3 ms·

>Is that really that bad? Yes, I certainly consider mutilating animals for convenience to be bad. The process is removing the ends of their fingers. Look at

>Is that really that bad? Yes, I certainly consider mutilating animals for convenience to be bad. The process is removing the ends of their fingers. Look at your hand. See the last knuckle? Cut there. >So do human doctors, and yet we trust them or get second opinions when things don't make sense to us. We can also sue them if they recommend elective surgery that causes harm because they want money. This option is not available with vets. If your doctor solicited you with a "our records indicate your child is 5 years old, please book an appointment now to have his or her sexual organs removed. It is dangerous to have an intact child, and you are a bad parent if you do not have us remove his or her sex organs." notice, I suspect you would strongly consider a new doctor.

__david__ 14y ago
Hmmm. Framing it as mutilation makes it hard to debate it rationally. And as visceral an image is of cutting off the above the top knuckle of my finger, I'm still left a bit unconvinced. That may be true in a purely physiological sense, but really human hands and cat paws have a much different design and function. Our hands are much more manipulatory than cats' paws—they mostly use their paws to hold things steady and then manipulate things with their mouths. Claws don't usually come into play there. For straight walking and running they use their pads, which (as far as I know) don't get removed. Also, every vet I've encountered has recommended not declawing the back paws (which, from what I understand are the ones that get used when cats are actually defending themselves). > We can also sue them if they recommend elective surgery that causes harm because they want money. It's not clear to me that getting dogs and cats fixed is a purely monetary drive for a vet. I have to believe that vets put down a lot of animals. And these are people that choose the career because they like animals (I've yet to meet a vet that doesn't fawn over the dogs and cats I bring in). I'd like to think that the spaying and neutering push comes from not wanting to have to kill so many pets. And by all accounts, the spay-and-neuter-your-pets push has cut down on the number of animals euthanized... I think to label vets' motives as purely financially driven is a very bleak view.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  >Framing it as mutilation makes it hard to debate it rationally. Framing it as anything else is dishonest. "To disfigure by damaging irreparably" "To make imperfect by excising or altering parts" >which, from what I understand are the ones that get used when cats are actually defending themselves Cats use all 4 limbs, and their mouth to defend themselves. >I have to believe that vets put down a lot of animals Not due to overpopulation though. >And these are people that choose the career because they like animals You should go to a vet conference sometime, there's a whole lot of vets who have no apparent affection for animals at all.

__david__ 14y ago

Hmmm. Framing it as mutilation makes it hard to debate it rationally. And as visceral an image is of cutting off the above the top knuckle of my finger, I'm still left a bit unconvinced. That may be true in a purely physiological sense, but really human hands and cat paws have a much different design and function. Our hands are much more manipulatory than cats' paws—they mostly use their paws to hold things steady and then manipulate things with their mouths. Claws don't usually come into play there. For straight walking and running they use their pads, which (as far as I know) don't get removed. Also, every vet I've encountered has recommended not declawing the back paws (which, from what I understand are the ones that get used when cats are actually defending themselves). > We can also sue them if they recommend elective surgery that causes harm because they want money. It's not clear to me that getting dogs and cats fixed is a purely monetary drive for a vet. I have to believe that vets put down a lot of animals. And these are people that choose the career because they like animals (I've yet to meet a vet that doesn't fawn over the dogs and cats I bring in). I'd like to think that the spaying and neutering push comes from not wanting to have to kill so many pets. And by all accounts, the spay-and-neuter-your-pets push has cut down on the number of animals euthanized... I think to label vets' motives as purely financially driven is a very bleak view.

papsosouid 14y ago
>Framing it as mutilation makes it hard to debate it rationally. Framing it as anything else is dishonest. "To disfigure by damaging irreparably" "To make imperfect by excising or altering parts" >which, from what I understand are the ones that get used when cats are actually defending themselves Cats use all 4 limbs, and their mouth to defend themselves. >I have to believe that vets put down a lot of animals Not due to overpopulation though. >And these are people that choose the career because they like animals You should go to a vet conference sometime, there's a whole lot of vets who have no apparent affection for animals at all.