Should We Keep Pets?

Do you remember your first dog or cat? Perhaps even your first boa constrictor? Whatever your preference, pets can play a huge role in our lives, even becoming full-fledged family members. But is domestication really in an animal’s best interest? Does pet ownership create a loving bond between human and animal, or does it only serve our own interests?

Next question in Animal Rights

You are seeing 68 Comments on this Argument. See all 375 Comments on this Question.

Regarding Argument

Doesn’t Spaying, Altering or Sterilizing Pets Violate Their Rights?

- From Gary L Francione

Open Argument Go to this Argument

More exposition needed

I'd like to see Mr. Francione elaborate his view in a bit more detail. Clearly there is utility in sterilizing companion animals in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but this observation alone does nothing to answer the question that was posed. Why does Mr. Francione believe the surgical mutilation of a rights-holder does NOT raise a moral problem?

- hoss August 26, 2008 8:29AM

Reply to this Recommend (3) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Not problem, dilemma
  
  And I don't think that Francione suggests there's no moral issue here. But if the approach is a reduction of suffering and exploitation of rights, then less harm is being done in preventing further propagation than allowing more animals created at the hands of humans to come into existence.
  
  The trouble here is that it brings up a more utilitarian world view to which I have trouble aligning. But this may be necessary, since there's a lot of harm that first needs undoing, and we need an acceptable way to do this.
  
  Good point, though
  
  - mike August 27, 2008 5:09PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: Uncommitted
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Ah.
    
    I see. Francione actually says "of course not". I would like a bit more elaboration on that one, too. There is definitely a moral issue in killing someone who is about to kill someone else. Whether or not we can argue if it's right or wrong, there is still a moral issue there.
    
    To save those held in Nazi concentration camps, many, many people were killed in the process. Was this killing immoral? I don't know, but I do know that it was a moral issue. There are very few people who would call the behavior of the soldiers as wrong, though.
    
    - mike August 27, 2008 8:55PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Pests
      
      If you find ants, mice, spiders or other "rodents" in your home do you kill them? Are you asserting that humans have an ethical obligation to save another human who is unable to defend themself? How about "saving" an animal who cannot save themselves. If the moral obligation supersedes the legal obligation (as you imply) then are you not "duty-bound" to enforce your moral obligation at the consequence of facing the punishment of the legal obligation?
      
      - polobo August 28, 2008 8:14AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Answers
        
        Pests: no, but, admittedly, I haven't worked through all of that, yet. I don't think this negates my stance on animal exploitation. There's no question about the sentience of rodents, and therefore relocation is my MO. As for insects and arachnids, I'm just not sure, yet. Most often, I give them the benefit of the doubt.
        
        Saving lives: There are no direct, external punishments for disobeying a moral obligation as there are for legal ones. There would certainly be a great degree of guilt if I was aware of something that I could do to save someone who was in danger and I chose to do nothing, though.
        
        Moral versus legal: yes. Emphatically. I could see myself as having been part of the underground railroad. I could see myself as having harbored Jewish people. I know that in situations where the law is no longer protecting the rights and interests of the citizens it's meant to protect, and the best solution was an illegal one, then breaking laws would never be a problem for me.
        
        - mike August 28, 2008 4:26PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Uncommitted
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Fully Committed
        
        I'll focus on the moral vs. legal item since on a personal level I find all your responses admirable. In the third case you indirectly make my point for me in that only through the successful exercise of power and influence can a "ethical ideology" become a "'legal' reality". From my perspective the claim of righteousness in the first only serves to build the power and influence necessary to affect the second. Such a claim is not backed at some metaphysical level nor is it without its own biases and assumptions; and neither are the "opposing" claim(s). Lastly, the process of change and the end result (which may not be like the envisioned ideal reality), cannot be ignored. We are not magically going directly to this ideal state (nor may we ever get there) so some focus on the changes and the resultant effects is necessary and has not been addressed in depth; in effect assume that the goal of ending animal exploitation is desired then how to go about it. If a satisfactory design cannot be constructed then the status-quo stays by default.
        
        - polobo August 30, 2008 7:13PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What makes animals different?

You're right, we should end the use of animals as pets; though as you note, the exploitation of farm animals is a much more serious priority - veganism is the only complete solution.

But I think the sterilization issue takes a little more discussion than you give it here.

We don't have "a moral obligation to perpetuate" a lot of institutions, and that doesn't mean we should go sterilize everyone who is a subject in that institution. Before you can establish that sterilization doesn't violate a right, you need to clue us in on why you put domesticated animals in a different ethical category than humans. Is it because, as you said previously, they are "dependent on us for everything that is important in their lives"? Wasn't it argued that human slaves were dependent?

- hibernate August 26, 2008 8:34AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More exposition provided

I think it is important to clarify what rights we’re talking about when we ask, “Does sterilization violate their rights?”

Gary Francione generally talks only about the right of animals not to be property. Implied in the right not to be property is the right not to be exploited. Sterilizing animals to prevent future exploitation and possible (probable?) cruelty is not exploitation; it is the prevention of exploitation. Sterilization is performed solely for the benefit of the animal and her offspring, not for the benefit of humans; therefore, it is not exploitation; therefore it is not a violation of the right not to be exploited (or not to be property).

- dan August 27, 2008 4:24PM

Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Implied benefit to humans
  
  There is an implied benefit to those humans who assert that they in fact are able to speak on behalf on an animal species that have a truly different set of needs, desires, and externalities than any human could possibly imagine. We are sterilizing them so HSUS doesn't feel guilt.
  
  Most Americans could be said to be exploited by the economic system into which they are born (forced to work for a corporation to earn a hopefully living wage). As much as I abhor these kinds of comparisons if you are going to extend human conditions onto animals then extending the reverse is necessary as well.
  
  - polobo August 27, 2008 6:48PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Rights
  
  You are free to give any rights you feel (the right not to be property, exploited) but you lack the authority to legally enforce those rights with respect to others. Most animals are clearly unable to assert and defend their own "desired" rights in the presence of humans. Is our society worsened by not giving such rights to animals? Maybe. In order to properly answer such a question takes a number of assumptions and assertions that may or may not be true or even matter. It also requires some reference point against which to compare. Lacking such a Utopian reference and a meaningful (i.e., affecting ones daily life) "moral imperative" I would suggest that utility is going to be the primary measure and zero utility would be the neutral point above which any action would be considered moral. This necessarily implies some scope on "whose" utility is measured and for many rational sentient beings their own utility (and that of their associated societies) will be used.
  
  - polobo August 27, 2008 6:55PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Gary Francione, where are you?
  
  Dan, I appreciate your efforts to lend clarity to Francione's vague statements, but he still needs to explain himself.
  
  Sterilization is not always necessary to prevent exploitation. For example, many domestic animals have no opportunity to reproduce. Nor does it necessarily "benefit" an animal to have one of her most fundamental, biologically ingrained interests forcefully tampered with through painful, intrusive, unwanted surgical mutilation. That's arguably an infringement on the rights of personhood, which is a moral status that Francione advocates for animals, I believe.
  
  Finally, the question here isn't exploitation, but rather the "right not to be property." And feral cats, for example, are no one's property.
  
  Please note: I'm not arguing that sterilization should not be performed, and I do believe there are good arguments to be made for it. So far, however, Francione hasn't provided one.
  
  - hoss August 28, 2008 9:18AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (5) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Can you speculate on what Gary's argument would be?
    
