogs. So it's not like there's some "fundamental" genetic difference. You don't know what you're talking about. The difference is the domestication, not the genes. If you take a wolf today (and that's basically how it started, someone took a wolf) and started artificially selecting various traits over thousands of years, you'll end up with a domesticated dog. That's what artificial selection does.
Secondly, that "hypothetical future" is the present. Animal shelters are overun with animals. So either we spay the animals now to prevent surpopulation, or we kill them in shelters. Your choice.
What you're highlighting is a self-inflicted wound. You and people like you don't think of dogs as animals. You think of them as pets. As toys or slaves. And you treat them as such. That's why you refer to yourself as your dog's "owner". For you, the dichotomy is pet/shelter or death. And not freedom. You don't think of these animals as organisms that do or can exist outside of this humane, self-gratification. Let the dogs go and allow selection its course.
My experience growing up in a third world country tells me that dogs will form packs if left alone for months, scavenge for food, hunt down and kill goats and other animals, and dogs will become increasingly feral over time, and that poodles can definitely and do survive on their own and in packs in a metropolitan zone. Now maybe "your poodle" can't. And maybe that says more about how you've raised your poodle or how you just perceive your poodle than it does about the dog itself.
By suggesting that I want to spay the homeless human population, you admt your own ignorance.
You admit you can't read by making this point. By simply altering the subject of the proposition you made, your logic: the movement from one premise to another, to form a necessarily connected and contingent conclusion could be utilized to make the sterilizing argument for the homeless or the poor. It's an argument from analogy. According to your logic, the argument can be made that sterilizing the homeless and the poor is justified because of its end. And that is a necessary implication of your logic.
It's birth control for dogs. It's humane, not immoral.
Yeah, and China's one-child policy is also birth control. It must be humane and moral because "it's doing a good thing". Forced sterilization of another animal is not moral. constraining your consideration to pet or death is not moral. Your entire worldview on "pet" care is immoral. You just don't see. Probably can't. So, I've made my points. I'm out.
Although I don't want to actually get involved in the debate as a whole, I did just have one point that I wanted to make.
"Domesticated cats are just as artificially selected as dogs are. You don't know what you're talking about."
It is actually now thought that "domesticated" cats are the product of natural selection in response to Human agriculture, rather than direct artificial selection for favourable characteristics. So in a way, the evolutionary path to domestication does differ between dogs and cats.
Your points aren't valid. So if you're quitting, fine, but own up to your failure.
You're mistaken about the domestication of dogs. Please refer to my earlier post for a better explination. Dogs are genetically different from wolves. Please check your facts.
I love when you put words in my mouth. It's really not annoying or petty at all. Sarcasm.
I didn't say that the only options are that a dogs would be a pet or it should die. I'm advocating the prevention of animal overpopulation. As I would adovcate that humans use birth control. Not that we should sterilize the poor. But that we and have the mental capacity to understand and take action, and animals do not.
You seem to be advocating we let dogs breed until their numbers are so great that we have packs running in the streets and feeding off livestock. If this is incorrect, I apologize, but I believe that is what you have essentially said.
How is that working out for your country? Is that how you'd like every dog to live? Disease infested? Hungry?
You are really good at putting words in my mouth. That makes you a good liar, not a good debater.
I did not say the options are that an animal be a pet or they die. I only wish to keep the population down so that all animals have homes and vet care. It's the most humane option for everyone, including humans.
this is wrong why would you neuter. it not right. I would never neuter. spaying yes it ok there is noting wrong with spaying. if you did not neutering is wrong now you do. I know that I would not want to spend my life with out my stuff. there is no reason to neuter. if we spay in would be better. when I start my club it would be big and make neutering against the law.
dog is part of your family. so if you would not neuter son why would you neuter the dog is it because you don't have time to watch him outside will then you should not get a male dog. get a female spaying is ok. you know what the best thing to do is get a male and female but just spay the female that. how I got my dogs like there happy togther they both can have fun and not get puppies.
dog is part of your family. so if you would not neuter son why would you neuter the dog is it because you don't have time to watch him outside will then you should not get a male dog. get a female spaying is ok. you know what the best thing to do is get a male and female but just spay the female that. how I got my dogs like there happy togther they both can have fun and not get puppies.
dog is part of your family. so if you would not neuter son why would you neuter the dog is it because you don't have time to watch him outside will then you should not get a male dog. get a female spaying is ok. you know what the best thing to do is get a male and female but just spay the female that. how I got my dogs like there happy togther they both can have fun and not get puppies.
