Originally Posted by valanhb
Just an observation...
I find it quite interesting that it's the men here who are going off about the NEVERs and ALWAYS aspects of this issue, and who also seem to deem the animals as their property to do with as they choose. Basically the argument I'm seeing has nothing to do with declawing itself, but rather that there should be no bans on anything for any reason that might possibly ever take the choice away from the individual.
I am a man.. yep! But I am also an American and that pretty much means from when I was a child I have been taught about how America was founded and that Freedom is something to be cherished. I am not a big fan of the gov't, I do not think they are treating other people and countries properly and I hate to see any more of our own personal freedoms and choices taken away from us. So your totally correct, there should be no bans on things I want to do with my own property in my own place but that does not mean no bans of any kind for anything that can be thought up. There are reasons for not allowing assault rifles and nukes to be sold on the street corner.
Yes, to me, cats are property. Yes they should be loved and cherished and taken care of or given (by their owner) to a home where they will be taken care of but they are still property. If they are being abused or living in unfitting enviromental conditions then I could expect them to be taken by force and relocated.
As for declawing itself.. I do not find it terrible or horrible and have already stated I have had one cat declawed in the past and now have one not declawed.. so I feel like I ride the fence and am open minded both ways about the issue, perhaps leaning (obviously) towards its not the end of the world for a cat and will not cripple them terriblely for life as long as it is done properly.
Originally Posted by valanhb
Cirque...there is also a huge difference between declawing and spay/neuter. Spay/Neuter is necessary because the alternative is to kill more of them. It benefits the animals directly. Declawing is of no benefit to the animal itself (besides the not-quite logical argument of being in a home or not), it only benefits the human caretakers.
That is opinion. I still have to argue if every single cat was declawed whenever it was seen by a vet or of the appropriate age and it was mandatory, there would be far less homeless cats in the world.
It is a undisputeable fact that the percentage of adopted cats that are declawed vs claws intact wins out with the cats who are declawed being adopted quicker, first and thus less likely to be killed while left in a shelter to die if noone takes them. So the claim it is of no benifit to have no claws, to me at least, seems to be totally invalid. It gives that animal more "value" to humans and makes it more desireable as a pet for many people.
If you want to invalidate that arguement, then I would still say that if it does no harm to the animal to have the claws removed either physically or emotionally and the cat can adapt and function in their enviroment, is less likely to cause damage to other pets, people or personal items then I still see no reason to ban declawing and take away yet another personal choice from how people treat thier own pets. Tail bobbing, ear trimming, tattos, pet outfits, collars, implanting microchips, medicine, vets, .. all of those things are choices. Some people will not take their own children to a doctor, will not drive a car with a motor, will not use medicine or electricty, some use a horse and buggy and do things by hand on their farms. It is upto the person to do what they feel is right for them and for their pets, not some official being lobbied by either side of the arguement.
Having animals fixed is just as much of a choice that some person has to make as getting claws removed. To argue that it is for the pets benifit when really it is for mans benifit so he is not overrun with tons of cats does not really convience me. I am sure when God created the cat he did not send down a little kit that came with a scaple, scissors, needle and thread. How can anyone tell me it is ok for someone to go against nature for their opinion of what is right and then turn around and tell me my reasons (no matter what they may be) are invalid simply because they say so or paid to get a law put into effect?
Just leave it up to the pet owner and let them be responsible when they are standing at the pearly gates and held accountable. Free will is something I cherish and am thankful for every day. It is up to me to make the "correct" choices, but I would not give up having those choices to make for anything and frankly to me that is the heart of the issue, not to mention again I dont think declawing is the end of a cats life or terrible when done properly.