    Do any of the good arguments you have fit into Gary's abolitionist approach? mike mentions the utilitarian benefit of preventing potential harm above, but I'm not sure Gary would agree with that line of argument.
    
    Wouldn't surgical mutilation propagate attitudes that it's OK to treat animals as we decide? To ignore their potential interests in the name of the greater good? I don't think Gary would be very thrilled with that.
    
    - hibernate August 28, 2008 3:58PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Response to Hoss
    
    Let me see if I can make it more simple for you. Let us assume that we have genetically engineered a group of humans who permanently have the cognitively functioning of a 2-year old but who have enhanced physical strength. We do this in order to have cheap labor in hazardous situations. We eventually come to realize that this is a terribly immoral act. Are we obligated to facilitate the reproduction of these perpetually dependent and vulnerable humans just because we immorally brought them into existence in the first place?
    
    If you think that we have a moral obligation to perpetuate an immoral institution, then you and I see a very different moral universe.
    
    I certainly do not think we should alter a nonhuman if there is no significant risk of reproduction and that we should choose the least intrusive method of sterilization in the situation. For example, if you live with only one female dog, a tubal ligation may be an alternative; if you have only one male and no female, a vasectomy may be an alternative.
    
    If you continue to find this issue troubling, I can offer no further assistance.
    
    Gary L. Francione
    Professor, Rutgers University
    
    - Gary L Francione August 29, 2008 5:39AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (3) Side: Uncommitted
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Here's the thing
      
      Thanks for clearing it up such that I now see you apply no utilitarian arguments into the debate. The problem I have is that up to now I've been arguing the concept of morality in direct correlation to the impact actions have on the interests of others.
      
      I can see how there would be no moral obligation to deliberately control conditions such that these humans would have a greater likelihood of reproduction. In other words, controlled breeding would certainly be wrong. But wouldn't sterilization be infringing on their rights not to have something happen to their bodies against their will? Wouldn't we be impacting their interests in continuing their genetic code through reproduction?
      
      I think I need a better formal definition of morality from which I can continue to frame my arguments. Oxford English does a poor job of it.
      
      Thanks.
      
      - mike August 29, 2008 5:59AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: Uncommitted
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Response to Mike
        
        The situation we are dealing with here is rather peculiar. We have an unjust and immoral institution. The choice is to perpetuate it or not. I find it absurd to suggest that we have a moral obligation to perpetuate an immoral institution.
        
        Moreover, we take animals to the vet all the time to have procedures done on them and in contexts where the animals have an interest (preference, interest, desire) not to be subjected to these procedures even if the procedures are beneficial to the animal. We act against the will of the animal.
        
        Indeed, there are all sorts of situations in which we do not allow animals to do what they want and effectively manipulate their world against their will. For example, dogs have an interest in eating whatever they want. We do not allow them to do so. Focusing on an interest in sex is arbitrary.
        
        The problem is that we have an institution that *necessarily* involves perpetual vulnerability, dependence, and frustration of desire. The institution of domestication *necessarily* entails doing things against the will of the animal for the entire duration of the animal's life. The institution is immoral and unjustified. It should be ended.
        
        Gary L. Francione
        Professor, Rutgers University
        
        - Gary L Francione August 29, 2008 6:18AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (3) Side: Uncommitted
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Response to Gary
        
        Mr. Francione, instead of fabricating a straw man to rail against, why not just answer the question? I never said "we have a moral obligation to perpetuate an immoral institution", nor did I suggest such a thing. Let me see if I can make it more simple for you: I believe the institution of domestication is inherently unjust and should be ended. That point was never at issue.
        
        So again, the question is: how do you justify robbing a rightsholder of one of his most basic interests, especially when doing so does NOTHING to abolish the institutional use of animals? If you live with a male cat, for example, what excuse do you have for mutilating him at all, except for your own convenience? And if you are mutilating him for your convenience, then how can you claim not to be "using" him?
        
        As to your other points:
        
        If you talk to an ethologist, you'll discover that nothing about a dog's interest in sex is "arbitrary"; on the contrary, sex is one of the most deeply ingrained and fundamental drives of all animals. Momentarily preventing a dog from eating a toxic plant is qualitatively different from surgically mutilating her for life. And it should go without saying that her desire to be free from physical harm is not arbitrary either.
        
        Another thing: on the one hand you "do not think we should alter a nonhuman [animal] if there is no significant risk of reproduction", but in the very next breath you contradict yourself by suggesting tubal ligation or vasectomy -- both of which are surgical alterations. What's up with that?
        
        - hoss August 29, 2008 9:29AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (4) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Sterilization is a net benefit
        
        Hoss:
        
        I don’t accept your claim that sterilization harms individual animals to anywhere near the extent you suggest. In fact, I believe it is the opposite based on observation: for example, unneutered male dogs are often in perpetual frustration, humping everything in sight, while neutered males aren’t nearly so obsessive, if they are interested at all. If anything, it appears that sterilization helps to *relieve* the endless drive that cannot be satisfied regularly in a domesticated animal. Overall, sterilization is a net benefit where the discomfort of surgery is greatly overcome by relief of the much more intensive sexual drive of those who have not been sterilized from the standpoint of the animal being sterilized.
        
        I therefore still maintain that sterilization is, by far, in the best interest of not only the animal being sterilized, but also and more so, for the offspring born into an unjust and often cruel and exploitive institution.
        
        - dan August 29, 2008 10:10AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
        
        Sur Reply to Hoss
        
        I believe that you are the same person who has attempted to argue with me on other lists. I deliberately use the word "attempt" because you do not succeed in making any arguments. This last posting of yours is an excellent example of the problem.
        
        First, if you agree that the institution is inherently unjust and do not regard it as unjust only as a contingent matter, then there is no solution to the problem other than to spay and alter animals in order bring that institution to an end. I suppose that you could have a situation in which every domesticated nonhuman was kept isolated from every other until all of them died but that is simply not practical and may, indeed, be undesirable from the perspective of animals even if it were possible.
        
        Second, you claim that I said an interest in sex was "arbitrary." That is not what I said. What I said was that dog or cat has myriad interests that we routinely ignore and that to single out an interest in sex was arbitrary. And I stand by that. We routinely ignore *fundamental* interests of dogs or cats such as the interest of the animal in not enduring the pain and suffering of a major surgical operation that we undertake for what we perceive as the animal's benefit (e.g., removal of a lung tumor). The animal has an interest in not experiencing the fear, anxiety, and pain involved and we cannot explain to her that it is for her benefit. We ignore her interest.
        
        Third, I do not contradict myself. If there is no chance that a dog or cat will come into contact with another animal, then I would not advocate sterilization. If you have a female and a male with a vasectomy, the male will still attempt to mount the female which, if you have ever observed the female's reaction, is generally something she does not prefer.
        
        I will not respond further to you as I think you are a deeply confused person who wastes my time.
        
        Gary L. Francione
        Professor, Rutgers University
        
        - Gary L Francione August 29, 2008 10:49AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Uncommitted
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
        
        That's what I was looking for
        
        It's a tricky thing when you know the argument is there, but you lack a parallel that successfully demonstrates the logic.
        
        Veterinary care. That'll do. We make decisions about the well-being of our pets without much direct input from their interests. We decide what's best, because we've weened out a lineage that necessitates it for survival. That does make sex an arbitrary interest for us to consider when so many others are not.
        
        Perhaps this would be a better argument for why someone who agrees with pet ownership but does not agree with sterilization is being inconsistent and arbitrary. It doesn't remove the fact that we are forced to make a decision between two acts of immorality. I have no issue taking the lesser of two immoral acts.
        
        - mike August 29, 2008 11:40AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        For Mike
        
        Hello, Mike:
        
        Yes, I think that the veterinary example works well in that animals definitely have an interest in not having veterinary procedures done or, in some cases, even going to the vet for a routine and non-invasive check up. For example, many animals are terrified to get anywhere near a vet's office for any purpose. They have an interest--that is they prefer, desire, or want--in not going to not going to the vet's office. They definitely have an interest in not having major invasive procedures done as these cause pain, suffering, discomfort, and anxiety under the best of circumstances.
        
        The real problem here is that the institution of "pet ownership" inherently involves our overriding or ignoring animal interests all the time. Dogs would rather walk without leashes, but that is dangerous (and illegal) in most circumstances. Dogs would like to eat non-stop, but that is not desirable. Some dogs would like endless car rides but that is not feasible for different reasons. The problem with the institution is that we are constantly and necessarily having to override animal desires and frustrate animal interests. Although this is similar to the situation involved with human children, they grow out of this and eventually become autonomous. Nonhuman animals do not. And you can never explain to animals why you are making a particular decision, which you can do with human children beyond very young ones.
        
        GLF
        
        Gary L. Francione
        Professor, Rutgers University
        
        - Gary L Francione August 29, 2008 12:02PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (3) Side: Uncommitted
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
        
        Human sterlisation should also be implemented
        
        I think the institution of breeding more people is also immoral and should be ended. It puts huge pressures on the environment , brings down wages, devalues human lives, makes species go extinct. I am not sure why we do not have a law which retsticts human reporduction eg limiting them to one offspring only. Many humans live in perpetual vulnerability, dependence, and frustration of desire all the time because there are too many of them. Many live on less than $1 per day. Why is no one addressing this problem?
        
        - sor666 August 31, 2009 1:46PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        sterilization
        
        Have you had yourself sterilized? How should we go about determining who should and should not be sterilized?
        
        - MrBook September 1, 2009 12:44AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
Least Intrusive ???

Francione said, "we should choose the least intrusive method of sterilization"

While it sounds good in theory, in practice it ignores other factors such as the risks of injury or death. For example, neutering a cat or dog is much simpler than a vasectomy and thus less likely to result in complications. Another example: neutering a dog eliminates the risk of testicular cancer whereas a vasectomy doesn't. Neutering companion animals also reduces the risk of injury to humans. All of these factors must be considered. It's not a black-and-white thing.

Would you tell parents of teen daughters that they must choose the birth control option that is "least intrusive"?

Clearly, the answer to whether or not care-givers of companion animals ought to sterilize is contextual. There is no singular, one-size-fits-all answer.

While Francione attempts to argue that exact point, he wrongly concludes that there's one, and only one, basic moral principle from which to derive the answer to the moral problem of nonhuman animal sterilization.

- ElaineVigneault September 2, 2008 11:22AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Response to Elaine Vigneault
  
  I did not give a "one-size-fits-all answer." Indeed, I was careful to say that the issue of sterilization requires a case-by-case analysis to identify what is best in the particular situation.
  
  I do, however, find it curious that you would suggest that neutering a male is a good idea because it "eliminates the risk of testicular cancer." Yes, I suppose it does! And if women all had mastectomies, there would be no more breast cancer. Indeed, if we all committed suicide, no one would die of any sort of cancer.
  
  In most situations, neutering may well be preferable to vasectomy. For example, if you have a male and a female and the female is not spayed, a male who has had a vasectomy will seek to couple with the female and if she is not in a situation in which the two can be separated when the female is ovulating, that would be unfair to her.
  
  As for the argument that neutering is a solution for aggression, that may very well be the case in some situations, but my view is that nonviolent methods of training are, for most dogs, a better solution than removal of the testicles which, as I said, may still be the best choice in the situation for preventing reproduction or dealing with the situation described above.
  
  And yes, I would encourage parents to teach their daughters to use contraception short of a hysterectomy. That is not because I want to encourage humans to reproduce (quite the contrary; there are already too many of us) but because I think that other things being equal, surgical mutilation is undesirable.
  
  GLF
  
  Gary L. Francione
  Professor, Rutgers University
  
  - Gary L Francione September 6, 2008 4:58AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Uncommitted
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - your frame
    
    "For example, if you have a male and a female and the female is not spayed"
    Or, you know, if you take your dog to dog parks/ doggy daycare/ the vet/ friends' houses/ dog events and let him or her socialize with other dogs... you know, NOT isolate an animal from his or her own species.
    
    Were I a companion animal, I'd prefer the loss of my reproductive organs and the resulting psychological changes (neutered animals are generally less aggressive/ less territorial) if it meant I could spend time with others of my species.
    
    "surgical mutilation is undesirable."
    We agree. But you framed the discussion as though the gradients of right and wrong were based on the level of intrusion. That's not accurate. The shades of gray in this complex question are based on MANY factors, not simply the mass of removed body parts.
    
    - ElaineVigneault September 6, 2008 8:45AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Your mis-framing
      
      I never said that there were not multiple factors. You claim that I stated:
      
      "we should choose the least intrusive method of sterilization."
      
      You then go on to mischaracterize my position as advocating the least intrusive method of sterilization to the exclusion of other factors or despite the existence of other factors.
      
      If you go back to the original posting, you will see that you misquoted me. What I actually said was:
      
      "we should choose the least intrusive method of sterilization in the situation."
      
      If the situation involved other health aspects, those would have to be taken into account. The situation may involve many factors, including but not limited to: health factors, living arrangements, access to other animals, etc. But I stand by my view that we should do the least intrusive thing in light of all factors present in the particular situation.
      
      And I certainly do not think that we should mutilate any animals simply because we want to avoid their possibly getting an illness later on or to control behavior as a routine matter.
      
      GLF
      
      Gary L. Francione
      Professor, Rutgers University
      
      - Gary L Francione September 6, 2008 9:07AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Uncommitted
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - general congruence, flawed assumptions
        
        It is good to see the saccharine euphemism of "fixing" set aside in favor of the accurate use of plain language. Castration and hysterectomy are not the same thing as "sterilization." In the case of the former, vasectomy is a far less invasive - and less risky - surgery that castration which is, of course, a full-scale amputation. The same parallel applies with tubal ligation.
        
        Much of this discussion seems to suffer from a lack of hands-on experience with actual companion animals, if I may be so bold as to say so. For example, don't folks know about Regumate? The question of whether to "spay" a female dog or not is silly when a simple, non-invasive, non-surgical, safe contraceptive is available and indeed already widely used. I'm at a loss as to why we'd need to resort to the knife to fix a "problem" that has already been resolved by less drastic means.
        
        Further, at least when discussing dogs, bitches cycle only once every 6 months or so. Their fertile period, during this time, is generally 3-5 days. This whole panic about how to "prevent pregnancy" in an intact bitch is all a bit silly, isn't it? Just keep her from the boys for a few days a year. Is that so challenging? I don't find it to be, never did. It is a mystery that it seems such an overwhelming challenge for some folks.
        
        As to castration, let's stop and re-integrate a bit of reality here. Intact male canines don't run around all day trying to "hump" any object within reach. Do people just think that dogs are inherently dumb? How would canine social dynamics have functioned, in an evolutionary sense, if half of the canine population were brainless idiots trying to mate with trees and rocks and non-fertile bitches? It's a funny picture, and hardly reflects reality.
        