Neutering and spaying can reduce the risk of certain health issues in pets, such as uterine infections, testicular cancer, stumble guys and certain reproductive-related diseases. It can also decrease the risk stumble guys online of roaming behavior in males, which can lead to accidents and injuries.
Smokers World HW Kros Disposable Vape is a convenient and user-friendly vaping device designed for simplicity and portability. These Kros Disposable Vape come pre-filled with e-liquid and are equipped with an integrated battery, eliminating the need for charging or refilling. The HW Kros Disposable Vape is known for its compact and lightweight design, making it an ideal choice for on-the-go vaping.
Featuring a draw-activated mechanism, users can enjoy a hassle-free vaping experience without the need for buttons or complicated settings. The device is often disposable, making it suitable for both beginners and experienced vapers who prefer a straightforward and no-maintenance solution. With a variety of available flavors, the Smokers World HW Kros Disposable Vape aims to provide a convenient and enjoyable vaping experience for users seeking simplicity and convenience.
It's not morally wrong but I wonder what animals would say to each other in the vet's waiting room if they could speak? Probably something like...
Three dogs are sitting in the waiting room at the vet's when they strike up a conversation.
The black Lab turns to the chocolate Lab and says, "So why are you here?"
The Chocolate Lab replies, "I'm a pisser. I piss on everything.. ..the sofa, the curtains, the cat, the kids. But the final straw was last night when I pissed in the middle of my owner's bed."
The black Lab says, "So what is the vet going to do?"
"Gonna cut my nuts off," comes the reply from the chocolate Lab. "They reckon it'll calm me down."
The black Lab then turns to the yellow lab and asks, "Why are you here?"
The yellow Lab says, "I'm a digger I dig under fences, dig up flowers and trees. I dig just for the hell of it. When I'm inside, I dig up the carpets. But I went over the line last night when I dug a great big hole in my owners couch."
"So what are they going to do to you?" the black Lab inquires.
"Looks like I'm losing my nuts too, the dejected yellow Lab says.
The yellow Lab then turns to the black Lab and asks, "Why are you here?"
"I'm a humper," the black Lab says. "I'll hump anything. I'll hump the cat, a pillow, the table, whatever. I want to hump everything I see. Yesterday, my owner had just got out of the shower and was bending down to dry her toes. I just couldn't help myself. I hopped on her back and started hammering away."
The yellow and chocolate Labs exchange a sad glance and says, "So, nuts off for you too, huh?
The black Lab says ...."No, I'm here to get my nails clipped." ;)
No, it's not morally wrong to neuter or spay dogs and cats. Every organization I can think of advises you do just that. The unwanted, uncared for population is so out of hand that we cannot afford not to neuter as a precaution to more unwanted pets.
I disagree with the reasoning that it's not morally wrong "because every organization i can think of advises it" so therefore it must be ok. This is known as the bandwagon effect and is a slippery slope to build views of morality on.
I think they are referring to organizations that are experts in the field and that this is more of an appeal to authority than just an ad populum argument.
No, it's not morally wrong to neuter or spay dogs and cats. Every organization I can think of advises you do just that. The unwanted, uncared for population is so out of hand that we cannot afford not to neuter as a precaution to more unwanted pets.
Omg haven't you heard of China's one child policy?! Well I will tell you about it. A few years ago there was a policy in China that each family was only allowed one baby. The women were forced not to have another one, and if they did, that child was not allowed to be recognised as part of the country. Class dismissed.
Norway doesn't spay/neuter their pets and they have no problem with overpopulation each owner is responsible for their own dog (more about it here: https://jennifermargulis.net/norwegians-believe-spaying-or-neutering- a-dog-is-cruel/) ) besides couldn't the exact same argument be made for humanity ? would you just say it's the "ethical choice" if an alien race came to our planet and cut off our genitals to stop overpopulation ?
No, it's morally wrong to adopt a pet and mistreat it and abuse it. It is also morally wrong to put these animals to death because people can't take care of them and leave them to starve. Why bring new animals if they are going to get abused. Also, stray animals have diseases and rabies can kill your child. Keep these pets under control.
It is not morally wrong to spay and neuter your pets. What's morally wrong is to let animal populations rise out of control. It's morally wrong to let animals live sad lives of starvation and disease. We domesticated these animals and now it is our responsibility to make sure they are taken care of.
also similar logic could be used against humans, if an alien race came and enslaved us would you be fine with them cutting of your genitalia for "your own good" ?