Support NeoGAF

[akira28]

It still boggles my mind that people actually defend declawing.

Its been made illegal in a lot of countries and is considered by most people to be animal cruelty.

I'm not so sure of that.

 

[Septimius]

The other argument would be that declawing cats helps (But would not completely prevent) those cats from killing native wildlife. This is actually a very serious problem in the US, as cats are classified as an invasive species here and have driven many species of birds out of areas or even threatened their existence. This argument was significantly impaired, however, by a few posters who pointed out that putting a bell around your cats' neck largely obviates the value in declawing for this reason, but it does not completely obviate it, either. Declawing can also prevent your indoor cats from hurting each other in cat fights, which can and does happen.

How do you feel about surgically removing all men's penises? Rape is (not even?) arguably one of the worst things a women can be subjected to. At birth, removing all men's penises will ensure no woman is ever raped. It is an actual argument for a very serious problem. We could also back it up by saying "all sexual related usages of the penis is merely a luxury, and not something you need to survive", and that we can artificially inseminate all women from hereon. If some pesky human right activists complain it's inhumane, we can also operate in electrodes that can stimulate men to an orgasm even without the penis. Let's also assume this change is all risk free, for sake of argument.

I don't think immoral action that causes some moral effects is any less immoral. It's also a very slippery slope. This is why I think these arguments for declawing is out the window.

Regardless, I agree that the argument can seem to implicitly endorse low standards of animal rights, which is why I've made several explicit attempts to make it clear that it isn't what I'm doing. I have explicitly stated that I'd prefer a consistently high standard of animal rights -- again, I absolutely, honestly applaud you for being a vegan -- but at the moment I'm only asking that some standard be applied before any normative discussion progress.

I think you're hampering progress when you enforce this. Sure, it would be nice, but saying I can't care where my iPhone comes from, since I probably have some shoes that were made on equally poor terms is like a carnival ride sign that says "you have to be at least this moral to participate in this discussion". This problem most often comes from ignorance, too. When you ask if it's OK for cats do be declawed, and people say no, and then show them a video of livestock treated like crap and say "but you're OK with this, apparently!", you're assuming many things. Even saying "how come you don't object to this" is still a sort of entrapment, and is obfuscating the problem.

If you show the video to people and ask if they object to it, you'd probably find most, if not all, people saying declawing cats is not right to also say that the treatment in the video is not right. It seems we're differentiating when it comes to the right of life question, so let's take it to terms we can agree on - how the animals have it when they are alive. If there's a cat livestock farm in China, where people do eat cats, that declaw cats, I'd still argue it's immoral. Or unethical, as I've pointed out the focus needs to be - which is also where this discussion differentiates on livestock and pets, the moral vs the ethical.

It's OK to care about cats being declawed, but not care about the treatment of livestock, right? So long as you object to both? Because that's probably what's happening in this thread. First, there's a ton of ignorance. I don't know where the meat I buy in my store comes from, but I know of the laws, regulation and enforcement that goes into ensuring the ethical care of the animals, so I am OK with buying it. Even if I didn't, I live in a country where these matters are important enough, for me to assume that the right laws are in place. If I hadn't been to the farms I have been, this would probably have been my default. So normally, I don't care where my food comes from. I find the underlying system to take care of that. If someone tells me that's not enough, I can't take that at face value, as I'd have to be skeptical about it. Maybe I'd be skeptical but still not gone home to study the matter. That can't be immoral. So yes, if someone managed to prove to me that there's an immoral and unethical treatment of livestock, I'd object. I object to the video you showed me. I still don't care about livestock in America as much as I do declawing of cats. It's a subjective choice, and that's OK.

I know this partially came in response to the special care of pets argument, but I think that one spawned out of nothing. My line of arguments also impose no special rights to my pets than to livestock. My moral standpoint is that no life can be treated poorly, no matter the intention behind its creation. I object to anyone raising livestock and not properly caring for their animals, and I think it's immoral of farmers not to ensure more care than just the minimum ethical requirement. But in the corporate structured world we live in, I know most of the time the cost reductions will be enforced from a guy in an office that doesn't have to ever look at the livestock, which is why laws and agencies is where this starts and ends.

Fighting to flesh out this to the extent it seems you have, Opiate, comes a cross as the flailing of the losing side of an argument. The points you touch on have serious implications, and are healthy as such. I enjoy responding to them, I'm just saying they might veer the topic off its course. If you ask most people about their attitude to livestock treatment, you'll find the answer comes out of not caring, not out of no moral objection. Demanding for this all to be fleshed out will ensure analysis paralysis and probably a recursive problem that ends with digressions never tied up, like our discussion on right of life vs quality of life.

Instead of demanding some standard to be applied, see that that standard might be there in most people, but that people simply don't lend their food a second's thought. If you think that's immoral, start another thread about that. If you do dig long enough, you'll probably find that people don't think it's OK to treat livestock like shit, but even if someone did, it's hard to argue that they cannot present arguments against declawing, despite at the same time applying different values for animals. Contorting to the subject is a way of dodging the immorality of the question, not getting to the bottom of the morality of declawing. Let's try to do that, then you can put that into your moral value system.

 

[Devolution]

How do you feel about surgically removing all men's penises? Rape is (not even?) arguably one of the worst things a women can be subjected to. At birth, removing all men's penises will ensure no woman is ever raped. It is an actual argument for a very serious problem. We could also back it up by saying "all sexual related usages of the penis is merely a luxury, and not something you need to survive", and that we can artificially inseminate all women from hereon. If some pesky human right activists complain it's inhumane, we can also operate in electrodes that can stimulate men to an orgasm even without the penis. Let's also assume this change is all risk free, for sake of argument.

I don't think immoral action that causes some moral effects is any less immoral. It's also a very slippery slope. This is why I think these arguments for declawing is out the window.



I think you're hampering progress when you enforce this. Sure, it would be nice, but saying I can't care where my iPhone comes from, since I probably have some shoes that were made on equally poor terms is like a carnival ride sign that says "you have to be at least this moral to participate in this discussion". This problem most often comes from ignorance, too. When you ask if it's OK for cats do be declawed, and people say no, and then show them a video of livestock treated like crap and say "but you're OK with this, apparently!", you're assuming many things. Even saying "how come you don't object to this" is still a sort of entrapment, and is obfuscating the problem.

If you show the video to people and ask if they object to it, you'd probably find most, if not all, people saying declawing cats is not right to also say that the treatment in the video is not right. It seems we're differentiating when it comes to the right of life question, so let's take it to terms we can agree on - how the animals have it when they are alive. If there's a cat livestock farm in China, where people do eat cats, that declaw cats, I'd still argue it's immoral. Or unethical, as I've pointed out the focus needs to be - which is also where this discussion differentiates on livestock and pets, the moral vs the ethical.

It's OK to care about cats being declawed, but not care about the treatment of livestock, right? So long as you object to both? Because that's probably what's happening in this thread. First, there's a ton of ignorance. I don't know where the meat I buy in my store comes from, but I know of the laws, regulation and enforcement that goes into ensuring the ethical care of the animals, so I am OK with buying it. Even if I didn't, I live in a country where these matters are important enough, for me to assume that the right laws are in place. If I hadn't been to the farms I have been, this would probably have been my default. So normally, I don't care where my food comes from. I find the underlying system to take care of that. If someone tells me that's not enough, I can't take that at face value, as I'd have to be skeptical about it. Maybe I'd be skeptical but still not gone home to study the matter. That can't be immoral. So yes, if someone managed to prove to me that there's an immoral and unethical treatment of livestock, I'd object. I object to the video you showed me. I still don't care about livestock in America as much as I do declawing of cats. It's a subjective choice, and that's OK.

I know this partially came in response to the special care of pets argument, but I think that one spawned out of nothing. My line of arguments also impose no special rights to my pets than to livestock. My moral standpoint is that no life can be treated poorly, no matter the intention behind its creation. I object to anyone raising livestock and not properly caring for their animals, and I think it's immoral of farmers not to ensure more care than just the minimum ethical requirement. But in the corporate structured world we live in, I know most of the time the cost reductions will be enforced from a guy in an office that doesn't have to ever look at the livestock, which is why laws and agencies is where this starts and ends.

Fighting to flesh out this to the extent it seems you have, Opiate, comes a cross as the flailing of the losing side of an argument. The points you touch on have serious implications, and are healthy as such. I enjoy responding to them, I'm just saying they might veer the topic off its course. If you ask most people about their attitude to livestock treatment, you'll find the answer comes out of not caring, not out of no moral objection. Demanding for this all to be fleshed out will ensure analysis paralysis and probably a recursive problem that ends with digressions never tied up, like our discussion on right of life vs quality of life.

Instead of demanding some standard to be applied, see that that standard might be there in most people, but that people simply don't lend their food a second's thought. If you think that's immoral, start another thread about that. If you do dig long enough, you'll probably find that people don't think it's OK to treat livestock like shit, but even if someone did, it's hard to argue that they cannot present arguments against declawing, despite at the same time applying different values for animals. Contorting to the subject is a way of dodging the immorality of the question, not getting to the bottom of the morality of declawing. Let's try to do that, then you can put that into your moral value system.

Ace post.

 

[Horse Detective]

I wouldn't do it. All of my cats have their claws. We have only one piece of wicker furniture that they chose for regular clawing so there isn't much to worry about with the other furniture. Carpet is another story, but I wouldn't have any carpet in my ideal home.

I don't know if I would call it animal cruelty, but if my cats ever escaped, at least they would be able to fend off other animals and survive for however long on their own. On that same note, I don't really like miniature dogs. Not a big fan of defenseless animals.

 

[trollcity]

Damaging furniture is certainly a lesser expense, but I don't think it's an unreasonable one, either.

People arne't made of money and there are definitely people out there who would like to take care of cats but couldn't realistically afford to if that cat is tearing stuff up. For example, my parents considered putting my cat down when I was younger because he was peeing on everything and causing significant damage to their home (they ultimately decided not to).

Would they have been bad cat owners if they had put him down? If so, how much money does a "good" cat owner have to be willing to spend on their cat? Many of my parents carpets are worth tens of thousands of dollars (authentic Persian rugs). If my cat was costing my parents hundreds of thousands, would they have been been "Bad" owners then? What's the limit? Should everyone be expected to spend unlimited amounts of money on owning a cat? What about poor families who can afford to keep a low-cost pet but can't afford one which can/will destroy some of their furniture -- should they not be allowed pets?

These are serious questions, by the way, and not rhetorical. I'm not sure where to draw the line here. I'll just reiterate that we already have a cat population problem and whatever you think of people's treatment of their cats, in most cases further cat homelessness is almost certainly worse.

you and your family are psychos! you don't even consider killing a cat because it peed on your stuff, try and find a new home for it!!!!!!!!??? someone who doesn't have hundreds of thousands worth of rugs. someone who can effectively train it.

it takes next to no effort to both toilet train and train a cat not to scratch. get a kitty litter and a dedicated scratching post. i have a lovely cat that has destroyed a total of $0 worth of property and has claws.

fyi nobody declaws theirs cats in new zealand. it's literally unheard of.

i can't believe it. killing a cat for peeing on a rug. you should NOT get a cat.

 

[Machine]

you and your family are psychos! you don't even consider killing a cat because it peed on your stuff, try and find a new home for it!!!!!!!!???

American Humane Association website provided me with two relevant quotes:

"The HSUS estimates that animal shelters care for 6-8 million dogs and cats every year in the United States, of whom approximately 3-4 million are euthanized."

"56 percent of dogs and 71 percent of cats that enter animal shelters are euthanized."

Saying that rehoming a cat is the best solution is naive. They are more likely to be euthanized than find a new home. Yes, claw covers and scratching posts are better alternatives but if it comes down to declawing or euthanizing - is death the better option? I think if you ask someone who has lost fingers, toes or entire limbs they will tell you it sucks but they manage and they would rather be alive than dead.

 

[scar tissue]

[...] do you think it's better for the cat to be in a shelter but still have all its claws?

Again, honest question. Because those are effectively our options.

Do you think it's better for an orphan child to have his teeth pulled and have a loving family, or to be in an orphanage with all his teeth?

Not a perfect analogy, but I couldn't think of anything as important to humans as claws are to cats.

Mutilating animals because of convenience is never the answer. Get your cat some scratch posts and mats. I've never heard someone having a persistent problem with their cat(s) damaging furniture.

 

[Dr Frasier Crane]

Personally, as a pet I know a cat comes with claws (as part of them being said cat). In choosing to have a cat as a pet I, personally, accept that that applies to the entire cat and not just sections of the cat. I then accept that as part of that cats will do their nails and manage my living environment appropriately. If this means getting a cat scratching post, some cardboard or just accept having furniture that is scratched. I wouldn't go and say "you inconvenience me in some way creature I have chosen to welcome into my home, for this I will remove parts of your body".

 

[Velti]

Our neighbor's cats are declawed and they're outside all the time. They're very sweet, and it makes me nervous for them, but it doesn't appear to affect their ability to hunt/climb at all.

For the record, my vet said that cats who can live outside successfully are better off for it. SUCCESSFULLY being the key word. My cat was more on the wild side when she was younger, and she had the perfect markings and brains to be a forest cat. (Silver and pale orange/tabby tortie, with white on the bottom.) She would curl up in the leaves and you'd have trouble spotting her from the deck. It's great exercise, diet, and stimulation, but this was at the end of a suburban neighborhood that bordered a large park, so she had lots of room, so to speak. She was the queen-empress of the neighborhood and terrorized all the other cats by her very presence. :3

She's going on 19 years now, my dear one. Spends most of the time soaking up the summer heat in the garage and getting her claws stuck on things. She just doesn't strawp them enough anymore- I think it must be uncomfortable for her.

 

[SethMode]

I have worked and volunteered in multiple vet offices, and I would just say this: if you saw how most places removed your cats claws, you would never want it to happen again. It's not even just "imagine having your fingers cut off to the first knuckle". It's more like "imagine having your fingers cut off to the first knuckle with a cigar cutter". And oh yeah, one snip doesn't always get the job done. Sometimes it can take up to 4 or 5, which at that point someone might as well be sawing off your fingers to the knuckle with a butterknife, the way it looks.

 

[jimi_dini]

So with that in mind, many have argued, "you are only declawing the cat because it's convenient for you." A valid response to that would be, "Okay? People cause pain or death to animals all the time because it's convenient for them, this isn't a unique situation. And at least in this case, I'm doing this so that I can more conveniently provide the animal with an otherwise caring, loving home."

That's correct of course.

But don't you see a difference between some animal and your own pet animal?

Let's look at it this way:
How much do you care about people getting slaughtered in Afghanistan or somewhere else, because some countries want access to some resources? You may say "yeah, that should stop", but do you do something about it? Most of the people don't do anything at all, because those invaded countries are far far away and we don't know any of those people, so who cares. Right?

On the other hand - if some criminal attacked your parents or friends for example (people that you especially care for) you would probably take action. Although invading a country is much much worse than some lone criminal.

So you could say that people only care about specific people and don't really care about all people. Just like caring about their own pet animals and not caring about some unknown cow or chicken that had a miserable "life" and was slaughtered so that they could eat their crappy McDonalds "food".

Logically speaking you should really care about all of them or not care about any of them. But it doesn't work that way even for humans themselves.

 

[systemfehler]

Logically speaking you should really care about all of them or not care about any of them. But it doesn't work that way even for humans themselves.

No logic doesn't imply that Opiate seems to do that to make his point. If it rains the street is wet, so if the street is wet it has to be raining is not "logic".

Making sound arguments is logic and therefor helping 1 animal is better than helping none at all.

 

[Stet]

People put down Mother Theresa for only helping children who accepted Jesus. Opiate, do you think that one helped child who forcefully accepts religion is better than a child in an orphanage who doesn't?