        No, male canines need not be castrated so as to "give them a normal life." Please. How silly. They do just fine, testicles and all, insofar as they have good social skills, basic manners, and a stable family environment in which to base their own self-identity. They go to dog parks, socialize with friends of both genders - and many species - and more or less carry themselves as if there's more to them than simply testicles.
        
        This idea if castrating our companion animals to "relieve" them of the "frustration" of being denied reproductive rights is an utterly human - and utterly self-contradictory - train wreck. I keep waiting for two-legged males to start castrating themselves so they can also achieve all those great benefits. So far, not many takers. . .
        
        Finally, we may want to recall that castration has serious long-term health consequences for its victims (hysterectomies as well, though the picture is somewhat more complex). Decreased bone density, impaired social function, metabolic destabilization, cognitive slippage. . . all reasons that, in humans, victims of castration are proactively treated with hormonal replacements as a matter of medical support. As is true with most parts of our bodies, our hormonal systems are there for a reason. Removing them has consequences, not many of which are beneficial to one's health.
        
        If we do not want to produce more companion animals, on ethical grounds, the path to that desired outcome is really simple (using canines as an illustrative example): put the bitches on Regumate, ensure males aren't at liberty to breed any contraceptive-untreated bitches, and let time run its course. There we go. Problem solved. This is a trivially easy thing to do - as anyone who has spent actual time with actual canines who've not come under the surgeon's amputation knife can easily attest. We are debating a question that doesn't even require an answer.
        
        Regards,
        
        Fausty
        
        - Fausty October 26, 2008 9:00PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        It is not so simple with cats
        
        But cats are induced ovulators- Fausty
        
        - sor666 August 31, 2009 2:04PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - you are doing cats a favour when you sterlise them
    
    I have to say I cant see why it is cruel to sterlise animals at all. Anyone who has attempted to live with a female cat who is not sterlised will know the sheer hell the cat and owner go through. Cats are induced ovulators, so unlike dogs they are simply always in season- until they have had sex. It is only then that they ovulate and come out of season. If they do not have sex they continue to go into season every two weeks.
    
    In normal circumstances they will of course eventually mate. But if you are keeping your cat from mating then she stays in season forever and she 'calls'. This means in fact that she cries out at the top of her voice constantly day and night to attract males. It will drive anyone crazy. During this time she is very distressed. The male cats are equally distressed because they will fight each other constantly to mate with her and sometimes they inflict lethal wounds on their oppnents.
    
    Finally, the actual mating is not pleasant for the female cats- male cats have spikes on their penises and the female cats are in pain.
    
    So, in fact it is better for female and male cats to be sterlised and there is absolutely nothing cruel about it.
    
    - sor666 August 31, 2009 1:59PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Spaying, neutering, etc.

I don't agree with the sterilisation of companion animals 'pets', as I believe in the total equality of non human & human animals! This planet is over run with people, yet there's no forced sterilisation of them! We have no right over the animals, the spaying & neutering of them is yet ANOTHER way of humans to show their CONTROL over the animals!!!

- veganpanda September 10, 2008 1:36PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Reply to veganpanda
  
  The ''pet'' producers will appreciate this. And so will the other animal industries. Because for the sake of total equality, if we don't have the right to stop companion animals from breeding, the same should apply with regard to ''food animals,'' right? Nonhumans should be allowed to reproduce and, thereby, continue to provide animal property for human use. For ever and ever. Yes, all slaves are equal. It never fails to amaze me how the attitude of vegans fits neatly in the exploitative order of things.
  
  - Karin September 11, 2008 1:55AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Troubles

I have a really hard time with these issues.

I think that Professor Francione's views are well argued and compelling, but I still find myself compelled to assert that spaying and neutering is a violation of animal rights.

I do think that pet breeding for profit is objectionable, but I find it hard to assent that having pets in and of itself is outright wrong.

A historical perspective on pet-ownership might lead to some helpful results, what is the nature of a house-cat? I am certainly no expert on the biological evolution of companions, or their historic role, but it's clear that we didn't "make" cats or dogs in the same way that the hypothetical genetically engineered humans Professor Francione mentions. It's hard to say that whatever original instance of pet-domestication "got the ball rolling" (so to speak) is as directly morally objectionable as this thought experiment. And we are also faced the the reality that these biological entities do exist, whatever their origins, and their lifestyles and biological telos is a dependent one.

To refer back to the aforementioned thought experiment, I agree that we don't have "moral obligation to perpetuate an immoral institution," but in this situation, do we have a moral obligation to sterilize these humans? Shouldn't we, rather, cease breeding and the immoral labour practices mentioned?

Is it really appropriate for us to eliminate entire species? Can we not treat these animals as non-commodities, while still respecting their existence as dependent animals? And how can we say, with any assurance, that their interests are in conflict with ours? In some cases, it is clear how we abuse animals for our interests (declawing for example, in my opinion at least), but it is not clear that this abuse is innate in our relationship to them.

Cats are evolved to require specific human assistance (even if indirect, i.e. strays) for their survival. Who are we to say that they not be allowed to continue their existence as a species? This inter-special friendship is, in my opinion, an example of the amazing and beautiful variety of life on this planet, and a unique one at that.

I think the answer to the moral problems posed by pet ownership does not lie in extinction, but in more strict regulation about for-profit breeding and a revolution in our perception of any animals as property or commodities.

In a perfect world, cats and dogs would be part of families, coexistent with humans and generating alongside humans.

There is clearly a massive overpopulation of cats and dogs, but this has more to do with our capitalistic, consumeristic approach to pets (as a mass-produced product). If we can modify our relationship to these animals, can't we bring about a greater good, without extinction or surgical mutilation?

Professor Francione, I respective your opinions and agree with many of them, but I have a particularly hard time with this point. I hope you have time to read this and respond, I would be grateful.

- nevermath October 3, 2008 11:47PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Uncommitted

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are you Whacked?

Your position is a prime example of an individual trying to impose their own minority sense of morality on the majority. Wild animals for sure should not be kept as pets but dogs and cats developed a symbiotic relationship with humans in prehistory (yes in cave man time). I realize you're a lawyer and apparently know nothing about Science, Zoology and Anthropology but you do know what a symbiotic relationship is don't you? It is common in nature. I resent your implying that my enjoyment in having and pampering my dogs and cats over the years is somehow wrong. I would prefer you keep your moral opinions too your self and I will not try to force you to adopt unwanted pets.

- tbcass January 26, 2009 9:26AM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Pets Do Not Have a Symbiotic Relationship with Humans
  
  Symbiosis is a biology term. It defines two species whom DEPEND on one another for their very survival. The defining rule is that if you take one of the species away, the other one cannot survive. So that means that pets and humans definitely do not have a scientific symbiotic relationship. It is instead an exploitative relationship. As u know, humans would do quite fine without a kitty or a sheep. We can survive and thrive beautifully without ever needing animals for anything. We do not need them to eat as every nutrient our bodies need can easily be met in the plant kingdom. We do not need them to wear as we have access to thousands of non-animal fabrics. We do not need them to ride as we have cars and feet. And we certainly do not need them for companionship. Why? Well, because we have each other! Dogs and cats and other pets in their natural unadulterated genetic states survive very successfully in their natural habitat. Changing their physiology through forced breeding to become dependent on us is immoral.
  
