Ethics of Neutering

Post Reply New Topic

It was your choice to alter your body. Big difference between voluntary body modification and forced mutilation.

So if humans should be fixed after having two kids, should animals be allowed to have one litter before being fixed?

Speaking literally, though, the ethics of neutering apply to humans, whether or not that sounds sensationalist.

So basically you think animals should be allowed to breed at will becuse sex might be enjoyable the few times a year they do it.You know people still drown unwanted kittens and puppies in bags?
What do you suggest we do with all these unwanted animals??
Please volunteer at a shelter for a few months.

It is my dream for the city to overrun by Nature, overrun with cats and dogs everywhere, and to topple the tyranny of the Majority and the tyranny of Modernity.

If shelters don't ultimately care about animal welfare, why aren't they just being gassed, outrightly.

I assume that there is a logical, utilitarian answer to my question.

Animals don't possess nearly the intelligence to decide for themselves on this matter and making the argument that thier right are violated by spaying/neutering them is a bit much, to put it as politely as I can. We have to decide this for them and as a whole they are much better off for it.

Shelters are full of unwanted and stray dogs and cats and as an active Humane Society volunteer i get to see this first hand all the time. We are a no-kill shelter but we "fix" all of the dogs and cats that are up for adoption without exception. The city and county shelters do not have the luxury of being no-kill. I have adopted two dogs that would have been euthed if I hadn't.

No. If you go back to the first post I had my actual argument, I'm not going to repeat it. It has nothing to do with pleasure, as I'm very much against hedonistic utilitarianism. If you can't understand that, there is no way you'll be able to be able to tackle my argument as so far all your responses have been based around the mindset. I also addressed all your counter-arguments back in the first post, I already made it very clear I'm completely aware of the problems with out of control breeding, so you're coming across as really ignorant. You also didn't answer my last question, which had to do with pro-creation, not sex being enjoyable.



Why is it "a bit much"? If you were to do the same thing to a person, it would be violating their bodily rights. Would you be okay with someone just chopping off your balls without consent? The point I'm making is you need to make an argument for why it's okay to do for animals, but not for people. The intelligence aspect is approaching a solution, but the issue there is the disability rights have shown the lack of intelligence isn't a lack of intrinsic value. Nowadays it's illegal to forcibly sterilize a mentally disabled person, even though it was common place in the past. I guess one argument that could be made is that if someone wasn't intelligent enough to make such a choice, other people would be intelligent enough to just choose not to have sex with them, whereas with animals with animals it's going to happen because all animals are on the same footing, but then it would still be an evil, it's just a matter of neutering being the lesser evil.



I could get down with that.

Which question,the one about animals having one litter than being fixed?Thats up to the "owner" and if they can find homes for the animals.Hopefully they aren't just breeding them for a profit.
Whether or not they have the right to procreate is sort of moot.Simple becuse the shelters are full of animals that got to experience that right.The results are there to see.The death chambers at kill shelters are full of animals that are the products of animals procreating.
So you are trying to make a point that we have no right to "mutilate" another being without consent.Its a nice concept,but not workable with domesticated animals.They cannot care for themselves.We created the problem by first domesticating them.Think of the quote from The Little Prince,
" Men have forgotten this truth.But you must not forget it.You become responsible,forever,for what you have tamed."
Antione De Saint-Exupery

So ethically,we will never agree on this subject.I think is is ethical to prevent future suffering.In places strays are fixed,micro chipped and vaccinated.I beleive this is done in Greece.
As for me being really ignorant,lol.Could say the same about you.That's your opnion,you are entitled to it.Try to debate without hurling insults.You are very young and more idealistic than ignorant.I certainly have more life experience than you,and most likely have seem more animals suffer.I'm going to wager that you live in the suburbs.So you've never seen horses in a field starving,constant feral cats and dogs that folks have dropped off to starve.People with a pack of mangy,flea ridden starved dogs chained up that are never played with.
Life experience is knowledge,in twenty or so years you may find you have changed your mind on the subject.
And the best way to aquatint yourself with this suffering is to work at a shelter like Raptor does.


Off course there is natural population control,male cats will eat the kittens if they get a chance.

So people decide for themselves if they want to breed, but for animals it is decided by their owner (no quotes, what you are saying implies they are in fact an owner). Okay.

The point is not moot. Declaring the point as moot is just a way of avoiding thinking about hard problems, you haven't even begun to address what I'm actually talking about. It's obvious your mind is too set in your believes to even consider the question. Because you are so close-minded, you've completely misinterpreted my position on everything, assuming I'm ignorant rather than actually trying to understand the ideas I'm getting at. You haven't haven't contributed anything I didn't already know (I'm going to spell it out to you because it still hasn't crossed your mind yet, I do support the policy of neutering animals and I have worked in care shelters in the past, I've even directly assisted in a sterilization operation for an area, I've kinda been playing devil's advocate, but that's only because there is in fact an ethical dilemma here, and it can't just be dismissed like you are trying to do); The problem isn't that I've naive idealist, it's that you fundamentally don't understand this discussion because you are treating it empirically rather than rationally when it was always supposed to be an intellectual conversation, not a pragmatic one. So if you're not going to try being more open minded or are unable to do so I'd appreciate if you just left the conversation as you're just clogging it up with dredge.

Feral animal populations show that many domesticated animals can in fact care for themselves, and we do sterilize these feral populations. Also, the notion that just because someone can't care for themselves means they lack certain rights is not only fundamentally wrong on level, but it's nonsensical as it implies the very idea of rights is nonsensical, because humans in general can't care for themselves, they are all dependent on other people. It is not inaccurate to say we have domesticated ourselves, we display the same neotony as most domesticated animals do. Yes, we have responsibility, but responsibility does not entail oppression, even if you argue the oppression is for their own good.

There are far more important thing than to prevent suffering. By trying to prevent suffering we have created far greater evils, sacrificing happiness for mediocrity.

Ignorant is not an opinion. I know you are ignorant because you made claims about my position which were blatantly incorrect. When you're wrong, you're just wrong. Now, LOOKING ignorant is an opinion. Now quit it with your ageism, quantity of experiences does not replace quality.

"I'm going to wager that you live in the suburbs." Well you wagered wrong. Right now I live in a dorm, so that's a completely different life style any rural, suburban, or urban, but prior to that I've lived in several big, dirty cities that are half rural like Jakarta and Addis Ababa as a teenager and young adult (Addis is where I'm going to be going home to for Christmas). As a child I did live the suburbs of Cleveland, but that was a wrong time ago. ".So you've never seen horses in a field starving,constant feral cats and dogs that folks have dropped off to starve." Haha, no. I'm willing to bet you've never seen as many feral cats as there are in Jakarta. In all honesty I like the constant presence of feral cats there, Western cities feel much too dead and sterile. If nothing else I'd like to see people with lifestock like in Addis. And of course you're probably just going to be horrified by how I support such the existence of such animals when they are suffering. What the West doesn't understand is that life IS suffering, but it's worth it anyway. There is beauty in it.

Then most of your interactions have been with feral populations of domestic animals,sure some have a quality of life.In case you don't know I'm Buddist,so yes I strive for the elmination of all suffering for all beings.
As for me clogging the thread,um,that's you.With your self righteousness.
I live in a remote area,I see life and death everyday around me.The quality and quality of my life experiences cannot be judged by you.
I can see the use of feral cats in a large urban area,it's already been altered by mankinds presence and there are usually large rodent poulations that the cats can sustain their self with.So no,that wouldn't horrify me.But I see no beauty in any animal starving,if you think that's a lovely sight than,well....you've got problems.
So you have made claims about me that are untrue,does that make you yourself rather ignorant?
If I feel like replying I will.

This is not about my personal experience or yours, this is about the very concept and always has been, so I'd appreciate if you drop that argument completely. I was never judging your life experiences (beyond concluding you have not lived outside of the West), I only commented on your ideas. Frankly, I don't care about your life experiences, and I don't care if you care about mine.

Western Buddhism is very different from Eastern Buddhism, I'm personally familiar with both. The Western and Eastern ideas of what suffering is are VERY different, I've lived in both cultures. I am NOT a Buddhist, so I do NOT believe in the elimination of suffering, but rather just relief from it.

How could I be clogging my own thread? I'm not being self-righteous, I just understand what I mean better than you do. Have you ever studied the theory of philosophy? If you haven't, that would explain a lot of the misunderstandings you are having.

