granting them rights according to their mental capacity and sentience - i.e. about the rights of a 2-3 year old toddler (or a person with extremely severe autism - very close approximation of a cat's or dog's mental capacity). For example - how would you handle an overpopulation by a toddlers? Would you set them free into the wild or euthanize?
EDIT: to CocaKoala below.
>But that's a ridiculous comparison because cats and dogs are not toddlers
i didn't say they are toddlers. I said we should treat others at least according to their mental capacity and sentience. And treatment of toddlers or severe autistic people is an example of such treatment.
>Granting cats and dogs the rights of toddlers or autistic individuals means you're giving up the right to spay or neuter your pet; nobody would advocate for sterilizing a toddler,
exactly. It is definitely time to give up such medieval ways. Why aren't we using pills on cats and dogs? Because we don't want to bother with extra expense and effort. Affording the rights would force us to do it. And it would be for our own good as treating others with consideration and humane compassion would only improve our own civilization.
>but many very reasonable people advocate for sterilizing house pets, and for good reasons.
if you remember anything about the history of human race, you wouldn't invoke the formula "many very reasonable people advocate for <...>, and for good reasons"
TO "dogecoinbase" :
Summary of your post's logic - "affording rights [according to mental capacity and sentience] is cruel". Yep, no way to fight that logic.
TO: CocaKoala 2nd post.
I advocate for granting rights and making decisions on that basis. At the current state of technology i do see that adopting such a basis would lead to the choice of pills over surgical mutilation.
To address your Edit - i didn't insist on specific everyday birth control pill taken orally. If we to talk technical details - long term birth control injection would me more close to it.
For example - how would you handle an overpopulation by a toddlers? Would you set them free into the wild or euthanize?
This is an incoherent analogy brought about by anthropomorphizing non-human creatures, and were it followed through on it would do immeasurable harm to the very creatures you wish to protect. To take the example of pills versus spaying/neutering (so, in your analogy, these hordes of toddlers can reproduce), you assume that their owners would universally be responsible enough to and capable of administering the pill, and that those who were not sufficiently responsible would do something other than abandon the animal when it began menstruating (in the case of a female dog or cat) or behaving in a sexually aggressive manner (in the case of a male).
Then you assert that giving them "rights" would induce people to behave well, presumably under the threat of punishment. This might actually result in a similar situation to toddlers -- forbidden to leave the house or go out of sight of their owners, forbidden to play in potentially dangerous situations, and a variety of other consequences that would be terrible for cats or dogs because they are not human and to treat them equivalently is cruel to the animal.
This common misconception below requires specific addressing.
>This is an incoherent analogy brought about by anthropomorphizing non-human creatures,
No. It is the other way around. The same level of sentience should be treated the same irrespective of the specific set/pile of cells the sentience resides in.
I gave multiple specific examples demonstrating how that incorrect assumption leads to nonsensical and cruel behavior. So, enjoy your nonsensical and cruel belief.
What's so medieval about sterilization? Lots of people do it voluntarily, even in Western countries. 25% of married men in New Zealand have undergone vasectomies, and countries like the UK, Netherlands and Canada have similar rates.
Sure, they are not forced. But then again, it's (rightfully) illegal to force them to take long term birth control injections as well. What makes the sterilization so terrible compared to that?
Neither, I just don't find it that relevant. In any case, if you want a closer example, 1 in 3 women in the US does an hysterectomy, the vast majority including removal of the ovaries.
By the way, we're in agreement in that castration is an unnecessarily invasive procedure; I'm just less shocked by it than you.
Wait, so you're advocating for pill-based animal birth control as an alternative to surgical sterilization, on the basis that subjecting animals to surgery to spay or neuter them is medieval and inhumane?
I want to make sure I'm clear on your proposal before I address it.
Edit: Your edit indicates that yes, I have your position correct. I would submit that we don't do that because it's untenable to round up every stray animal (or even any particular stray animal) and administer a birth control pill every single day. It has very little to do with cost (except in the sense that to implement such a plan would be incredibly, prohibitively expensive) and very much to do with practicality; it is far easier and far more effective to spay or neuter an animal once and then release them back to where they were than to track down, catch, administer pills that risk being ineffective if you miss a dose, and then release again, every day for the duration of the animal's life post sexual maturity.
But that's a ridiculous comparison because cats and dogs are not toddlers, and treating them like they are isn't going to solve the problem?
For example, when you leave a group of toddlers alone for a few days, you don't end up with an entirely new batch of toddlers two months later. That right there changes the dynamic of the issue pretty seriously, and you're just hand-waving that away.
Granting cats and dogs the rights of toddlers or autistic individuals means you're giving up the right to spay or neuter your pet; nobody would advocate for sterilizing a toddler, but many very reasonable people advocate for sterilizing house pets, and for good reasons.
granting them rights according to their mental capacity and sentience - i.e. about the rights of a 2-3 year old toddler (or a person with extremely severe autism - very close approximation of a cat's or dog's mental capacity). For example - how would you handle an overpopulation by a toddlers? Would you set them free into the wild or euthanize?
EDIT: to CocaKoala below.
>But that's a ridiculous comparison because cats and dogs are not toddlers
i didn't say they are toddlers. I said we should treat others at least according to their mental capacity and sentience. And treatment of toddlers or severe autistic people is an example of such treatment.
>Granting cats and dogs the rights of toddlers or autistic individuals means you're giving up the right to spay or neuter your pet; nobody would advocate for sterilizing a toddler,
exactly. It is definitely time to give up such medieval ways. Why aren't we using pills on cats and dogs? Because we don't want to bother with extra expense and effort. Affording the rights would force us to do it. And it would be for our own good as treating others with consideration and humane compassion would only improve our own civilization.
>but many very reasonable people advocate for sterilizing house pets, and for good reasons.
if you remember anything about the history of human race, you wouldn't invoke the formula "many very reasonable people advocate for <...>, and for good reasons"
TO "dogecoinbase" :
Summary of your post's logic - "affording rights [according to mental capacity and sentience] is cruel". Yep, no way to fight that logic.
TO: CocaKoala 2nd post.
I advocate for granting rights and making decisions on that basis. At the current state of technology i do see that adopting such a basis would lead to the choice of pills over surgical mutilation.
To address your Edit - i didn't insist on specific everyday birth control pill taken orally. If we to talk technical details - long term birth control injection would me more close to it.