“Neuter your ex” campaigns popped up across the country this year, from Maryland to Michigan to Washington state. Getting back at an ex can now mean neutering or spaying a cat because “some things shouldn’t breed,” as one New Jersey animal shelter put it.
Why can’t we give them the pill contraceptive? Does progesterone not work on animals, or are pet owners just sadists that love mutilating their pets?
I doubt very much they would agree with their characterization as sadists, but I also doubt they would be willing to pay for perpetual-upkeep progesterone, (or whatever the animal equivalent might be) for their animal children. It’s a wonderful intersection of convenient and cheap, and because animals are defined as being unable to consent (without the restrictions that would normally impose on a human subject), you don’t have to worry about pesky things like morality or ethical restrictions. By grabthar’s hammer, what a savings.
I see you’ve never met a cat before
That would be a masochist, but yes, cats are notorious sadists.
Pets don’t like taking pills, so it’s probably more harmful to force them to do so than to do a one time surgery. Also, that only works on female cats, so your male cat could still father kittens.
We have two cats from the same litter (got from neighbor for free, they still get to see their mother and original human family on occasion), one male and one female, and we got them spayed and neutered. It was horrible watching them suffer for a couple weeks, but I think it’ll be better than force feeding the girl birth control and preventing the boy from ever interacting with a female cat. I don’t know if cats do incest, but I absolutely do not want that to happen either, so the girl cat going into heat (not sure if they still do if using birth control) and not be able to get that particular itch scratched, except by her brother.
So I think it makes complete sense to sterilize cats. They can’t consent on their own, so owners need to make that decision for them, just like with surgeries for children under the age of legal consent.
I take it you are also for FGM then as
Wow, that’s… quite the leap.
It’s merely what you said. If you want to rephrase your original statement when you said parents have the right to force any surgery on their children, I’d be glad.
But it’s not. I said parents have the obligation to decide what surgeries their children need.
For example with tonsilitis, a parent could agree to a tonsillectomy or choose to treat symptoms until they can decide for themselves. Or on another end of the spectrum, allow or disallow gender affirming surgeries before they’re of legal age.
What’s the essential difference between those and FGM? And anyway, I disagree that a parent should even have that power. Medical decisions should be left to doctors, parents shouldn’t have the power to jeopardise their own children’s health.
Those are medical procedures. FGM is entirely elective and serves no practical purpose, aside from religious nonsense.
And medical decisions should absolutely not be left to doctors, that opens up a ton of ethical issues. Doctors, however, shouldn’t be allowed (and certainly not required) to perform an unethical medical procedure.