  Also, your statement about the time frame of the domestication of pets is very incorrect. Animals were domesticated at the latest only 10,000 years ago. By comparison, "cave-men" walked the Earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. And dogs and cats themselves did not approach humans with the proposition to become domesticated (or enslaved). These animals were taken from the wild. You could potentially domesticate any species of animal and commence the unnatural process of artificially breeding them to achieve the desired characteristics like docility, simply by coaxing them closer to you with food, or capturing them, feeding and breeding them. Here's where a big myth is: dogs did not develop a relationship with humans across the globe wherever humans lived simultaneously. It started at one source and was introduced slowly, tribe by tribe, country by country, until the world became dog owners. There is newly discovered evidence for this. It started in fact by three genetically traceable, individual wolves. They were taken and then the world's entire "collection" of varying dog breeds emerged from just those three.
  
  What right do we have to alter the wolf's DNA for our own fetishes? Switch the species. Would it be ethical to breed humans into different shapes and sizes with different behavioural traits to suit our designated purposes for them? No. Dogs and cats, like humans, should be free.
  
  - Desert Girl February 3, 2009 9:47AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Your are wrong
    
    Your definition of Symbiosis is wrong.
    
    Symbiosis: The close association of two or more dissimilar organisms where both receive an advantage from the association.
    
    Dogs received protection, shelter and food while early humans received a hunting partner. Today it seems that dogs get more benefit but humans do receive a strong emotional benefit.
    
    The oldest known human archaeological site which contains the bones of dogs in close association with humans is about 14,000 years old while genetic evidence indicates a separation of dogs from wolves as much as 100,000 years ago. You seem to be picking and choosing theories that fit your opinions. The genetic study you site is far from definitive.
    
    Please check out the following 2 links for clarification.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog
    
    http://www.livefully.info/dog.html
    
    In conclusion let me say this. You certainly have a right to your opinion but to me, and my wife when I pointed out this anti pet sentiment among some people, your opinions are so far out that they seem pathological. I don't know what the source of your psychological reasons for taking on this, to me, wacko cause, but it just doesn't fly. There are real problems in this world that could use your idealism and energy, not attacking the idea of owning pets. Especially when to 99% of the world the pet/human relationship is overwhelmingly beneficial to the pet. Let me be clear that I am not in favor of keeping wild animals as pets but cats and dogs? Certainly this is a very good thing. I have never heard an argument to the contrary that makes any logical sense to a reasonable person so consequently, it must a purely emotional/ideological thing. I am totally against people pushing ideology based on emotional/moral reasons on other people. This is what you are doing.
    
    - tbcass February 4, 2009 5:47AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Logic & Science Only Thank You
      
      On the contrary, I am basing my views on the latest available science and practical logical thinking. If I were to let my emotions decide my beliefs, I would believe what I used to believe so strongly all my life -that keeping pets is morally acceptable, wonderful, and a very natural relationship, until I was recently educated on the truth about pets. That we took them from the wild long ago. That we created them. That we changed their form and made them depend on us. That they are our property. That we treat them like property (commodities, selling, breeding, taking babies). That they are our "companion" slaves. And that no matter how well treated and happy they are, happy slaves are still slaves!
      
      You wrote:
      "Symbiosis: The close association of two or more dissimilar organisms where both receive an advantage from the association. Dogs received protection, shelter and food while early humans received a hunting partner. Today it seems that dogs get more benefit but humans do receive a strong emotional benefit. "
      
      The fact that dogs receive basic services from humans is irrelevant because the dog in his/her natural biological form can provide these basic survival needs on their own. We are not necessary to them. They can get their own food and shelter and affection from their own species. This means it is not a symbiotic relationship. They do not depend on us for their survival. The fact that human slaves received food and shelter from their masters does not justify their captivity and does not make it a natural "slave & master" relationship as it was once described. If pets receiving food and shelter and affection from their owners is a benefit, then it is far outweighed by all the basic living necessities they miss out on like self-determination, making their own choices, choosing their own mate, their own social group, being a free individual. These pets will never know of this life of freedom that you and I take for granted, because they have no choice.
      
      Also, because pets are property, they are used and abused like property. Millions and millions of cats and dogs around the world are unwanted and killed cruelly every year. Pfft! Some benefit! This is not a simple matter of "responsible pet ownership". So long as animals are classified as property, they will always be treated like property and thrown out like an old DVD player when the owner leaves town, has a baby, or moves into a house disallowing pets. Only when the property status of animals is abolished, will they be free of all this suffering and "shelter" killings.
      
      Could u try "Switch the species"? Would it be morally acceptable to breed humans as pets? To have cute miniatures and fierce guards, and strong working ones? Through breeding the humans can have docile, obedient personalities built in, or aggressive traits for soldiers. These new artifically bred characteristics makes the human pets incapable of surviving on their own and depend completely on their owners. The pet humans are property and therefore have no rights whatsoever -just as animals do today. And just as we do to pets today, would it be ok to have pet humans who cannot make any decisions for themselves, cannot pee without asking, cannot survive on their own, are kept in boring back yards, expected to defend the property, are taken as babies from their mother and cannot choose their own social life?
      
      - Desert Girl February 4, 2009 9:48AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Still don't agree with you.
        
        You totally misunderstand the concept of a symbiotic relationship. I spelled it out to you but you choose to twist the meaning to fit what you want to believe. That is beyond my control.
        
        You said:
        "They do not depend on us for their survival."
        
        Are you aware of the survival rate for animals in the wild? Most never reach adulthood so it could be argued that most pets are dependent on us for survival. As a species they aren't dependent on us but on average the vast majority of individual animals would die very young if they were living in the wild.
        
        You Said: "If pets receiving food and shelter and affection from their owners is a benefit, then it is far outweighed by all the basic living necessities they miss out on like self-determination, making their own choices, choosing their own mate, their own social group, being a free individual. These pets will never know of this life of freedom that you and I take for granted, because they have no choice."
        
        From my point of view it is worth giving that up to lead a safe comfortable life.
        Does the animal give up some freedoms? Sure. Do humans give up freedoms to live in a civilized society? Absolutely. Why do we do that? Because the alternative to living a wild and free life is worse IMO. Long ago some wolves started living among humans because it offered advantages to living independently in the wild. Back then They could have run off but didn't because of those advantages. Here's the choice, live a comfortable life free from most diseases and parasites, free from being torn apart by predators and dying a horrible agonizing death, free from possible starvation in bad times, free from living in horrible weather conditions, free from being abandoned by others of their kind when injured, etc, etc. Theoretically I could say you are immoral for wanting to allow animals to suffer such a fate. It all depends on your perspective.
        
        Finally I do not share your belief that animals have equal rights to humans in a human society any more than I believe that a human deserves any rights if they choose to live in the wild. Rights are a product of civilization and do not exist outside of the civilized world.
        
        In the wild do animals respect the rights of other animals, Of course not.
        
        Animals lead a comfortable life among humans but they in no way deserve to have equal rights to humans. Such a concept to me is totally absurd. There is no such thing as equal rights between different species. If I was among lions I'm sure they wouldn't treat me equal to other lions. That's nature. Your own species always should take priority over a different species. I am a human an believe that any other species is something less. It's a natural instinct to feel that way. It's what drives any species to preserve it's self. That is the reason why I reject your arguments.
        
        I don't expect to change your mind but rest assured that you are not going to convince too many people to agree with you. I certainly never will as I find none of your arguments convincing. The fact is I find your arguments strange and absurd to say the least.
        
        I enjoy owning pets, loving them and caring for them. Believe me, it's obvious to me that they enjoy it just as much.
        
        The fact that some people mistreat pets is not an argument for eliminating having pets any more than because some husbands beat their wives we should eliminate marriage.
        
