On animal rights and sterilization: the other side
I believe many people would like that animals have rights and that there would exist laws concerning their welfare. In fact in some countries this exists and I'm also in favor of that. But It also looks like that the most active participants of this are animal owners (I mean, the domestic ones).
I should warn now that I don't have pets, that my mother always told me pets should be free and have their own lives, not their owner's lives and I also don't stand for the sentimental bullshit that some people come to me saying 'you don't know the joy of having a pet' or whatever. I know people who owns animals and In this question (as in all) I try to be rational and pragmatic when possible.
I find most confusing when people who speak for animal rights and that they are sentient beings, thus possessing will, are capable of sterilize them, some without any moral or ethical problems. I mean, isn't that hypocrisy? To say they have a will to choose a path, however they should submit to their owner's will and be sterile? Doesn't sound right to me. Of course, what most pet owner's I know would say: 'it's a matter of public health'. Well, I agree, the society is more important as collective entity than any individual entity, and thus even in life and death the society is more important. In fact, speaking in Darwinistic terms, the sterilization of an animal or human is a genetic homicide. So, in terms of public health, because the society is large enough to have a power of life or death over an individual (even if the society does not enforce it), it can say 'sterilize those animals'. Nevertheless, I don't think this is the motivation pet owner's have in mind when sterilizing them. I think this public health thing acts more like an excuse than a motivation, a pretext to the fact that it would be nice not having the cat pissing the floor to declare territory when in puberty. And who wants to have the dog horny around, or being afraid of suddenly realizing the bely of our female animal is increasing. Yeah, people don't want to be responsible for those things, those 'natural' things. All they want is a fur ball that moves and is funny. They don't really respect animals nor their natural will (and genetic mission), they want fur balls, and they will go to the point of saying 'my pet is more happy in being with me, even if he is sterile, than of living on the street. It's better for him.'. I have heard this sentence in the past, and I'm not kidding. These owner's are totally sensible for animal suffering, but not with animal rights. Who says otherwise is being hypocrite. Come on, nobody in it's perfect mind would think 'maybe I should put my son sterile, if I do this, he will never have puberty problems'. Having said this, if a owner just comes here saying 'you can't compare a children with a pet', then I hope he also says he doesn't agree with this whole thing on animal rights.
I could go on, but I've just exposed my point on the subject, and maybe I will continue on another day. But I must say that for me, the only difference in pet sterilization (due to the unwilling of the owner to cope with the animal puberty and nature), and the infamous 'bonsai cats' (some serious sick shit of having cats inside bottles during their growth to have them become small for the rest of their life's), is on the animal suffering, because on the philosophical question of respecting the animal will and nature, it's the same: these people want fur balls, not animals.
My advice: let the animals be free and live their own lifes.
I should warn now that I don't have pets, that my mother always told me pets should be free and have their own lives, not their owner's lives and I also don't stand for the sentimental bullshit that some people come to me saying 'you don't know the joy of having a pet' or whatever. I know people who owns animals and In this question (as in all) I try to be rational and pragmatic when possible.
I find most confusing when people who speak for animal rights and that they are sentient beings, thus possessing will, are capable of sterilize them, some without any moral or ethical problems. I mean, isn't that hypocrisy? To say they have a will to choose a path, however they should submit to their owner's will and be sterile? Doesn't sound right to me. Of course, what most pet owner's I know would say: 'it's a matter of public health'. Well, I agree, the society is more important as collective entity than any individual entity, and thus even in life and death the society is more important. In fact, speaking in Darwinistic terms, the sterilization of an animal or human is a genetic homicide. So, in terms of public health, because the society is large enough to have a power of life or death over an individual (even if the society does not enforce it), it can say 'sterilize those animals'. Nevertheless, I don't think this is the motivation pet owner's have in mind when sterilizing them. I think this public health thing acts more like an excuse than a motivation, a pretext to the fact that it would be nice not having the cat pissing the floor to declare territory when in puberty. And who wants to have the dog horny around, or being afraid of suddenly realizing the bely of our female animal is increasing. Yeah, people don't want to be responsible for those things, those 'natural' things. All they want is a fur ball that moves and is funny. They don't really respect animals nor their natural will (and genetic mission), they want fur balls, and they will go to the point of saying 'my pet is more happy in being with me, even if he is sterile, than of living on the street. It's better for him.'. I have heard this sentence in the past, and I'm not kidding. These owner's are totally sensible for animal suffering, but not with animal rights. Who says otherwise is being hypocrite. Come on, nobody in it's perfect mind would think 'maybe I should put my son sterile, if I do this, he will never have puberty problems'. Having said this, if a owner just comes here saying 'you can't compare a children with a pet', then I hope he also says he doesn't agree with this whole thing on animal rights.
I could go on, but I've just exposed my point on the subject, and maybe I will continue on another day. But I must say that for me, the only difference in pet sterilization (due to the unwilling of the owner to cope with the animal puberty and nature), and the infamous 'bonsai cats' (some serious sick shit of having cats inside bottles during their growth to have them become small for the rest of their life's), is on the animal suffering, because on the philosophical question of respecting the animal will and nature, it's the same: these people want fur balls, not animals.
My advice: let the animals be free and live their own lifes.
No comments:
Post a Comment