2009-12-19, 03:42 PM
FrozNlite Wrote:It all depends on how much you want them. If you desperately want to keep them, have them declawed so they'll remain with you. If you could care less, look at your options. Can you afford the procedure at this point in your life?
There's definitely a lot more to think about than comparing the cruelty of end options.
And I believe the correct English is "more cruel," not "crueler."
Your own desires do not alter the cruelty of an event that isn't occurring to you; Cutting off an animals toes is just as cruel to that animal whether I was horrified by it or pleased with it. Likewise locking them in a small cage surrounded by hundreds of other cages for an indefinite period remains the same level of unpleasant. The question is which one is inherently crueler to the animal.
If it weren't affordable it wouldn't be an option. The plausibility of it is what has defined it as being an available option after all.
And I believe you are mistaken.
Mark Wrote:ITT: We know nothing about cats. Declawing is more like mutilation. It also effects their balance and is pretty painful from what I've read.
The answer is obvious.
ITT: Mark demonstrates his superiority complex by making generalized assumptions and ignoring facts.
The fact declawing is a form of mutilation is well known. North America is virtually the only place it's not considered a form of animal cruelty.
How is abandoning animals well past the sought after age of adoption to a shelter where they may still ultimately be put to sleep, or re-adopted and experience that mutilation anyhow an obvious better answer?
It's not having what you want - It's wanting what you've got.