        Good Day
        
        - tbcass February 4, 2009 11:31AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Symbiosis Defined by Science
        
        Hi tbcass. I was just thinking this morning that I wasn't listening to you and just went off on my usual rant saying the same thing I did before. And now you're doing the same. It's a bit silly. Sorry, I was tired. Having said that, my skills may make me do it again. I'll try really hard for clarity here. I'll address each point you make. And of course you are free to believe your own thoughts, this is just another way to see things. And that's what this forum is! Opposing views.
        
        Symbiosis-
        The definition I provided on symbiosis is made by science, not by me. I didn't make it up. For a very long time I used to very strongly believe we shared a natural, mutual, symbiotic relationship with animals, but after getting an education (and at first strongly resisting it and arguing against it), I realise that's just not true. The animals don't need us, they can survive without us. It's an exploitative relationship.
        
        Dictionary:
        Symbiosis is a biological relationship in which two species live in close proximity to each other and interact regularly in such a way as to benefit one or both of the organisms. When both partners benefit, this variety of symbiosis is known as mutualism. The name for a situation in which only one of the partners benefits is far more well known. Such an arrangement is known as parasitism, and a parasite is an organism that obtains nourishment or other life support from a host, usually without killing it. By their very nature, parasites are never beneficial, and sometimes they can be downright deadly. In addition to the extremes of mutualism and parasitism, there is a third variety of symbiosis, called commensalism. As with parasitism, in a relationship characterized by commensalism only one of the two organisms or species derives benefit, but in this case it manages to do so without causing harm to the host.
        
        One Way Benefit
        According to the above description, humans could be parasites (as an analogy). But I prefer to call it exploitative. If we take the wool from sheep, kill their babies for meat and then kill the sheep after a couple of years of shearing, the sheep is not gaining a benefit, only we are. How are we protecting them from predators? We are the predators! It's a one way benefit. Same goes for dairy cows. What's the symbiotic benefit to a cow who's babies are killed for veal and then she's killed at only 6 yrs of age because she riddled with osteoporosis from the parasitic milking machines taking everything she's got? This is a one way benefit, the human benefits, the cow loses everything. In all cases, the "host" is killed in the slaughterhouse. We cannot claim that the cow receives food as a mutual benefit because with out us she could do it on her own. You claim that pets receive a benefit from their captivity, but I'm saying it's not a genuine benefit because without us they could get these needs met on their own. The cost for their free meal, is their freedom, their social life, their autonomy and their genetic integrity.
        
        - Desert Girl February 4, 2009 10:24PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Obligated Companion
        
        You wrote: "Are you aware of the survival rate for animals in the wild?"
        
        Lifespan of the free-
        Turn the tables. Would you rather live a very long life as a captive slave? Or try out your chances making it on your own as a free man?
        
        You wrote: "From my point of view it is worth giving that up to lead a safe comfortable life."
        
        Are you sure about that? Turn the tables again. It's pure logic, tbcass. Try it on yourself. How would you like it? How would you like to be pampered property?
        
        Human Property
        As a human slave, you cannot leave the property you are on, under no circumstances. You cannot just get up and go socialise with other people. You cannot make any choices for yourself at all. Could you honestly say you would not mind having to ask your master if you may go and pee? No it's not different. Would you really choose to live the comfortable life as a servant slave in a wealthy home with all the comforts and affection from your masters, and all the medical care and food for the cost of not being able to choose your own wife, or having your wife sold because they can no longer afford two slaves, or your child sold when your wife has a baby? This is what happens to dogs! Do you think they cannot feel sorrow as we do when their children are taken? Of course they do. So you think it only matters to us, but it matters not to the dog?
        
        Dogs Cannot Choose Because They Know No Other Choice-
        Dogs don't know any better but that's because we made them that way they were bred that way and they were born into and mentally conditioned that way. This was not their choice. The only way you can truly know if a dog would choose this life as a pet and go happily home with you is if you ask him when he hasn't been preconditioned from birth to be a pet, and his genetics have not disallowed him to survive on his own. How? Ask a wolf. That's the dog who can make the real choice. He knows freedom. And if you gave him a short taste of captive life, back yards, tinned food and social deprivation to be with humans, what are the chances he'd turn down the life he had evolved to live?
        
        Star Trek Alien Companion
        There was an episode in Star Trek (no I hardly ever watch it), where a friendly alien being lived alone on a large ship in space. He captured a female human from the Star Ship Enterprise to become her companion by force, but he was very nice about it. The alien lived for a very long time and had outlived three previous female "companions" before. They were buried alongside one another in a courtyard on the ship. The alien was extremely friendly and catered to the woman's every need by providing her with banquets of food, etc, and offered his company and conversation. She was desperate to get out and he calmly explained that this is how his other companions reacted at first but in time they grew to love him and enjoyed his companionship. (What bloody choice did they have?) His previous companions lived their entire lifetimes with the alien (as pets do). The woman of course was rescued! She couldn't imagine a worse fate. Take that a step further, imagine if she was raised from birth as the alien's companion, she wouldn't think anything of it! Same for pets. Just a different species. We can only see the insanity and cruelty of the alien forcing companionship on the women because he took the women when they were free and when they had the sensibility of choice and free thought.
        
        You wrote: "Do humans give up freedoms to live in a civilized society?"
        
        This is entirely different. You're talking about FREE individuals living in modern society. We are not property as pets are.
        
        You wrote: "The fact that some people mistreat pets is not an argument for eliminating having pets any more than because some husbands beat their wives we should eliminate marriage."
        
        Arranged Marriage
        As I said before pets are property, wives are not property. Big difference. Two people choose to go into a marriage. A dog is not capable choosing to enter a pet relationship with the human. It is not her choice. It is an "arranged marriage". It is only the human who chooses to enter this relationship as the owner, and there can only be one owner. I am not opposed to the way pets are treated. I am opposed to the fact that they are treated at all in the first place. I am opposed to their use, not the abuse. So long as there is use, there will always be abuse.
        
        - Desert Girl February 4, 2009 10:29PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Dog DNA, Feeding Animals, Wild & Happy
        
        You wrote: "Long ago some wolves started living among humans because it offered advantages to living independently in the wild."
        
        Tracing Dog DNA
        The latest findings (last year) through genetic tracing of dog DNA concludes that all modern dogs today came from just three individual wolves. So we're talking about one tribe of people doing the domesticating, not dozens of tribes spread out across a continent. And we're talking about just 3 wolves, not hundreds across a continent. From those three adopted wolves they remained with humans forever. Their pups stayed with the tribe as domesticated animals and from there humans began selectively breeding the wolves to obtain desireable traits like docility and obedience. Yes of course they like being fed, it's easier. This does not make it moral though. Altering an animal's behaviour for our own gain will affect that animal's quality of life forever, as i just mentioned above about why being property and having no autonomy really sucks.
        
        Any Animal Will Take a Free Meal, But Is It Right?
        Think about wild parrots coming to feed on bread and sugar from tourists or park visitors. This is altering their natural behaviour, causing them to become tame (fear is essential for their survival to flee from predators), and most importantly, when they become dependant on the free food they may perish once it is gone, or the babies do not learn how to find wild food on their own. On Stradbroke Island, dingoes used to be fed by tourists. They lost their respectful fear of humans and one day some children were mauled. Consequently thousands were shot. The same happens to bears in other natural parks. You see, just about any species of animal will gladly accept a free meal, but it's wrong because it changes their life in very negative ways. We should never be feeding wild animals. And what right do we have to domesticate them and make them our property?
        
