3 ms·
There is no correct answer to this question-- a whole lot of harm and suffering still all too often goes overlooked. Each individual situation is different. I
by slfnflctd 7y ago
There is no correct answer to this question-- a whole lot of harm and suffering still all too often goes overlooked. Each individual situation is different.
Is it possible for pets to be good for us, and us for them? It would certainly seem so; most of us have seen fairly clear cut examples of this. But sometimes it's a one-way street, and other times (i.e. a maladapted creature being abandoned) it's even a no-way street.
Far too many 'pet' animals are arguably worse off than if they had never been born. Not spaying or neutering is inexcusable. [Unless you professionally breed, in which case statistically you are more likely than not to be causing a lot of suffering in that process.] Trap, neuter and release programs are essential. Continuous evaluation (and improvement) of quality of life should be part of every animal's existence we choose to force a human habitat upon.
Remember that these are thinking, feeling beings, not as different from us as we like to think. They didn't ask to be born, and most of them don't have a lot of choice in how they live their lives. The more aware of these issues you become, the more questionable a whole lot of pet ownership becomes. If you're gonna do it, please, be one of the good ones.
- alacombe 7y agoI could just the same argue that neutering is in fact the inexcusable and utmost selfish behavior. None of my pets are neutered, and I very much want them to breed in their life.
- slfnflctd 7y agoAs long as you can account for and adapt to optimize the well-being for each of their descendants, no problem. If, however, you are foisting an unknown number of new sentient beings into this world with no idea of who will take ownership of them or otherwise be accountable for their happiness, this behavior is seriously unethical and potentially negligent in a legal sense.