To ban or not to ban? More people believing declawing is animal abuse

[zipplewrath]

92. Alot of hyperbole

I understand folks don't like declawing, and I understand why. But the hyperbole shouldn't be needed to make the point. FRONT claws don't result in any long term permanent issue, and really these days the pain the animal experiences is virtually non-existent. They're drugged for about a day and even at that they can be fairly playful, even with the bandages on.

That said, one does have to make the decision "early". Get it done when the animal is "Fixed". The animal should grow up without them, not have them removed at 2 years or something. Furthermore, one is obligated at that point not to expose them to hostile predators, which basically means "indoors".

As a few people have suggested, this is predominately a moral issue associated with pet ownership at all, and with what minimum living conditions one thinks is morally required to have them. After that, the question then extends to what medical procedures are considered morally consistent.

I've seen 3 legged dogs. I've known of dogs getting chemo. The animal can't understand what is happening and chemo is bad enough for someone who does understand what's going on. I'm always curious what the decision process is behind these decisions.