        You wrote: "Here's the choice, live a comfortable life free from most diseases and parasites, free from being torn apart by predators and dying a horrible agonizing death, free from possible starvation in bad times, free from living in horrible weather conditions, free from being abandoned by others of their kind when injured, etc, etc."
        
        Wild Animals Live Full & Joyful Lives
        Sure there are those risks & I don't deny all the dangers, but have you ever watched a wildlife documentary? Or have you ever seen kangaroos grazing on the hillside? There's plenty of joy in that wild life they lead too. Weighing it up, the joy of living is worth the risks of death and disease. Humans certainly have their fair share of diseases, wars and car crashes! And these are all products of our civilisation. In some cases I'd rather the wild life as another animal than the suffering many humans experience. These animals live absolutely splendous lives. As as you jolly well know, there are loads of risks, I'd say far greater ones to face as a domestic pet in civilisation like homelessness and a shelter death. The chances are pretty high actually. Many people can not afford vet care. And besides the fatality risks, the biggest bummer to being pet property is you can't make any choices or choose your social life as wolves do.
        
        You wrote: "Theoretically I could say you are immoral for wanting to allow animals to suffer such a fate."
        
        Silly!
        Oh so you propose to domesticate all the wild animals of the world to save them from their horrible life? And live the wonderful life in a caged zoo being gawked at by hoards of humans? Domesticated life is no alternative! Shall I assume you are joking!
        
        - Desert Girl February 4, 2009 10:32PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Confirmation of Symbiosis.
        
        If the results of the study you mention are true, it would confirm symbiosis. If the descendants of three wolves were so successful that they now vastly outnumber the rest of their species, it clearly demonstrates that they did something beneficial, at least from an evolutionary standpoint. That something was to enter into a symbiotic relationship with the dominant species on the planet. Dogs have been supplied with a guarantee that as long as humans keep their current position and don't all start thinking like you do, their species will continue to thrive. In exchange, they provide humans with companions, guardians, trackers, hunters, workers, and even food, in some cases. This is clearly in the best interest of their species, especially when one considers the prospects of their wild brethren. And it's not just dogs. Look at how well domestic cattle are doing compared to bison, buffalo, and other wild bovines. How many more pigs are there than wild hogs? What did housecats even descend from? Lions? Doubtful. Whatever it was, I doubt they're doing real great anymore. The symbiotic relationship between humans and domesticated animals has been in almost all cases highly beneficial to both sides. You are looking at inter-species relationships on a far too personal basis.
        
        As far as your little fantasy about living in the wild, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't spent a lot of time "roughing it." I challenge you to go out in the wilderness for a week with nothing. No tools, no gear, no shelter, no protective clothing, no flint, no steel. If you survive, I'm betting you'll have shed your desire to live in the wild, along with your little vegetarian habit and more than a few pounds, which based on your profile picture you can't afford to lose. And I know, I know, wild animals are much more used to and adapted to life in the wild. That's the only reason that they survive. It doesn't mean it's a comfortable existence. If you've ever played fetch with a retriever you know that they enjoy the hell out of their relationship with humans.
        
        - richardsonkr February 10, 2009 9:57PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Just One Right, Animals Don't Need to Vote!
        
        You wrote: "Rights are a product of civilization and do not exist outside of the civilized world."
        
        True they are. But we apply human law to the world outside the civilised world. There is no such thing as a free animal. All wild animals belong to the government, technically.
        
        You wrote: "Finally I do not share your belief that animals have equal rights to humans in a human society any more than I believe that a human deserves any rights if they choose to live in the wild."
        
        Basic Rights, Not Complex Ones
        Well thankfully you aren't in charge of the law to deny basic human rights to tribal peoples living in the bush. Thankfully all humans automatically receive basic human rights no matter where they choose to live. As far as non-human animals go, the right to sue someone would not be useful to a badger, or the right to drive a car for a salamander, nor the right to vote for a dog because it's irrelevant to them. What is relevant to them is their own interests. The definition of a right is to protect interests. For the detailed definition of a right, visit professor Gary Francione's website www.abolitionistapproach.com . Animals should at the very least receive the most basic of rights to protect them from us. You know, the basic right to life and liberty. If this was the case, animals cannot be our property because property cannot have rights, property can be disposed of, has no freedom, can be terminated. Animals deserve the basic right to not be property.
        
        You wrote: "In the wild do animals respect the rights of other animals, Of course not."
        
        Moral Model
        That's correct, they don't. What does that have to do with how we conduct our own behaviour? We do not base our moral behaviour on what other animals do. We are capable of making moral distinctions and decisions. Just because a lion may hurt you if she had the chance, doesn't morally justify our hurting of lions. Just because a man robs you, doesn't justify us robbing someone else.
        
        - Desert Girl February 4, 2009 10:34PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Difference Between Self-Preservation & Exploiting Others
        
        You wrote: "Your own species always should take priority over a different species. I am a human an believe that any other species is something less. It's a natural instinct to feel that way. It's what drives any species to preserve it's self."
        
        I agree, if a human was in a genuine situation of life threatening risk such as an attack, then it is the human who should be saved. But these animals are not in this situation of a conflict of interest you propose. We have almost complete control of the lives and behaviour of other animals -wild and domestic. We're certainly under no danger. We can exploit them how we like. There is no urgency for us to survive, we're surviving quite easily. There is no us and them. So for us to go out from our position of comfort without risk at all to our survival, and kill another species is not acting out of self preservation, but out of dominance and exploitation. We are exploiting another species for our own gain. It has nothing to do with our own survival. I believe we should prioritise human life over non-human life in situations of true conflict (extremely rare), but scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as a species being "less" than another species. We've certainly gone beyond our need to survive and dived deeply into a completely different drive -the drive to dominate and exploit others for our own gain -purely "might is right". Are mentally retarded people "less" than mentally healthy people? If so, should we exploit them like we do to other animals just because they are less intelligent than us?
        
        You wrote: "I don't expect to change your mind but rest assured that you are not going to convince too many people to agree with you."
        
        Standing Up for the Minority View
        Do u think I live on the moon? I am perfectly aware that I possess a minority opinion that animals should not be property. A few hundred years ago, an abolitionist person opposed to the property status of people, was in the extreme minority of thinking and often persecuted for it. African slaves were even described as natural, as they worked happily in the fields. It's just a different species this time, but still about the same issues. You were the one who chose to check out an obscure topic like Should We Keep Pets. What do you expect to find here? The same old view that everybody has? Well, u found something different this time. Isn't that fun? Or at least interesting to you? Ok, it's irritating! That's fine. If you miss the common view, there are plenty of people around you to talk to who believe animals are here to serve us.
        
        You wrote: "The fact is I find your arguments strange and absurd to say the least."
        
        That's because you've never heard of this before. You've been raised to believe it's ok to use animals and that it's perfectly normal and natural. Of course these ideas about animal liberation will sound absurd to you. They did to me when I first heard them. There's a small easy to read book called "The Dreaded Comparison -Human and Animal Slavery". Dare to compare my friend. What's the difference between humans and other animals that matters when it comes to suffering anyway? We feel just as much no matter what the intelligence level is.
        
        You wrote: "I enjoy owning pets, loving them and caring for them. Believe me, it's obvious to me that they enjoy it just as much."
        
        Speciesism-
        Let's try this on and see if it still fits -Switch the Species. I'll change your quote to talk about human property rather than dog property. "I enjoy owning slaves, loving them and caring for them. Believe me, it's obvious to me that the slaves enjoy it just as much."
        
