Offensive Spayed and Neutered Comments

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:50:41 -0700, Agua Girl wrote:

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

+1.

What she said.

Thank you.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:50:41 -0700, Agua Girl wrote:

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

+1.

What she said.

Thank you.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:19:20 -0400, Nelson wrote:

Well, I guess the logic of spaying and neutering follows from the
premise that the cat population needs to be artificially controlled by
humans and restricted to pets since they cannot be allowed to run wild.

It's a bit more than that. Pet species such as cats and dogs are
artefacts of human civilization. The wild stock from which they
originated is miniscule, and true reversion (e.g. dingoes) is rare. Note
that "ferals" - who start off as strays, abandoned or dumped - don't
hightail it for the boondocks, as truly *wild* animals would. Rather
they stay close to areas of human habitation. As a matter of fact, their
ability to survive as truly wild animals is by no means assured.

In that sense, we humans created these subspecies, and therefore we're
responsible for them. The key concept is animal husbandry.

Why wouldn't the cat population stabilize at some natural point like
every other population.

Because they don't live by predation alone (which in the long run could
tend to stabilize their numbers). Every plate of food left out by a
kind-hearted soul, every dumpster and garbage can, constitutes a food
source that would not have occurred "naturally" - as would be required for
the stabilization process to "work".

That certainly must have been the case before Animal Control Officers
and their Extermination Chambers.

You must think that AC officers by and large *like* to kill healthy
animals. I suggest you volunteer at your municipal shelter, and stay long
enough to get an idea of the emotional toll involved.

Squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits, groundhogs, etc. seem to do OK without
interference. Why must the only acceptable cat be a pet?

Because cats are the *result* of "interference".

The fundamental urge of all life is to reproduce. Seems to me a life
where this urge is forever frustrated must be unsatisfying at best and
painful at worst.

Actually. no. Reproduction is largely an unconscious imperative, and the
discomfort animals experience is usually *during* the course of their sex
drives - see any queen in heat to get some idea - rather than from an
absence of hormonal urges they don't have the capacity to think about and
understand.

The neutered cat truly has no idea of what it's "missing". *That*, if
anything, would be anthropomorphization.

Arjun Ray wrote in message ...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:19:20 -0400, Nelson wrote:

Well, I guess the logic of spaying and neutering follows from the
premise that the cat population needs to be artificially controlled by
humans and restricted to pets since they cannot be allowed to run wild.

It's a bit more than that. Pet species such as cats and dogs are
artefacts of human civilization. The wild stock from which they
originated is miniscule, and true reversion (e.g. dingoes) is rare. Note
that "ferals" - who start off as strays, abandoned or dumped - don't
hightail it for the boondocks, as truly *wild* animals would. Rather
they stay close to areas of human habitation.

A human habitation which attracts mice and rats - a food that even domestic
cats are naturally designed to devour. And let's not forget our friendly
bird - a cat's flighty dish.

As a matter of fact, their
ability to survive as truly wild animals is by no means assured.

Why not? Their bodies and natural inclinations toward catching, killing, and
eating smaller animals suggests otherwise.

In that sense, we humans created these subspecies, and therefore we're
responsible for them. The key concept is animal husbandry.

Sounds like a job that wasn't completed.

Why wouldn't the cat population stabilize at some natural point like
every other population.

Because they don't live by predation alone (which in the long run could
tend to stabilize their numbers). Every plate of food left out by a
kind-hearted soul, every dumpster and garbage can, constitutes a food
source that would not have occurred "naturally" - as would be required for
the stabilization process to "work".

Minus the mice, rats, and birds in nature, of course.

That certainly must have been the case before Animal Control Officers
and their Extermination Chambers.

You must think that AC officers by and large *like* to kill healthy
animals. I suggest you volunteer at your municipal shelter, and stay long
enough to get an idea of the emotional toll involved.

Squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits, groundhogs, etc. seem to do OK without
interference. Why must the only acceptable cat be a pet?

Because cats are the *result* of "interference".

The fundamental urge of all life is to reproduce. Seems to me a life
where this urge is forever frustrated must be unsatisfying at best and
painful at worst.

Actually. no. Reproduction is largely an unconscious imperative, and the
discomfort animals experience is usually *during* the course of their sex
drives - see any queen in heat to get some idea - rather than from an
absence of hormonal urges they don't have the capacity to think about and
understand.

How do you know what cats have the capacity to think about and understand?
Particularly when it comes to what is occuring in *their* bodies? It's a
fact that cats exhibit signs of depression after being neutered - analogous
to the human male who "can't get it up" anymore.

The neutered cat truly has no idea of what it's "missing". *That*, if
anything, would be anthropomorphization.

So would stating that neutered cat truly has no idea of what it's "missing".
Sounds like projection simply to comfort its validation.