fixing animals

[JoeVice]

i think its sick and demoralizing. what do you guys and gals (norsemaiden *kisses*) think?

 

[Blowtus]

It would be nice if you'd deign to tell us what you're talking about, and perhaps list a reason or two for the personal opinions stated

 

[JoeVice]

actually, i'd like you to tell me what you think first, in light of the vibe of my initial post, as i'm not so good at that philisophical stuff. i guess its a naive semantic issue.

 

[waif]

I really couldn't care less, I think the world has much bigger issues and shouldn't be wasting time and money on shmucks like PETA.

 

[JoeVice]

i do volunteer work for the pta, and i don't appreciate that.:Smug:

 

[Blowtus]

I don't know what 'fixing animals' means... hence the question.

 

[JoeVice]

oh, lol...its american slang for stripping animals of their sexuality so we can keep them as civil pets, kinda like abortion.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

oh, lol...its american slang for stripping animals of their sexuality so we can keep them as civil pets, kinda like abortion.

No, "fixing" refers to the spaying and neutering of pets to prevent them from reproducing. Abortion is the termination of offspring anytime after conception and prior to birth.

I support the practice for a number of reasons. First of all, there are millions of potential pets in the United States living in shelters with little to no prospect of ever being adopted. Bleeding hearts will object to the mass euthenasia of these animals*, but simply releasing them isn't an option either. By spaying and neutering all non-breeding stock, the feral population can be kept under wraps, which not only limits the intraspecies spread of disease, but also prevents the destruction of indigenous bird and rodent populations.

Fixing pets has also been proven to increase their health and longevity, as well as reduce their aggression toward other animals and humans. Fixed animals also are less likely to be bullied by other animals as they no longer produce the hormones responsible for stimulating aggressive responses from potential competitors.

Free of the urge to reproduce, fixed animals are also at an almost infinitely lower risk for the acquisition of any sexually transmited diseases that may affect their species.

* Ironically, PETA euthanizes more animals than any other "humane" society.

 

[JoeVice]

No, "fixing" refers to the spaying and neutering of pets to prevent them from reproducing. Abortion is the termination of offspring anytime after conception and prior to birth.

I support the practice for a number of reasons. First of all, there are millions of potential pets in the United States living in shelters with little to no prospect of ever being adopted. Bleeding hearts will object to the mass euthenasia of these animals*, but simply releasing them isn't an option either. By spaying and neutering all non-breeding stock, the feral population can be kept under wraps, which not only limits the intraspecies spread of disease, but also prevents the destruction of indigenous bird and rodent populations.

Fixing pets has also been proven to increase their health and longevity, as well as reduce their aggression toward other animals and humans. Fixed animals also are less likely to be bullied by other animals as they no longer produce the hormones responsible for stimulating aggressive responses from potential competitors.

Free of the urge to reproduce, fixed animals are also at an almost infinitely lower risk for the acquisition of any sexually transmited diseases that may affect their species.

* Ironically, PETA euthanizes more animals than any other "humane" society.

peta kills animals because they aren't living fully and would be better off dead. i'm sure the animals appreciate this. an animal thats un-fixed, gets bullied, and has disease probably ESPECIALLY appreciates it, whereas a fixed animal, not so much. because, when you fix an animal, it takes away more than their juicer. it takes sex out of their spririt. (its a chakrah thing )

however, i think it might be appropriate in some cases. perhaps when the ill-effects of not fixing take over. i think there just be a scientific experiment done on this.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Under this logic it would also be appropriate to kill any of PETA's members who are not living fully, especially the non-neutered ones.

By fixing an animal (or human) though, you simply remove the gonads of a male, or the gonads, uterus and tubes of a female. The penis, or vagina and vulva are left alone so the animals still retain their "sexuality," especially those that were neutered later in life. The main difference is that their symptoms of aggression are reduced and they no longer feel the urge to procreate.

Personally, I think fixing is appropriate in more than just "some cases" though, as it has been shown to improve the quality and longevity of the animal's life.

I don't understand your final sentence.

 

[Blowtus]

Is it immoral to pick flowers?

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Not as long as you eat them.

 

[waif]

oh, lol...its american slang for stripping animals of their sexuality so we can keep them as civil pets, kinda like abortion.

Not at all like abortion. Like a vasectomy.

peta kills animals because they aren't living fully and would be better off dead.

Who are we to decide what is best for others?*

I support the practice for a number of reasons. First of all, there are millions of potential pets in the United States living in shelters with little to no prospect of ever being adopted. Bleeding hearts will object to the mass euthenasia of these animals*, but simply releasing them isn't an option either. By spaying and neutering all non-breeding stock, the feral population can be kept under wraps, which not only limits the intraspecies spread of disease, but also prevents the destruction of indigenous bird and rodent populations.

And also nobody needs all those kittehs.


*I have no issue with killing animals, but someplace like PETA that objects on moral grounds definitely has some 'splainin' to do.

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

I support it, i guess. Maybe not in a perfect world, but what they hell would we do with all those cats/ dogs? Stick 'em in the pound? Set them free? Eat them?

 

[JoeVice]

Maybe not in a perfect world, but what they hell would we do with all those cats/ dogs? Stick 'em in the pound? Set them free?

shit, why not, people put up bird feeders/houses.
:Smokin:

 

[Thoth-Amon]

if by 'fixing' animals you are referring to spaying and neutering then yes it is a good idea. we should do it to humans as well... in a few generations we could have a stable population size

 

[JoeVice]

"we should do it to humans as well..."

uke:

 

[Thoth-Amon]

"we should do it to humans as well..."

uke:

let's face it people aren't going to stop fucking and most are too stupid to use birth control and overpopulation is the cause of many if not most of the serious problems facing our world... if we could implement spaying and neutering on a worldwide scale then we could stop overpopulation and hence stop or slow down other problems (such as global warming). granted this idea is a major violation of human rights but it may just be the lesser of two evils

 

[Pyro_Fish]

spaying and neutering humans

this thought needs to be its own seperate thread

 

[Pyro_Fish]

let's face it people aren't going to stop fucking and most are too stupid to use birth control and overpopulation is the cause of many if not most of the serious problems facing our world... if we could implement spaying and neutering on a worldwide scale then we could stop overpopulation and hence stop or slow down other problems (such as global warming). granted this idea is a major violation of human rights but it may just be the lesser of two evils

this would be a good first post for a thread