        You wrote: "Good Day"
        
        Thank you I will! G'day to you too.
        
        - Desert Girl February 4, 2009 10:36PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Sorry
        
        I don't buy any of that, even a little bit. Dogs and cats have been kept by Humans for so ling that they have adapted to and are quite happy with the relationship. They are not slaves. Animals cannot be trained (you would probably say coerced) through cruel treatment. They are rewarded some what like we have a job we hate because we get paid. You could say we do that freely but it's not so. Our society makes it necessary. Human slaves will escape if given the chance. Animals will return home even if they are lost far from home. While on the surface possessing animals may seem like slavery on an emotional and IMO, moral level they are completely different. Unlike when you had your mind changed I firmly believe what I believe and none of your arguments have had the slightest effect on me.
        
        I have heard this argument before from others on this site but you spelled out your reasons better than anybody else has.
        
        You Said:
        "A few hundred years ago, an abolitionist person opposed to the property status of people, was in the extreme minority of thinking and often persecuted for it. African slaves were even described as natural, as they worked happily in the fields. It's just a different species this time, but still about the same issues. You were the one who chose to check out an obscure topic like Should We Keep Pets. What do you expect to find here?"
        
        Before you can hope to abolish owning pets you will have to convince the majority of people that pets are equal to humans. With slavery it was easy because, despite what people said at the time (and some still do) we are all still human. The abolition of slavery took thousands of years. At first anybody you could overpower was fair game. Then people from different countries were fair game, then people of different races was fair game but through it all they were all human and there is a basic instinct that exists to preserve the species. If your going to change whole of humanity to feel that way about species it may take 10's of thousands of years if it's possible at all.
        
        Your argument about tracing dog DNA is far from definitive and it really doesn't matter anyway. Even if it's true it won't change a significant number of peoples minds. We have today what we have regardless of how we got here.
        
        Also I have a Bachelors Degree in Biology and rest assured your original assertion that a symbiotic relationship requires that the survival of both species depends on that relationship is false. There are several types of symbiotic relationships including mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism. Not all are beneficial and some are interdependent on each other for survival but the one I referred to, and the most common meaning, involves mutual benefit but not necessarily dependency of survival.
        
        You:
        Are you sure about that? Turn the tables again. It's pure logic, tbcass. Try it on yourself. How would you like it? How would you like to be pampered property?
        
        I did. I got married. Being married means giving up a ton of freedoms (believe me I know, I've been married for only 25 of my 63 years) but I wouldn't have it any other way. It's funny, people usually spend their adolescent years just itching to be free from their parents. Once you're free it seems nice for a while but then it gets very lonely and depressing. Freedom is an illusion any way. In our society we are all captives of our laws, limited finances, significant others, our neighbors, our jobs etc. We may not be owned by an individual but we are all owned by society as a whole which in turn offers protection and companionship. A pet human relationship is sort of like a microcosm of that. Despite all that I wouldn't trade it for living in the wild fending for myself. Besides we humans are too conditioned to civilization to even be able to survive in the wild for very long. All in all our freedom is an illusion.
        
        You:
        "That's correct, they don't. What does that have to do with how we conduct our own behavior? We do not base our moral behavior on what other animals do. We are capable of making moral distinctions and decisions. Just because a lion may hurt you if she had the chance, doesn't morally justify our hurting of lions. Just because a man robs you, doesn't justify us robbing someone else."
        
        Actually I disagree to a certain extent. If a rouge lion kills people we have a moral justification and obligation to capture or kill that lion to protect others of our own species. As far as the robber. I absolutely feel it is within our moral right to steal back whatever he took from us. It is just illegal because vigilantism is one of the freedoms we give up to maintain order in our society. Many laws are not based on morality.
        existence.
        
        - tbcass February 5, 2009 7:28AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
        
        more
        
        The problem with moral arguments is that if we have different definitions of morality the logic of one becomes the rantings of another ie, there is no logic. One of the reason's for the constitution and laws is to allow people believe what they feel is morally right as long as it isn't destructive to society as a whole. It is also there to protect us from having beliefs with which we don't agree with being forced upon us by others. It is one of the reasons why I post here. I have no problem with you believing the way you do. That is your right and would never force you to own a pet. I do have a problem with people wanting to impose their morality through force or laws. Does this fit you?
        
        If your goal is to convince others to believe that owning a pet is wrong I'm fine with that. It's your right.
        
        If it's your goal to make owning a pet illegal than I would oppose you with every fiber of my
        
        - tbcass February 5, 2009 7:31AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
        
        Evolution is Required for Symbiosis
        
        It took me a while to find something on the internet and it is of course a quick summary of such a detailed study of animals and organisms who depend on each other in nature (link below). Symbiosis is something that evolves between two species, so that would rule out humans and domesticated animals because we did not evolve together needing each other for survival. Widespread domestication occured about 10,000 years ago. Even if it did go as far back as a hundred thousand years, this is not sufficient time for evolution to occur between species.
        
        http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Symbiosis
        
        Diseases from Living with Animals
        One side-effect of domestication has been disease. For example, cattle have given humanity various viral poxes, measles, and tuberculosis; pigs gave influenza; and horses the rhinoviruses. Humans share over sixty diseases with dogs. Many parasites also have their origins in domestic animals. Over 90% of food poisonings originate from eating animal products. Then there's mad cow disease. All of the major killing diseases of the west like heart disease, stroke, diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, and hormonal cancers are linked to consuming animal products due to their saturated fat, cholesterol, carcinogens, harmful bacterias, and free radicals. Because of this, mainstream media encourages people to eat more fruits, vegetables and whole grains, and to reduce their consumption of meat and dairy. People in parts of the world who eat a plant based diet have a dramatically lower chance of getting the diseases of the west.
        
        - Desert Girl February 5, 2009 7:00AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Nice talking to you
        
        Symbiosis can arrive through evolution but is not required for it. Go back to that link. It does not state that evolution is required for symbiosis but that symbiosis may be a driving force in Evolution. Also remember that it is merely one persons hypothesis, not an accepted fact. It is an interesting concept though worthy of further study. The came can be said for the "all dogs evolved from one source" argument.
        
        Check out the link below. It outlines the steps of the scientific method that any researcher must go through. That is only the beginning. After reporting your results they must be replicated by other researchers. One of the biggest problems in our society is that preliminary scientific studies are often reported in the news media as fact, most of which cannot be replicated by others and are then not accepted by the scientific community. That's why there is so much bad science and false information floating around.
        
        http://www.opposingviews.com/comments/still-don-t-agree-with-you
        
        The diet factor of eating meat is another thing altogether not related to our previous discussion and I have to agree that for most people, eating large amounts of meat is more harmful than a primarily vegetable diet. I am not nor plan to become a pure vegetarian but I do restrict my meat intake for health, not moral reasons. I also am careful as to the kinds of meat I consume. Possibly because of that my doctor is amazed at how healthy I am for my age (he's put me through every test imaginable to try to find something wrong with me).
        
        It was fun discussing this with you and you seem like someone I could enjoy talking to in real life. We will just have to agree to disagree as long as you don't try to make owning pets illegal. :-)
        
        - tbcass February 5, 2009 8:23AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Related Debates

Experts on "Yes" Side

The Humane Society
Celebrating Animals/Confronting Cruelty See arguments

Experts on "No" Side

Gary L Francione
Rutgers University School of Law See arguments

Most Objections

Should We Have Pets? Of Course
5