If you support feral population is urban areas, then why not advocate for unwanted animals being turned out on the streets rather than euthanized?

It's not the starving of the animals which is beautiful, it's the animal and it's existence, which includes suffering as suffering is an integral part of life. I know I worded it poorly. And I could just as easily say you've got problems for saying people should be sterilized after having two children.

"So you have made claims about me that are untrue,does that make you yourself rather ignorant?" In regard to where I was wrong, yes.

Not Western Buddism.The Nyingma tradition from Tibet.It is very different from Western practice.The Khentrul at the center is originally from a large monastery in Tibet.I admit to occasionally breaking my vows,I use bt dunks to kill mosquito larvae, sprayed some organic insecticide in the garden and flea drops on the dogs.
I've studied philosophy on my own since I was a teen,that does not mean I will come to the same conclusions that you do.Im not sure why you think I am clogging your thread,my posts are not that long and I am sincere about my
beliefs.I suppose you can't clog your own thread.lol
I think all life is beautiful and nowhere did I say I want any animal to be euthanized.That's why I think sterilizing animals is ethical the right thing to do.I have signed some petitions to protect feral colonies of animals.But in the case of a place like the Galapagos, where non native feral animals are destroying the native flora and fauna,then I have to go with irradicating the invasive species.I don't like the idea of mass killing the animals.Certainly not their fault,and I'm sure they are enjoying their lives.If there was another way I'd be all for it.

The feral animals that show up in rural areas usually get shot, they are hungry and attack people's livestock.Its very difficult to be in a situation where you have to take a life to protect your animals.Not the fault of the hungry animal,but the person that tossed it out.Its just sad.
I mentioned the stray dogs in Greece,I have no problem with feral animals in cities if they are happy and healthy.Ive seen photos of the dogs and they looked to be in good shape for street animals.
I'm sure the sight of all those cats is impressive,but so are all the songbirds here.In cities the cats could keep the pigeons in check,here they'd eat the warblers and other unique species that live in the woods.And the chipmunks,voles,moles,moths,butterflies,dragonflies,lizards,frogs etc..That's what the cat I had years ago did,even with a full food bowl.It was his nature to do so.I was never angry with him for this.More sad,for the life of the little wild creatures are important also.
It's fine to say I have problems wanting to sterilize people for population control,most people get very defensive about the right to reproduce.
Never have lived outside the West.You are correct on that.
It wouldn't bother me one bit to see chickens or goats running around a city.I'd enjoy that.

Not sure if you practice Nyingma in the same manner as the Tibetans because I don't know you and I have little personal expirience with Tibetan Buddhism, but your attitude has a distinctly western flair. Guess you can't separate religion from culture.

Studying philosophy on your own isn't going to get you the same thing as studying philosophy academically, as you aren't going to get the background theory about philosophy itself as the modern academic discipline. That's what I was getting at.

By clogging I really mean derailing, as none of this has anything to do with what I was actually trying to discuss, and you keep reiterating the same things, thinking the issue was that I didn't understand the problems with uncontrolled populations due to lack of experience rather than trying to start up an alternative ethical approach, so little further discussion occurred.

I didn't articulate it fully, but the point I was making was that the reason the kill shelters is because people don't want the animals. Of course uncontrollable breeding will eventually result in that situation if there are no limiting factors, but when you said you had no problems with feral cats in urban populations it leads to the contradiction, as to resolve that dilemma it would either imply that station does not result in uncontrollable breeding (which was what my comment was referring to), or that uncontrollable breeding isn't inherently bad.

With the eradication of invasive animals things, I think such eradication of is wrong, but it's less wrong than letting than invasive animals eradicate the native animals, so it ought to be done if there is no other option, (but of course humans are hypocrites, and do nothing to get rid of the most invasive mammal of all; themsleves.) With neutering the issue is more complex, as the difference between neutering and not neutering leads to two different types of evils, not merely different quantities of evil. In one case there is the evil of violation, in the other there is the evil of starvation (both sides are a bit more complicated than that). I'd personally guilty accept the sterilization is the better option, but what I'm mad about is people not even thinking about the other possibility and the full moral ramifications of what they do when taken to it's logical conclusions.

