Sorry but i think mutilating animals because of irresponsible ownership is wrong. Instead irresponsible owners should be punished and have to pay for dog shelters - turned into happy dog hotels... What do you think? Also anyone think that neutering animals may be a sin?
2007-04-24 09:56:29 · 17 answers · asked by iceblendedmochajavo 5 in Pets ➔ Other - Pets
Personally?
If you're keeping more than one sex of animals together? it's a good idea. If you have three girl dogs... why spay them? Why get them physically -gutted-,possibly risk tons of infections or worse?
My male kitten got neutered (feh,not that it did any good) because he'll romp his days with his sister. My male great dane will never be touched like -that- with a knife because there's no reason to. When his friend does go into heat,she'll be in a diaper and I'll be watching them non-stop. ...you can't really do that with cats (They're a bit more sneaky about such things).
All in all,it's circumstancial,in my opinion. ...but if it's a healthy animal and you're responsible? you won't have to choose.
2007-04-24 10:08:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Spaying and neutering lowers the risk of some cancers in animals. I cannot recall what percent but I know that if a dog is spayed before her first heat she has a significantly less chance of developing a certain cancer.
It is not really plausible to expect people to pay to make shelters into dog hotels. What constitutes irresponsibility? Is it the back yard breeder? Any breeder? The young kid who thinks because they have a male and female dog they should breed?
I don't think it is mutilating the animal. People have hysterectomies and vasectomies all the time, not saying that it is exactly the same, but the general idea is.
It is far more effective to spay and neuter animals than expecting the irresponsible to control their animals. Isn't that why they are irresponsible in the first place?
Irresponsible owners who let their animals have litters and then dump the babies at a shelter do not care about the animals(babies) in the first place(many,not all). I believe this would lead to people just dumping/abandoning animals(puppies/kitten) on the street/garbage to avoid paying fines(or what ever you are imposing), putting more animals at risk.
2007-04-24 17:12:11 · answer #2 · answered by Prodigy556 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
To me anyone who keeps an intact animal and doesn't allow it to breed is putting stress on the animal as it has the desire and drive to breed but is being prevented, it's better to spay and neuture then the animals do not have the hormones to stress them to find a partner and breed. Animals that are fixed are healthier on the long run. But the most important thing to remember is dogs and cats are domestic animals who do not belong in small cages at shelters with little human interaction, so the responsible person keeps a dog and does not allow it to breed unless puppies are wanted and good homes can be found as there are 1000's of breeders who plan all matings. I think it sould be noted the majority of animals in the pound are abandoned dogs that are over 6 months and of mixed breeding , they were owned as cute puppies then discarded when they got to big to costly, so it's everyones problem don't get an animal if you don't plan on keeping it for almost 20 years
2007-04-25 00:45:00 · answer #3 · answered by teenytiny 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
There is going to be a law where animals at the age of 4 months will have to have to be Neutured and Spayed to keep the over population low. Neuturing and spaying is not being
irresponsible. I think the people that don't do it are being irresponsible because they are the ones that are causing the over population in this country of animals. I have my cat spayed and I believe in it. I also had a male cat that I had neutured a long time ago. There is nothing wrong with it.
I had a female cat and she suffered for a long time because she was bleeding for a month and I got her spayed. It is not wrong to do it.
2007-04-24 17:19:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Not sure what you are saying. Are you for or against???? I am for it and I believe if you own a pet and don't spay or neuter them you are an irrisponsible owner and if that pet gets pregnant and has puppies after it is a known fact that millions of animals are destroyed each year because they are simply unwanted, they should be fined heavily and not allowed to own any more pets. and the pets they have should be neutered or spayed. It will soon be a law in some states that you must have these pets neutered or spayed or pay the price and I am for it. I can't stand stupid people and suffering of poor little animals who we humans have made as pets dependant on us to take care of them left to die at our hands. It makes me sick to my stomach and I cry at the thought of it all.
2007-04-24 17:41:13 · answer #5 · answered by katie d 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Neutering them IS the responsible thing to do...Not doing so would be irresponsible, in that you'd leave your pet open to disease (uterine & testicular cancers), and risk the chance of other animals being born, without the benefit of a happy home. Dogs and cats have a way of getting out of their pens, if you haven't noticed.
From where I'm sitting, those who DON'T spay or neuter their pets are the ones who should have to fund the animal shelters...after all, it's their fault that the animals were born in the first place.
2007-04-24 17:07:51 · answer #6 · answered by abfabmom1 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋
anthropomorphizing an animals genitals is ridiculous at best. a dog dosen't care if it has testes, a dog dosen't care if it has pups. it does what it does because of instinct and hormones. your pet will be far happier and healthier if you just spay/neuter them. not to mention to fail to do so is irresponsable. accidents can and do happen even with the utmost attentiveness, if your mutt get out and impregnates enough animals you will be fined and they can even destroy your animal if you fail to control/fix the offending animal. (at least this is true in my hometown) there is no good reason not to spay/neuter. its not mutilation and only your human sense of ego would prevent you from doing it, just because you enjoy sex dosen't mean the dog cares one lick whether he evers gets any or not.
2007-04-24 20:17:20 · answer #7 · answered by mindy r 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
well mutilating would be destroying an animal and leaving it to die....such as when a dog mutilates a cat.
EVERYBODY pays for animal shelters. Guess where some of your tax money goes. The more unaltered animals getting loose and breeding, the more will be in shelters. The more in shelters, the higher the tax money. Personally I rather keep that money for myself.
Also it prevents some illness. Can't get testicular cancer if you don't have testes. Can't get uterine cancer if you have no uterus. I love my pets too much to even risk that. Now if I didn't want to have kids myself I would tell my boyfriend to get rid of his testes.
2007-04-24 17:15:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
It would be irresponsible to NOT neuter your pet.
Neutering/spaying is not mutilation.
Humans also get neutered or spayed when they get vasectomies or get their tubes tied (for birth control reasons).
Its a very simple surgery that has quick recovery time.
Plus, an un-neutered male can be aggressive and an un-spayed female will suffer while she's in heat.
And by the way, shelters are not fun....they are sad places filled with unwanted dogs and cats because of irresponsible owners who didn't neuter or spay their pets......
2007-04-24 17:02:18 · answer #9 · answered by SweetPea 3 · 11⤊ 3⤋
I think people who don't neuter/spay their animals are irresponsible. All my cats except one is fixed, she got out the door and I now have a litter of kittens I need to get rid of. Am I irresponsible? no, just unlucky and not quick enough!
2007-04-24 17:07:08 · answer #10 · answered by polgara_ontario 1 · 4⤊ 3⤋