Tis_Bearself
Patron
If this was actually enforced everywhere in the USA then it would do a LOT to help with the overpopulation problem.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
The OP wrote ‘contraception’ in the title, but in their post, really was talking about ‘sterilization’.
G
Gorgias
Guest
The prohibition against artificial contraception applies to humans. It has to do with rationality and the desire to separate the pleasure of intercourse from the procreative ends of intercourse. This doesn’t apply to animals.
From another perspective – a strictly literal take on the Genesis account, if that’s what you’re into – God did tell the animals to “be fruitful and multiply”, but He also told Adam that he had dominion over the animals. That is, he was to be a good steward and caretaker of them. So, if that’s what a person believes is the most responsible thing to do, then it doesn’t run counter to God’s commandment.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Yeah, anyone who has ever had to give a cat a pill is NOT going to put cats on “the pill” (not sure if they even have such a thing for cats). I just paid good money to get my cat a thyroid operation so she wouldn’t have to take a pill every day for the rest of her life. The operation was a success and both me and the cat are much happier now that we don’t have to fight the battle of getting a pill down her throat every day.
Last edited:
G
Greenfields
Guest
Are Canadian geese edible? That’s a lot of dinners if so 
P
pensmama87
Guest
Right. Animals cannot make rational decisions about whether to have sex or not. Humans can.
Here’s some good information on just how quickly a cat can reproduce:
420,000 Kittens? The Unspayed Cat To Kitten Calculator | Calculate This!
No matter how you do the math, there are too many cats/kittens and too few homes. This calculator attempts to (loosely) apply math calculations to scientific principles as they relate to cat reproduc
calculate-this.com
P
phil19034
Guest
The natural law only applies to humans because animals do not have rational thought. It’s only possible to break the natural law when you have sentient life.ZMystiCat:
Why wouldn’t it? Since according to the Bible, animals are created to praise the Lord, wouldn’t it be wrong to prevent their ability to reproduce and praise the Lord?
It is going against nature and how God has made nature. When God made the animals, He gave them the power to reproduce naturally.
Animals are not sentient creatures, therefore, they cannot break the natural law.
However, I’m going to deviate from everyone here by saying that we did not receive in Revelation permission to do SOME of things we do to animals. Therefore, some of the treatment by mass breeders, slaughter houses, fishermen who over fish, etc very well may be sinful.
And personally, I sometimes question the wisdom today of putting animals to sleep as too many people who are not evangelized fail to see the difference.
God Bless
Last edited:
P
Pup7
Guest
There is no OCP for animals.
P
phil19034
Guest
Yes, I think it’s important to add that we humans greatly contribute to the overpopulation issues by making their lives safer. Many more cats would die if they all lived in the wild. But by living spoiled lives in human homes, they have no fear or risk from natural predators.AlNg:
Animals do not need to have litters of young in order to “give praise to the Lord”. They give praise just by existing, and we give praise to the Lord when we are good stewards of them and that includes taking humane steps to prevent animal overpopulation.
If they were just allowed to reproduce, we would end up having to kill off thousands of their young every year. We already kill off too many unwanted animals as it is. I have friends who work at animal shelters and “kitten season” is a miserable time because it’s so hard to find homes for all the kittens and cats who end up at shelters. Many shelters end up just killing a lot of them. The animals aren’t happy to be killed. Much kinder to just prevent new animals from being born.
Plus wild animals like deer have been in many ways greatly protected by the vast reduction of predators who eat them too (like wolves, mountain lions, etc)
So it’s our responsibility to maintain proper numbers because our actions have made their natural instinct to procreate a determinant to them instead of being a positive.
God Bless
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I’m 100 percent in agreement with you. The question is whether we are being good stewards of the animals. There are ways to manage animals for food or even for sport that are reasonably humane and ensure a sustainable animal population, and there are people and policies that are irresponsible and cruel.
As for “put to sleep” or “euthanized”, I reserve those terms for the cases where an animal is ill or in pain and we are doing the humane thing to keep it from having a lingering suffering. An animal cannot offer its suffering for redemption - it only knows that it hurts. If we are talking about mass killings of healthy animals due to mere overpopulation, I call that what it is: killing animals. Not “put to sleep”, not “euthanasia”. Killing animals - own it.
