It is well worth noting that this is not an issue that is agreed upon amongst vets - the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in the UK is against the practice and others like it, for example the docking of dog’s tails - this from their Guide to Professional Conduct:
They also refer to “mutilation” rather than maiming, saying that “…the term should be understood as covering all procedures, carried out with or without instruments, which involve interference with the sensitive tissues or the bone structure of an animal, and are carried out for non-therapeutic reasons.”
Well, actually, I happen to believe exactly that, erislover. The prohibition on pot while permitting alcohol is the most ridiculous sort of nonsense I can think of in the law today.
But look, it’s not me saying it’s maiming. IT’S YOU. Now I want you to explain, logically, why declawing is “maiming” but spaying and neutering are not “maiming.” Please explain why cutting off the testicles isn’t “mutilation or disfigurement” but cutting off the claws is.
What Face said: I regularly clip Cookie’s claws with a pair of nail clippers. She’s learned to enjoy it. I’ve taught her not to scratch, but clipping catches any occasional mistakes. Just be sure not to go so far down the claw that you catch the nerve - that would be cruel.
Posit that there is a cat and that ours is the only home for him. We will take him in if he is declawed; otherwise, he must fend for himself in the wild. From what is given, do those who applaud West Hollywood prefer that we not take the cat?
The problem is not that the definition is wrong. The problem is that it is used to inject emotionality into the debate. One man’s “maiming” is another man’s “elective amputation” and another man’s “phalangectomy”. Nothing is solved by using one term over another.
In other words, just because it meets the dictionary definition of maiming doesn’t make it any more morally objectional. Technically my sister maimed herself by getting a breast reduction, but that doesn’t mean anything morally, right? I can tell her that she maimed herself until the cock crows three times and she would still just ignore me. I wouldn’t blame her.
Refuting the practice of declawing on rational grounds is much more effective than deliberately using words that have provocative connotations. That’s what I meant to say when I wrongly said “misinformed hyperbole”. Sorry.
I would. IMO, a declawed cat, particularly a declawed indoor cat, is more pathetic than a cat on its own. But since that is simply my opinion, I don’t really applaud the West Hollywood proposal, since many people enjoy the company of clawless, housebound, cat-shaped pets.
Interesting choice. Right now, Jane is sitting comfortably on the window sill as he watches a wild gray cat outside, wet from freezing rain and shivering in 10 degree cold.
Of course. So them “maiming” isn’t injecting any moral component into the debate that wasn’t already there.
You want me to not use maiming? Ok. Surgical disfigurement. Howzat? That a little less charged for you?
If you suppose that my entire argument is based on your perception of “maiming” as emotionally charged, I am very sorry. I thought my suggestion of people permanently removing their fingernails in order to keep their station in life—say, a job or a loan on their house from the bank—to be more along the lines of how I actually feel.
Let me get this straight. You want me to rationally explain why surgically removing testicles—something I characterized as maiming—isn’t actually maiming, in an attempt to show me how wrong I was for characterizing surgical removal of claws as maiming?
We’ve conditioned Harlee the cat to use her scratching post and to stay away from the carpet and the furniture. We also trim her claws because she’s not so considerate about laps. We decided to do this after talking with the vet about possible behavioral problems associated with declawing; however the decision to avoid those problems was counterbalanced against the likelihood that she’d at some point destroy something else we cared about. I can’t see the point in censuring someone else over deciding differently. The declawed cats I’ve known seemed quite happy and completely untraumatized.
Note to future vet you with the face: An interesting behavioral issue has developed with Harlee during our claw trimming sessions. Normally, her favorite colors seem to be “brrown” or “prrrrrple”, but whenever I trim her claws, they change to an emphatic “brrllackk!” or red. (I think it’s red; she can’t seem to get beyond the “rrrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRR” part…)
In all fairness, erislover, your response to Liberitarian…
…prompted my comments about your use of maiming. To me, it looks like what you are saying is that surgically removing Lib’s testicals consitutes maiming and therefore it’s wrong. I disagree. Castrating Lib may be perfectly moral. In fact, “maiming” him in that way may be just what this country needs right now.
That’s funny. When I’m doing the deed, my cat sounds like a motorcycle being revved up. And by the time I get to the last toe the little Kawasaki is ready to amputate my fingers. With her mouth.
I definitely am not saying that maiming = wrong. I am saying maiming in order to achieve or maintain a station in life = wrong. Hope that clears it up!
That depends on why we’re outlawing cocaine. If it’s because it’s potentially addictive and deadly, then yes we’d have to legalize cocaine to be consistent. If we say because it’s snorted, and we just don’t like snorty things, then no, we wouldn’t have to legalize it. So if we’re outlawing declawing because it’s mutiliation, then we’d have to outlaw neutering if we wanted to remain consistent. If we’re outlawing declawing because it removes a cats defenses, then no we don’t need to outlaw neutering, unless you think neutering removes a cat’s defenses, and arguably that may be so (ever seen an intact tom go medieval on a neuter? not pretty).
