UsaSatsui wrote:

Quote: In regard to female cats, being in heat is another natual process. Maybe a house cat can't "do anything" about it, but a cat out in the wild would most likely find someone to satisfy her. It's very, very painful for a cat in heat I'd call taking that away a health benefit.

My thing with this is that I don't believe it's ever beneficial to eliminate a natural process in an organism's body. Evolution put those things there for a reason, whether or not they're occassionally painful or inconvenient.

On the same token, I'm actually not a big fan of birth control for human women, either......although I'm willing to "tolerate" it for obvious reasons. But I've already decided that once my wife and I have had all the kids we want, I'm having a vasectomy so she can stop taking the pill.

I'm not a doctor and don't have any scientific evidence to back up my reasons for not liking birth control, but it just goes along with my belief that natual is good, and unnatural is less than good.

UsaSatsui wrote:

Quote: My thing with this is that I don't believe it's ever beneficial to eliminate a natural process in an organism's body. Enjoy the natural process of the deadly, yet easily curable disease that may one day run it's process through your body. "Natural" is not always "better" or even beneficial. Remember that things like arsenic, carbon monoxide, and horse dung are all natural. None of them are really all that good.

I was going to address the subject of curing diseases in one of my previous posts, but didn't. But yes, I do concede that medicine is a good thing. I also support the idea of treating genetic diseases in unborn babies, if it's possible to stop Alzheimers, disabilities and such.

But I don't consider that argument to be pertinent to the debate on neutering a dog/cat. Testosterone, which is supplies primarily by the testicles, is an important hormone. It's important to muscular development, bone density, mental functions and high levels are thought to prevent certain types of cancers. A male animal that is deprived of testosterone at a young age will not grow to it's full genetic potential during puberty, and will suffer ill effects (osteoperosis, for one) after puberty.

So to get back to the original argument, I don't believe you can be against de-clawing a cat while being pro-neuter/spaying. They're the same type of thing.

In your mention of Arsenic and such, yes those things are natural. But generally, when it comes to life, natural IS better than artificial. That's why we're seeing a push for more organic foods these days.

Pandajuice wrote:

Ice2SeeYou wrote: That's why we're seeing a push for more organic foods these days. We're seeing a push for that these days because there are a lot of wealthy, white people who have nothing else to worry about, so they choose that to focus on, and companies will take advantage of it by labeling stuff "organic" and selling it for twice the price. Just because something is natural, or "organic", doesn't make it healthier, or better in any way. In fact, there's compelling evidence that organic foods are actually less healthy, and totally impractical when it comes to providing food for billions of people. I prefer my vegetables with pesticides and genetic enhancements as that means I can buy beautiful corn in the winter and not pay $3 per cob.

There's some truth to that, yes. But those pesticides and toxins in your food wind up somewhere. I'm not sure what evidence you're referring to that organic foods are less healthy.

UsaSatsui wrote:

Quote: So to get back to the original argument, I don't believe you can be against de-clawing a cat while being pro-neuter/spaying. They're the same type of thing. No, they're not. One is a simply, relatively painless procedure that prevents the overpopulation of unwanted pets that is constantly growing, and has benefit for both the animal and the owner. The other is a painful procedure that leaves a cat defenseless and only as benefit for the owner. I think you're just thinking about how much you don't your own balls cut off and transferring that to Fluffy or Fido. Animals are not people. They should not be treated as such.

I think you're really underestimating the significance of removing an organism's ability to manufacture important hormones and perform certain natural processes. You seem to think that testicles exist solely so the animal can fuck and make babies, which is not the case.

I'm not debating whether animals as important as people. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of being for one form of mutliation (neutering) and being against another (declawing).

Pandajuice wrote:

Ice2SeeYou wrote: There's some truth to that, yes. But those pesticides and toxins in your food wind up somewhere. I'm not sure what evidence you're referring to that organic foods are less healthy. They end up in my poop, or digested by my body just like the food itself. That is, if "toxins" even exist at all, which is an entirely new debate. The idea that toxins somehow accumulate in the body rather than being digested just like anything else, is ridiculous at best.

Well I wish I was as confident as you are about that. But this is going too far off topic, so I'm gonna stop here.