Contraception for pets

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlNg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m a bit slower on the uptake some days! Haha! I blame pregnancy brain. convenient!
 
It took me a little longer than usual. It was artfully done, I’ll give that.
 
Imposing contraception or sterilization on animals is a human act. Therefore it can be considered for it’s morality. No one is suggesting that altered pets are morally culpable for using sterilization or contraception.
 
Presuming that a time and place existed where there was literally not enough resources to support additional human population, human beings have the means to morally refrain from reproducing without the use of contraception, unlike most animals.
 
Allegra said:
Imposing contraception or sterilization on animals is a human act. Therefore it can be considered for it’s morality. No one is suggesting that altered pets are morally culpable for using sterilization or contraception.
Click to expand...
Then you know that animals are not subject to natural or moral law as humans are? Under the same parameters?

An animal isn’t culpable in the way that a human is. I mean, I can discipline my dog when he does wrong, but I can’t sit down and impart to him WHY what he did was wrong. He only knows I didn’t like it when he did it, so he learns not to do the act again.
 
Right. Isn’t that what I said? I’m not sure why we aren’t all on the same page here. Dogs aren’t morally responsible for anything because they’re dogs. And even if dogs were capable of moral culpability, they wouldn’t have any in this instance because the contraception is imposed on them by humans and is entirely outside of their freewill. The questions isn’t whether it’s immoral for animals to use conception. Animals CAN’T use conception. The question is whether it’s immoral for humans to impose contraception in animals.
 

Before I even attempt to reply, I would love to know upon what this is based on. Also the demographics… people seem to forget that all the time one here…

Anyway, I can say so much more but I am absolutely speechless why you would post that after you tried to make “some” point. Just putting it out there, that doesn’t help much…
 
Last edited:
I will correct this post soon. Just in need of some sleep at the moment

Regards
 
Allegra said:
Dogs don’t natuarlly need humans to be healthy socially.
Click to expand...
Actually, we may have put domestic dogs in that place, perhaps unintentionally. Granted, the idea of two species evolving a some mutually beneficial relationship isn’t unheard of. How unnatural that is sort of depends on how you’re defining “natural”, which is itself a debatable topic. Personally, I think that, for the most part, the way that humans and dogs have evolved over the last 10,000 years is a good example of humans exerting their naturally high intelligence and God-given dominion over a species which still maintains its natural inclinations towards a pack and sociability. In the end, and short of abuses, both benefit, assuming that the relationship is maintained as intended.
 
goout said:
Everyone take note:
Morality is the evaluation of human acts.
Click to expand...
Everyone take note: Well, what acts? They are either good or evil (CCC 1749). Contraception on pets. its more of evil and of making money and misuse than the common good of Man.

“Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1749).

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention
that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
 
Allegra said:
Right. Isn’t that what I said? I’m not sure why we aren’t all on the same page here. Dogs aren’t morally responsible for anything because they’re dogs. And even if dogs were capable of moral culpability, they wouldn’t have any in this instance because the contraception is imposed on them by humans and is entirely outside of their freewill. The questions isn’t whether it’s immoral for animals to use conception. Animals CAN’T use conception. The question is whether it’s immoral for humans to impose contraception in animals.
Click to expand...
You can’t really use the word contraception here in the Catholic moral sense.
This is the point.
Contraception is a human act, and the term is morally charged. (unless you want to broaden the term and equate it to sterilization…)
The OP seems to be equating the sterilization of animals to the human act of contraception. And possibly attempting to minimize the moral content of “contraception”. Not sure about the OP’s intent, but it seems that way.
 
Human beings are exceptional creatures in God’s kingdom.
Human beings, and only human beings, are made in the image of God.
Human beings owe respect to all of God’s creation, and at the same time have dominion over it.
 
sorry, i never said anything about humans, nor did i compare animals to humans,you got me wrong Bro

yes i agree with your statement.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1.htm

MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

Divine Majesty and Human Dignity
Psalm 8: Out of the mouths of babes and infants you have founded a bulwark because of your foes,to silence the enemy and the avenger.3 When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars that you have established;4 what are human beings that you are mindful of them,mortals that you care for them?5 Yet you have made them a little lower than God,and crowned them with glory and honor.6 You have given them dominion over the works of your hands;you have put all things under their feet7 all sheep and oxen,and also the beasts of the field,8 the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas.
 
Last edited:
Allegra said:
The question is whether it’s immoral for humans to impose contraception in animals.
Click to expand...
Right. Except that we’re really talking sterilization, not contraception.

And, as @MichaelP3 points out, the question has been answered: God has placed humans as stewards over creation. Therefore, if a person is practicing good stewardship, and in the process of doing so, sterilizes animals under his care, then no, it’s not immoral.

We haven’t seen any response to this answer, however, AFAIK.

Next question, then? 😉
 
And just working at one shelter I came to believe mankind has failed!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top