Nothing really to say to the rest of it other than that sometimes nature is b*tch, and it would be great if less natural tendencies lead to destruction.

It's a problem that we have created with the animals,because we do assume that we have dominance over them.
To me it's similar to a small child that needs an operation,the child obviously isn't going to want this,so an adult makes the choice.Im not saying that feral animals don't have feelings or enjoy life,they do.But we have placed them in this situation where they are unwanted.We should do what we can to make their life as happy as possible.So that's my take on sterilization,to keep the population under control,prevent starvation and disease.Cats do seem to fare better than dogs in cities,just more food for them to catch.The dogs usually wind up eating garbage.Since stupid humans are going to continue to abandon unwanted animals,there's just not going to be an end to it.Even with natural predation and some getting smushed by cars,or worse.People can be incredibly cruel to stray animals.
Maybe just turn what's left of Dertoit into one huge feral animal sanctuary.

Right before the Olympics in Rio,someone,the city?Or animal control?was setting out poison for the feral cats.I found this disgusting and did sign a petition against it.The local people had been feeding the cats,but became fearful of putting food out since they didn't want someone to put poison in the food and kill the cats and lord knows what else.Family dog, curious toddler?! No one cared about the cats till the games,and then they just wanted them gone.In cities where you have a large impoverished area the cats would be helpful in keeping vermin in check,so in that case they would help keep rodent bourne disease in control.
I'd certainly rather have feral cats than the bubonic plague.

Tibetan Bhuddism is more a philosophy than a religion and I assure you I have set thru many hours of teachings waiting to hear the translator interpret Tibetan into English.Of course I don't get college credits for these,but those are just marks on paper.You get empowerments,not credits.lol I also have some of those marks on paper from a very short time at college.There is nothing wrong with being self taught.One of my art teachers thought it was better to learn on one's own than from another artist.You are more likely to find your own technique and truth instead of what the teacher fills your head with.

My beliefs are not that Western,unless you include Native American beliefs.I found a huge wolf spider on my pillow one night and I carefully caught him and took him outside.Most in the West would have sprayed him(her?) with Raid.They would have felt fear,I thought it was cool, but didn't want to sleep with it in the bed with me.I don't kill the venomous snakes in the yard,I enjoy their presence and it does help with mindfulness.Most here would behead the snake in fear instead of accepting their presence as a natural part of life.I would love to attend the serpent festival in India,but that's unlikely to ever happen.

No it is not ethical, plain and simple, but people standardized it and just find "logical" reasons to justify it.

It's really like the reasoning ("health benefits", "hygiene"...etc) behind circumcision of male human babies.

Afraid of overpopulation? Get only one pet, don't get another one of the opposite sex, don't make them contact others of the same species.

Afraid for them to get cancer? That's like saying let's remove girls' boobs and ovaries to prevent cancer.

Afraid of them marking in your house? Don't get a big pet if you live in a small apartment and don't live in a house with a garden - parrots, finches and small rodents are apartment-friendly pets for instance.

For apartment dwellers and people with well fenced backyards it's easy to keep animals apart.Some cats and dogs never go outside in their life,so there would be no reason to get them fixed.If they are small they could be carried and never be in contact with another animal of opposite sex.
It's not that simple in a rural area,sometimes I have packs of hunting dogs come thru.Two of my dogs are big,so pee pads are out of the question.I also don't have the funds to fence my yard,and it would have to be a tall fence.I have a Catahoula Leopard Cur,they can climb.A male dog can smell a female in heat for up to five miles away and most dogs here do not live in fenced yards.

To me the risk of one of my dogs getting knocked up isn't worth it.I would most likely not be able to find homes for the pups and I can't afford anymore large dogs.Both the big ones are rescues,the small corgi is the only dog that I intentionally aquired.The Black Lab I found starving on the side of the road,I just couldn't handle seeing her that way.The Cathoula was from a litter of ten that a family member's dog had.
I needed the dogs becuse the deer were eating EVERYTHING in the yard and a black bear showed up and trampled the black raspberry patch and ate all the berries,raccoons carrying off all the fruit from the trees.They can eat all the peaches' in just a few nights.I'd rather the dogs run them off than kill them.Most rural people keep dogs for this reason and for home protection.