Ethics of Neutering

Post Reply New Topic

So, the typical response is that neutering a pet is the right thing to do because otherwise it will get pregnant, then there will be too many of that pet, and their descendants will be miserable because overpopulation. However, neutering just comes across of a fundamentally immoral act to me, and I've figured out why: it's the nature of animals to reproduce, they WANT to reproduce, and you're denying that from them in a very invasive manner by altering their anatomy. It's wrong to do to a person, so should it also be wrong to do to an animal? However, if the animals breed out of control their descendants won't be able to breed due to a lack of resources, so that's no good by much of the same reasoning. So how is this ethical dilemma resolved?

Ethical dilemmas cannot be resolved

Look, I get it where you're coming from, I don't neuter my pets, although it's for somewhat different reasons and they are not "house pets". The reality is that animals kept in the house (only taken out for walks etc) need to be neutered both for their own comfort and their owner's.

Keep in mind that turning animals into pets, particularly those kept in cages, or not allowed to go outside and interact with their kind, is already going against their nature in more then one way and basically turned them into animated toys. Neutering is merely the cherry on top.

It depends what particular set of ethics you choose, I'm sure. It can easily be argued both ways.

I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to understand all the implications, but I know the behaviour of domesticated animals changes after sterilisation (and also the behaviour of their own kind towards them can change). I'm not sure to what extent the quality of life and survival chances of the wild ones will be affected by it. So I don't necessarily think it would be more ethical then outright killing them. I've seen too much of the world to think that any life is better then no life.

This is an interesting topic. Since there are so many stray animals in many cities, especially dogs and cats, its more merciful to sterilize than have their pups and kittens facing a life of deprivation. I've seen many a stray in the poor areas of our city and don't wish it on any animal.

For them to have any quality of life it's essential that their owners have sufficient resources to give them the best in food and healthcare, as well as love and attention. Poorer people can't generally afford sterilization so there are programmes to offer free or subsidized services in some areas.

It would be a good thing to sterilize certain wild animals rather than cull, but I'm not sure how practical it is - depends on the type / size of the animal and whether it's possible to capture them and have a qualified vet to perform the op.

The ethical dilemma isn't neutering; it's owning an animal in the first place. To be clear, "animals" refers to all animals, humans included.

People should not treat animals as if they were property. If no one owns an animal, no one will have to consider neutering an animal. No one's reproductive capabilities should be or need to be in anyone else's hands. Some types of animals that are kept as pets wouldn't even exist if people hadn't selectively bred and domesticated them; in other words, people have largely created this "dilemma" themselves.

Nature will take care of reproduction, the same as with all other animals. If they over-populate any given area, some will starve, re-balancing the population. Humans just need to stay out of it.

These are the same arguments we have about human overpopulation, promiscuity, and eugenics.

I grew up with a ferret shelter in my house, and a massive array of critters. Even now, I have a lot of pets. A starling, a sparrow, 3 parrots, 10 rats, 2 dogs, 8 chickens and a turkey, and a rabbit. The only ones we didn't rescue were 5 of the chickens, 1 of the dogs, and the rabbit. I love animals. (I love my starling the very most though, he is the child I will never have <.< .)

Fixing pets is a necessary tool. Our ferrets were always fixed, as to prevent certain reproductive cancers and other diseases, as well as controlling numbers. We ran into countless situations of hoarders, who just let their pets roam free and procreate, and couldn't possibly take care of them, feed them, keep them healthy. it is extremely sad to see such unnecessary neglect, and it happens too often.

If our rabbit was a male, we would have fixed it to prevent certain behaviors such as marking- however, she is a female, and we had to spay her because it can extend her life by up to 8 years, because rabbits were made to reproduce often, and constantly, they are extremely prone to cancers in their reproductive organs.

Our rats are not fixed, seeing as it will not extend their lifespan enough to be worth the cost, and there was simply so many, the best option is to keep the males and females separate. Some people will fix them when they are young, and they want to keep a few girls and boys together. I don't see an issue with this. It does extend their lifespans on average by 33%.

Birds it is simply unnecessary, and far too dangerous. Our dogs are both fixed- I would say this is a personal choice though. You should not breed any animal unless you are a professional- accidents happen I know. But mutts are not necessarily healthier, this is a common misconception. A mutt with parents who both have different issues, is a mutt that carries genes for either problem. It is far more beneficial to breed intelligently, and aim for healthy genetics overall. There are enough dogs in the world to go around, in fact there are too many, and it is really sad.


It depends on the animal for me. I don't necessarily see the moral consequence of it, however. Granted, I am of the opinion that human reproduction should be regulated to an extent, which is a bit of an unpopular opinion. Just because we are "made" to do something, doesn't mean we should. But I get where you are coming from. The difference between us, and our pets, is that we can make the informed decision to not have children, whereas our pets do not have the mental capability to make the distinction towards that kind of thing. It is an interesting topic, though.

Apologies if I seem all over the place, my mind is in a dozen places at once!

Dogs have been selectively bred for thousands of years to be emotionally dependent on humans. That's why they fawn over us and love us even if we treat them badly. They are victims of eugenics at this point. I feel sorry for my dog - her whole world revolves around whether I think she's a "good dog" or a "bad dog".
Compared to that, neutering is fairly benign. Remember that dogs don't know they've been neutered, and the neutering greatly reduces or eliminates their desire to mate. So they're not really missing anything.

Animal shelters are full of unwanted pets.Even if it's a no kill shelter they spend most of their time in a small pen.Some will never be adopted becuse they are too old,unattractive or have a bad personality.I see no reason to add to this problem.All my girls are fixed.Even if I wanted to breed them how do I know what future life the offspring would have?If I couldn't find homes for the pups then I would be obligated to keep and care for them. I can only afford to care for so many.Wormer,shots,vet bills,food,flea treatments start to add up with multiple dogs.
Multiple pregnancies are hard on any animal,things can go wrong then there's the vet bill or worse,the pet dies.The risk of cancer in reproductive organs is higher in unfixed animals.To me it's the responsible thing to do.I want to give them the longest,happiest life that I can.