3 ms·

I haven't formed an opinion on this yet. I love cats and my gut is sympathetic to anti-declawing viewpoints as I would never declaw a cat myself, but I'm seeing

I haven't formed an opinion on this yet. I love cats and my gut is sympathetic to anti-declawing viewpoints as I would never declaw a cat myself, but I'm seeing a lot of anti-declawing rhetoric here that makes very little sense if you look at it logically in contrast with neutering. If you're an opponent of declawing, are you also an opponent of neutering? If not, can you present an argument against declawing that isn't also a straightforward argument against neutering?

krageon 7y ago
Neutering is necessary mostly for societal benefit: It prevents stray cats (via catch and release) and/or runaways from creating more cats. Declawing is necessary mostly for personal benefit: You can't train your cat and therefore it must lose their claws. One is something that's useful for society as a whole, the other is useful because you are an asshole. That's mostly how I've seen the distinction. What kind of arguments have you encountered in the wild?
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  I guess the counterargument I've seen for this is that declawed cats are more likely to be adopted, and allowing declawing makes intact cats more likely to be adopted--both societal benefits. It seems like the fact that it also benefits an individual is sort of a distraction here. Thanks for trying, but I think I'm still in the same place: I don't have a persuasive argument for or against declawing. That said, my gut feeling is still against it, so I'm not going to exactly go lobby to bring back declawing. I wonder if that's basically why declawing is illegal in so many places--people following their instincts are against it, and nobody feels strongly enough for it to defend it. In any case, I'm not bent that it's illegal now (I live in NY), just puzzled. EDIT: Okay, I guess I have a question which would settle this for me: is adoption of cats actually a societal benefit as compared to having more strays? An Aoshima-style[1] island of cats doesn't seem like a dystopia to me, and it seems like stray cats are capable of caring for themselves without human intervention. There are probably some downsides (in NY state, ticks) but there are other solutions to those problems. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/03/a-visit-to-aoshima-a-cat-island-in-japan/386647/ https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/03/a-visit-to-aoshima...
yladiz 7y ago
I’m curious, what arguments have you seen for declawing that are illogical compared to neutering?
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  In this thread: > Declawing a cat is the equivalent to removing someone's fingers at the individual knuckle level. Neutering is the equivalent to, well, neutering someone. > I’d much rather an animal be humanely euthanized due to not being placed in a home than needlessly suffering from humans purposefully mutilating them for the rest of their lives. > It sucks that we can’t find homes for every animal, but we don’t go purposefully placing animals in households that would abuse them just to avoid feeling bad about euthanasia. Declawing is abuse like any other. Literally if you replace "declawing" with "neutering" once in this post, it's an argument that it would be better to euthanize than neuter.
  - bb88 7y ago
    To further underscore your argument: The current viewpoint of most animal control organizations (with the notable exception of no-kill shelters) is that euthanization is one method to achieve population control, neutering would be another. The human analog of that would be "genocide". But yet, we don't use the term "genocide" to describe controlling the populations of feral animals. >Neutering is the equivalent to, well, neutering someone. Compulsory sterilization [1] has been deemed another form of genocide. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

krageon 7y ago

Neutering is necessary mostly for societal benefit: It prevents stray cats (via catch and release) and/or runaways from creating more cats. Declawing is necessary mostly for personal benefit: You can't train your cat and therefore it must lose their claws. One is something that's useful for society as a whole, the other is useful because you are an asshole. That's mostly how I've seen the distinction. What kind of arguments have you encountered in the wild?

kerkeslager 7y ago
I guess the counterargument I've seen for this is that declawed cats are more likely to be adopted, and allowing declawing makes intact cats more likely to be adopted--both societal benefits. It seems like the fact that it also benefits an individual is sort of a distraction here. Thanks for trying, but I think I'm still in the same place: I don't have a persuasive argument for or against declawing. That said, my gut feeling is still against it, so I'm not going to exactly go lobby to bring back declawing. I wonder if that's basically why declawing is illegal in so many places--people following their instincts are against it, and nobody feels strongly enough for it to defend it. In any case, I'm not bent that it's illegal now (I live in NY), just puzzled. EDIT: Okay, I guess I have a question which would settle this for me: is adoption of cats actually a societal benefit as compared to having more strays? An Aoshima-style[1] island of cats doesn't seem like a dystopia to me, and it seems like stray cats are capable of caring for themselves without human intervention. There are probably some downsides (in NY state, ticks) but there are other solutions to those problems. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/03/a-visit-to-aoshima-a-cat-island-in-japan/386647/ https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/03/a-visit-to-aoshima...

yladiz 7y ago

I’m curious, what arguments have you seen for declawing that are illogical compared to neutering?

kerkeslager 7y ago
In this thread: > Declawing a cat is the equivalent to removing someone's fingers at the individual knuckle level. Neutering is the equivalent to, well, neutering someone. > I’d much rather an animal be humanely euthanized due to not being placed in a home than needlessly suffering from humans purposefully mutilating them for the rest of their lives. > It sucks that we can’t find homes for every animal, but we don’t go purposefully placing animals in households that would abuse them just to avoid feeling bad about euthanasia. Declawing is abuse like any other. Literally if you replace "declawing" with "neutering" once in this post, it's an argument that it would be better to euthanize than neuter.
- bb88 7y ago
  To further underscore your argument: The current viewpoint of most animal control organizations (with the notable exception of no-kill shelters) is that euthanization is one method to achieve population control, neutering would be another. The human analog of that would be "genocide". But yet, we don't use the term "genocide" to describe controlling the populations of feral animals. >Neutering is the equivalent to, well, neutering someone. Compulsory sterilization [1] has been deemed another form of genocide. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization