Ethics of Neutering

Post Reply New Topic

Interesting, that's the exact same reasoning all those nazi soldiers and doctors used to make themselves feel better about gassing all of those autistic children and sterilizing all of those "economically underprivileged" or "mentally/emotionally challenged" at the start of ww2; "the cleansing".

I love history. Especially history that helps us determine why the world sucks. Major events like ww2 kicking off are very important.
They teach you that propaganda even in college that hitler invading poland started ww2 but that is not true.

WW2 started as an economic rebound project. Nazi's started killing their own people for the economic benefit and justified it because of economic burdens they were experiencing. They told themselves all sorts of stupid things they couldn't confirm. Like, "unaware of the world" and "can't possibly have a quality life" and "idiots, without feeling or perception of reality" to feel like they didn't experience the suffering that these supreme f***s would feel if it were them.

That's as stupid as saying "my autistic child can't experience joy or reasoning". You are stupid if you believe that, get butthurt all you wish but doesn't change the truth of it...

Someone on this topic says "they are unaware that they are neutered". I say that person, "you are unaware that you are stupid" and generally morally decrepit.

I agree with the person who says "humans are animals, animals can't be owned"... I agree with that 100%, my being resonates with it... so what gives humans power over other animals including themselves? Their uncanny ability for conscience quell. Using pseudo logic to justify their disgusting actions because of their inflated, stupid ego. Is what it is.

*Answer is "violence" for those who can't "read between the lines".

Removing from any living being one of it's fundamental driving forces for living - reproduction - forcibly, even if a "doctor" (puke) does it, is an atrocious act of violence that cannot be taken back. It is a detestible thing and you are known in the spirit world for doing it. you and your children's children's children will be cursed for it, this is NATURE'S rule... you can't "invent" your way out of it. In fact, history clearly proves that every invention credited to civilization has brought us closer (rather than creating greater distance) to extinction. Ironically, this can be proven with the complications we have encountered since the standardizing of "modern medicine". For every unnatural act we do, there is a natural consequence... Also, for every natural act we do, there is a natural consequence... If we want our natural consequences to naturally be good, we stop competing with nature for godhood, otherwise, we all suffer and die miserably. is what it is.

you are human animal. you are not a god. you are no supreme being, you are human being. this is lower than maggot and cockroach, even. realize it. fix it.

My three dogs are my companions.They share my life,food,couch and bed.They get to run free in the woods and go to the creek daily.All are fixed becuse there isn't way I could find homes or afford all the puppies they would produce.Ive had dogs that were not fixed and even trying to keep them separate from the opposite sex didn't work out at times.They escaped or another dog got in.So for me it's more ethical to fix my girls than to haul off loads of puppies to a shelter.
Yeah the Nazis did lots of medical experiments,but they did more euthanizing.Thats what I want to prevent,unwanted pets being put down.
Show me proof I'm going to be cursed for it by nature.Nature has never cursed me,blesses me everyday I wake up.

Animal behavior/cognition has been my special interest since I was a kid. Whenever these types of discussions occur, I'm always amazed at the amount of people who seem to get their information on our non-human friend from cartoons and Disney movies.

I'll take science over folks who project their human feeling and thoughts on non-human animals.

If you insist:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/an ... ous-beings

http://scienceline.org/2015/03/do-anima ... ciousness/

http://www.livescience.com/39481-time-t ... ience.html

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/12/do ... sness.html

What does YOUR "science" say? Why do you subscribe to it unless it keeps your conscience at bay?

So, the typical response is that neutering a pet is the right thing to do because otherwise it will get pregnant, then there will be too many of that pet, and their descendants will be miserable because overpopulation. However, neutering just comes across of a fundamentally immoral act to me, and I've figured out why: it's the nature of animals to reproduce, they WANT to reproduce, and you're denying that from them in a very invasive manner by altering their anatomy. It's wrong to do to a person, so should it also be wrong to do to an animal? However, if the animals breed out of control their descendants won't be able to breed due to a lack of resources, so that's no good by much of the same reasoning. So how is this ethical dilemma resolved?

Better yet, stop getting pets at all. The breeders will go out of business and the population of domesticated animals will become extinct. Problem solved.

They don't need to be sterilized either. Nature always restores balance, although that balance would probably come sooner and more easily if humans got out of the way and re-introduced/stopped destroying the natural predators.

It's not an either/or position.

Animals aren't just "meat machines," but they're not little people in fur suits either. If we really want to go down that rabbit hole, if it's "immoral" to sterilize pets, then it should also be "immoral" to step on insects, or to take antibiotics seeing as how we simply can't draw the line between humans and non-humans.

yes, it is morally wrong to intentionally end the life of another living being who's life you are not responsible for giving. It is traditionally known as "murder", technically. adopting strict "respect for the living" and "equal rights" practices in the nearest future is absolutely, fundamentally essential in preventing the extinction of the human species. But, economic and political GAMES are so much more important. "humans are the top of the food chain" Puke

That thinking has us at the bottom of the ethical totem pole; below maggots, pigs, cockroaches and everything else we make war on and kill ourselves (and children) in the process.
stupid humans.

you must be "very high functioning", you seem to be lesser gifted with "reality vision" and more susceptible to indoctrination than most on the spectrum I have encountered...

*edit, hey, I thought you were someone else I was ripping on. My mistake but your argument and reasoning IS foolish. Read "Myth of Human Supremacy" by Derrick Jensen if you want a breakdown on the scientific proof that contends starkly with your reasoning.

They don't want to reproduce. They want to have sex, and they have no knowledge that having sex can result in reproduction. Removing the reproductive organs relieves them of the desire to have sex. When you neuter male cats and dogs, you eliminate the variable of sexual frustration from their lives, and with cats, you also reduce the desire of the male to roam and fight. When you spay female cats and dogs, you reduce their risk of developing cancer and eliminate their risk of dying from birth complications.

I have no idea who/what you are referring to.



How do you know they don't want to reproduce? Just because they don't understand the causality doesn't mean the desire isn't there in some form. The purpose of sex is not for pleasure, but to reproduce. The rest of it I've previously covered with my firm anti-hedonism stance.

Because to want to reproduce, they would have to have a concept of reproduction. The desire nature uses to get mammals to reproduce is sexual desire.

No, I didn't.

Speculating on what animals "want," and then using our own desires and expectations to answer that question is anthropomorphism in a nutshell.

I still haven't seen any evidence that animals "want" to reproduce, or that they're unduly distraught when that option is taken away from them.

They care for their young, do they not? That has nothing to do with sex. You also missed all my non-hedonistic reasoning.

That also has nothing to do with wanting to reproduce.

Yes, it does, because young are the result of reproduction.

Cats and dogs don't know that. With respect to reproduction and child rearing, they know two things.

1. They want to get it on...they don't know why.
2. The female wants to care for her offspring. She doesn't know why.
They probably never even ponder the why.

Here is an interesting observation. When one of the cats that lived in my house was pregnant, she went around and rounded up all of her toys, and put them in a nest she had made in a bag on the floor. That was her maternal instinct kicking in.

Female cats and dogs who have recently given birth have also been known to "foster" baby animals of other species. They act on instinctive compulsions and emotions with respect to reproduction and offspring rearing, and don't have the capacity to equate it with species propagation.