 

[Siegmeyer]

Our neighbor's cats are declawed and they're outside all the time. They're very sweet, and it makes me nervous for them, but it doesn't appear to affect their ability to hunt/climb at all.

For the record, my vet said that cats who can live outside successfully are better off for it. SUCCESSFULLY being the key word.

I am not a vet or biologist, but I would love to know how suddenly going against thousands of years of evolution is beneficial to the cat. Smells like utter BS to me, but if I can be proven wrong I'm all ears.

There are a few other replies in this thread where vets are claiming it can be beneficial, but that is completely at odds with it being illegal in so many other countries so what gives?

Is it simply a case of there are lots of unscrupulous vets in NA who would rather make a quick buck than tell you what is best for your pet? Or are NA vets much better informed than the rest of the world and know something we don't?

How much does the declawing procedure cost? And I guess you can factor in that the vet will get more money down the line if any complications arise because of declawing.

For now I'ma go with 'some' American vets are arseholes.

 

[SethMode]

I am not a vet or biologist, but I would love to know how suddenly going against thousands of years of evolution is beneficial to the cat. Smells like utter BS to me, but if I can be proven wrong I'm all ears.

There are a few other replies in this thread where vets are claiming it can be beneficial, but that is completely at odds with it being illegal in so many other countries so what gives?

Is it simply a case of there are lots of unscrupulous vets in NA who would rather make a quick buck than tell you what is best for your pet? Or are NA vets much better informed than the rest of the world and know something we don't?

How much does the declawing procedure cost? And I guess you can factor in that the vet will get more money down the line if any complications arise because of declawing.

For now I'ma go with 'some' American vets are arseholes.

The "vets claim it's okay" is totally case by case. I've worked with at least 20 vets (in NA), and of those only 1 would claim it's even okay (strangely he was from Ireland), let alone this idea that it's beneficial. I literally have never heard that before.

I can't speak to it being a big NA thing (although it wouldn't surprise me) because most places I worked at would only ever do it under EXTREMELY sensitive circumstances (those included: borderline browbeating the owner to try and talk them out of it, only doing it between a very specific (and small) age and weight window), if they did it at all. The majority would flat out refuse.

As far as cost, it really depends on the vet. The Irish vet I worked with would do it for like $150 bucks, which isn't that much, but he was very old school and low cost. That being said, it was literally a 15 minute procedure, tops. So I can see how time + low cost might be a reason why some would do it, but I'm seriously shocked that there seems to be this sentiment that it's even humane, let alone this preposterous idea that it is beneficial. The other vets I worked with that would do it, it usually ranged from $400 - 600 (and these vets worked in lower income areas, so I would argue that was yet another method of dissuading people from doing it).

 

[Septimius]

Our neighbor's cats are declawed and they're outside all the time. They're very sweet, and it makes me nervous for them, but it doesn't appear to affect their ability to hunt/climb at all.

For the record, my vet said that cats who can live outside successfully are better off for it. SUCCESSFULLY being the key word. My cat was more on the wild side when she was younger, and she had the perfect markings and brains to be a forest cat. (Silver and pale orange/tabby tortie, with white on the bottom.) She would curl up in the leaves and you'd have trouble spotting her from the deck. It's great exercise, diet, and stimulation, but this was at the end of a suburban neighborhood that bordered a large park, so she had lots of room, so to speak. She was the queen-empress of the neighborhood and terrorized all the other cats by her very presence. :3

She's going on 19 years now, my dear one. Spends most of the time soaking up the summer heat in the garage and getting her claws stuck on things. She just doesn't strawp them enough anymore- I think it must be uncomfortable for her.

You should trim the claws of an old cat. And some cats might function without claws, but saying they're better off has never been uttered by anyone I've come across. The furthest I've heard apologists take it is "seems to be doing fine", but they aren't better off. It's like if we de-nailed you. You'd function just fine, outside of tabs on cans of beer and soda. But to say it was for the better for you would be just strange.