chico chupacabra wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

>>>>I think artificial insemination of animals is completely immoral,
>>It violates an animal's right to autonomy, to own his own life.

> So would neutering or forcing abortion,

Yes, that is true. As I said, sterilizing would
be more ethical than either.

> both of which you would
> impose YOUR will over the animal in question

>>Animals have a
>>right to form their own social groups

> Then set them free, don't bring them into your trailer.

That is the ultimate goal of animal rights. As long
as domestic animals exist because of human actions,
we have an obligation to take care of the existing
companion animals and other domestic animals whom
we have caused or allowed to be born. We must take
responsibility for their welfare now. Simply to free
them, without providing the habitat and training
they would need to survive and prosper in the wild,
would be a sentence of slow and painful death for
many, if not most, of them. Certainly for a
16-year-old crippled cockatiel.

The first cockatiel I adopted was a good example.
I found her, very hungry and cold, hopping around
trying to pick up food from the pavement around a
trash dumpster in a parking lot. I went inside,
bought a millet spray from the animal supply store,
and she climbed right on to my finger and went
inside with me to buy supplies for her and take
her home. I will note she never tried to mate with
my hand. I put "lost" notices all over,
but never heard from her former human, so I kept
her.

>>and choose their own
>>mate(s) according to the biological methods of their
>>particular species.

> Which is antithetical to you jacking it off.

I didn't "jack him off." I did nothing active,
simply allowed him to do what he wanted on my hand.
Everything he did was his own idea, not mine --
I did nothing but provide a surface.

In this case, he chose me as his mate, because his
natural attraction to others of his species had
already been warped by imprinting on humans before
he came to live with me.

>>That is why *conditioning* an animal
>>to prefer a human mate is immoral, and why it is more
>>ethical to sterilize an animal than neuter/spay
>>when it is necessary to prevent the birth of unwanted
>>puppies or kittens.

> You would project your Malthusian sentiments and your knowing better
> and let your sentiments override what an animal might actually "want"
> in such circumstances. You're an authoritarian blowhard.

An animal would *want* to engage in mating behavior. Animals,
as far as we can possibly know, cannot understand that
offspring will result from mating. So, allowing mating
behavior by animals who are sterilized but not neutered
allows them all the social interactions and satisfactions of
normal mating behavior ( unless the animals are imprinted
on humans as mates ) without producing puppies, kittens,
or chicks for whom no proper homes exist. In an animal
rights society, this issue wouldn't arise, because the
animals would limit their population in other ways,
without human interference.

In the case of the cockatiel, like most companion birds he
was not neutered or sterilized, and, since he was imprinted
on humans as his preferred mate, there was no issue of
offspring in his case.

Are you suggesting that you would let the companion
animals living with you breed unchecked? That is
the behavior of an irresponsible hoarder, and
completely unfair to the animals. Obviously, you
don't believe "livestock" should be allowed to mate
as they wish, since you support artificial
insemination. I don't see how you can logically
criticize my position -- but that's never stopped
you before.