FAQs Index
Additional Comments on Neutering
I think your position on
spaying/neutering (#76 in the FAQ) is a bit too glib. You
simply assert that spaying and neutering prevents more
suffering than it creates.
I wanted to point out three difficulties with this position:
1. You cite no factual evidence for the claim that spaying
and neutering (normally companion) animals is actually
reducing net suffering. And there are at least three
complicating empirical issues:
a. Most animals will not be spayed/neutered, regardless of
what our (human) social practices are.
b. Many (possibly most) people who are considering
spaying/neutering have other, less cruel ways of controlling
or avoiding puppies/kittens. (And there is no doubt in my
mind that forced surgical sterilization is cruel, not only
because of the potential complications from surgery but
because the animals are behaviorally "crippled" and lose out
on what most of us view as important experiences -- sex,
childbirth -- in life.)
c. Even if we could perfectly control the dog/cat population
being spayed/neutered, I don't think I have ever seen an
empirical study of what the average life "on the street" is
like for an animal. I have heard suggestive examples (that
stray dogs/cats live terrible lives), but on the other hand,
I have personally seen many exact opposite examples (stray
animals living quite nice lives, even in the poor
neighborhood that surrounds the University of Chicago). It
is also worth noting that the people who most often make
such claims (about the terrible life of strays) are the
people who are trying to justify, not only
spaying/neutering, but also their murder: "We kill because
we love." As if.
2. Your baseline, in defending spaying/neutering, is a world
where the (newborn) animals are being mistreated and
neglected, but it's not clear to me (especially from
a "rights" point of view) that this is the appropriate
baseline.
Would you accept forced sterilization of a set of humans,
simply because their offspring were likely to be mistreated?
Two wrongs usually do not make a right.
3. Most importantly, forced sterilization, in my view,
reinforces an exploitative relationship with animals: "When
they inconvenience us, we can harm them." As I said above,
killing and sterilization go hand-in-hand in most
city "shelters," and are part of the same speciesist
worldview. (I know this from personal experience
volunteering at a local pound.)
As AR advocates, it seems to me that we should be taking a
non-instrumentalist position on this issue. Not only as a
matter of principle -- but because even if we are
instrumentalists, the non-instrumentalist position is the
only one that will be instrumentally effective in the long
run. If our ultimate goal is a society that gives ALL
creatures equal consideration, we should not be advocating
practices that are cruel and blatantly discriminatory as
short-run band-aids.