Although I basically agree that there are declawed cats out there, with loving homes, which might not have otherwise been so lucky – I still feel like declawing a cat is cruel; the only reason I can see for it is because the human knows they will be too lazy to trim the claws regularly. I have two clawed cats, which have put countless little holes in my beautiful, cobalt-blue leather couches; I’m often too lazy to clip their nails, and I haven’t provided adequate play structures to wear their nails down as would occur in the wild. I’ve already had their reproductive organs removed – for my own convenience – I could not put those beautiful creatures through any more pain just to make things easier on myself.
During the debate that I was listening to on the Podcast, I heard Ian bring up circumcision – I interpreted his statements as indicating that he feels that the declawing of a cat is at the discretion of the owner and that this is similar to the circumcision of a child being at the discretion of the parents. Now, I feel a little bad for a declawed or “fixed” cat, but I can’t be absolutely certain that the cat really even understands what has happened or particularly cares when it comes down to it.
Circumcision, however, is the absolute pinnacle of lazy parenting and is nothing less than child abuse. Circumcision gained popularity in America as a punishment for young boys found masturbating, once circumcised, the glanus dries out and the newly exposed skin becomes swollen, rough and desensitized – it makes masturbation more difficult and considerably less pleasurable. People have their children circumcised for only one of three reasons, no matter what excuses they tell themselves;
1) Religious doctrine – a pretty stupid reason to mutilate your child.
2) Abject laziness – they don’t feel like cleaning the little guy’s pee pee until he’s old enough to do it himself (Hell, chop off the fingers, toes and ears while you’re at it).
3) It’s all they have ever known and they assume it to be the right choice even though it was a choice they never had the chance to make for themselves.
My intention is not purely to ridicule or offend – I wish I knew how to deliver this argument without calling names, but sometimes, name calling feels appropriate. Taking a child, with no ability to resist or comprehend, and forcibly removing a body part for any reason is absolutely an initiation of force upon that child. If you don’t recognize it as the initiation of force, find any uncircumcised adult and attempt to circumcise them – let’s see how they respond. Could a man in a coma circumcise a child? Maybe I misunderstood Ian’s position on all this – but circumcision is a barbaric, cruel practice – what restitution could ever be enough for a circumcised man who’s most sensitive pleasure producing part is critically damaged before they’ve ever had a chance to even take it for a test drive.
The Free Talk Live BBS
Author
Topic: Debate Over Declawing Cats (Read 7731 times)