P
phil19034
Guest
Right, that was my point. Far too many people do not understand or reject redemptive suffering. Therefore, they want to apply the mercy we give to animals to humans.
We all have to become much better apologists to explain to atheists, agnostics, and liberals why it’s ok to euthanize animals but not humans (who are biologically part of the animal kingdom).
That’s why I question the wisdom of euthanizing pets and other beloved animals today.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
IOW, since these animals do horrible things, contraception is permitted ? But Germans have done horrible things in WWII? And contraception is not permitted for people living in Germany. So doing horrible things is basically irrelevant to the question as to whether or not it is OK to use contraception.
A
AlNg
Guest
Yes, So it appears that contraception of pets is frustrating the word of God?
S
somecanadian
Guest
The real question should be… is it natural to keep them in our home as pets? 
Heh. I struggled with this question too, for different reasons.
It seemed cruel to put an animal through surgery for my own benefit and yes it was for my benefit. They have NEVER gone outside and have no risk of impregnating other cats because of it (in 6 years they’ve never set a single paw out). I still struggle with what I did because ultimately it seemed cruel to me.
Another level of conflict comes with female animals who, from what I understand, have increased risk of developing cancer if they never have a litter of their own. So it seems like we’re really harming these animals for our convenience not for their good.
Heh. I struggled with this question too, for different reasons.
It seemed cruel to put an animal through surgery for my own benefit and yes it was for my benefit. They have NEVER gone outside and have no risk of impregnating other cats because of it (in 6 years they’ve never set a single paw out). I still struggle with what I did because ultimately it seemed cruel to me.
Another level of conflict comes with female animals who, from what I understand, have increased risk of developing cancer if they never have a litter of their own. So it seems like we’re really harming these animals for our convenience not for their good.
F
Fauken
Guest
That is a false equivalency. Those animals, for one, do not have the same dignity as humans have, and would not be sterilized because of their behaviors. But that wasn’t the point of my statement.
You say that sterilizing animals goes against God’s design. You are thus arguing that animals, like us, are subject to natural law. I provided two examples of animals engaging in behaviors that would violate natural law. If they are to obey it, then that means they should know it, even innately. Would you now like to make the argument then that because animals violate natural law, animals can be damned? I doubt you would.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
I don’t believe that is true. Dogs and cats show awareness and responsiveness. They can smell, see, and hear.
A
AlNg
Guest
Yes. Shouldn’t humans treat animals kindly and with respect?
P
Pup7
Guest
I have an increased risk of having cancer from never having had a child.
Highly unlikely I’ll get it, though, as I have pretty much no other risk factors - and the same is true for animals.
Spay and neuter, folks.
S
somecanadian
Guest
Every spayed dog I’ve ever had ended up with cancer so I’m a bit biased I think.
That increased risk for you did not come because someone else chose to sterilize you and put you at risk though? It seems as if we are actively choosing to neuter and spay animals simply because we choose to keep them in our homes as pets instead of letting them run wild where they belong.
I’m not saying DON’T spay and neuter. I’m just saying I struggle with whether or not it’s really okay. My gut instinct has always been that it was a purely selfish action.
That increased risk for you did not come because someone else chose to sterilize you and put you at risk though? It seems as if we are actively choosing to neuter and spay animals simply because we choose to keep them in our homes as pets instead of letting them run wild where they belong.
I’m not saying DON’T spay and neuter. I’m just saying I struggle with whether or not it’s really okay. My gut instinct has always been that it was a purely selfish action.
P
Pup7
Guest
Breeds? Many breeds are more prone to cancer - doesn’t mean they got it because they were spayed. Just like in people.
A domesticated animal doesn’t belong out “running wild” - because it’s domesticated. You’re not keeping a lion in your house. It’s a domesticated cat. It’s not a zebra, it’s a horse.
A domesticated animal doesn’t belong out “running wild” - because it’s domesticated. You’re not keeping a lion in your house. It’s a domesticated cat. It’s not a zebra, it’s a horse.
- Status