Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Rolfe]

Oh yes. We seem to protect animals better than infant boys.

Rolfe.

 

[jdp]

Oh yes. We seem to protect animals better than infant boys.

Rolfe.

Ah so the authoritarian governement gets between you and your vet.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

And what's more; the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons explicitly calls it mutilation.

The fiends!

 

[jdp]

Please tell me that if I lived in Europe I could at least crop my dog's ears.

 

[Ryokan]

Please tell me that if I lived in Europe I could at least crop my dog's ears.

Depends what country in Europe. But in mine, no. Why would you want to?

 

[jdp]

Depends what country in Europe. But in mine, no. Why would you want to?

I wouldn't. I guess I forgot the sarcasm tags. But just for a minute consider the benefits.

 

[The Big Dog]

Depends what country in Europe. But in mine, no. Why would you want to?

I wouldn't worry about it, Ryokan, they are mocking circumcised people.

 

[jdp]

I wouldn't worry about it, Ryokan, they are mocking circumcised people.

Not the people, the hypocracy.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not the people, the hypocracy.

The people are just collateral damage then to your mockery?

 

[luchog]

Your "fix" puts you in the category of folks who wish to allow children sexual consent at age 12, driving at age 12, all in the name of human rights. Voting too. Way to go.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion; because it completely escapes me.

 

[ddt]

I wouldn't. I guess I forgot the sarcasm tags. But just for a minute consider the benefits.

From the American Kennel Club:

Elective surgery is a safe and common practice in animal husbandry. Cropping and docking are standard, long-accepted practices that protect the health and safety of dogs.
[...]
These breed characteristics also ensure the safety of dogs that on a daily basis perform heroic roles with the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Military, and local police departments, to name a few.

Why do you hate America? Are you from the Taliban?

 

[zooterkin]

From the American Kennel Club:

Why do you hate America? Are you from the Taliban?

C.f. The Kennel Club:

COMPETING WITH DOCKED OR CROPPED DOGS IN THE UK

• Docked Dogs

Dogs which were docked before 6th April 2007

If your dog was docked either in the UK or in a foreign country before 6th April
2007 then it may compete at Crufts.

Dogs which were docked on or after 6th April 2007

If your dog was docked on or after 6th April 2007 it is not, under the law, permitted to be shown at Crufts (where the public are admitted on payment of a fee).

• Cropping
No dog with cropped ears is eligible to compete at any Kennel Club licensed event.

 

[ddt]

C.f. The Kennel Club:

Or the German Kennel Club:

Ausstellungsverbot für kupierte Hunde
Es gilt ein Ausstellungsverbot gem. VDH-Ausstellungs-Ordnung für folgende Hunde aus dem In- und Ausland:

1. Ohren kupiert
2. Rute kupiert (Ausnahme: Jagdliche Verwendung gemäß deutschem Tierschutzgesetz / Nur für FCI-anerkannte Jagdhundrassen)

It's forbidden to show dogs, from Germany or abroad, with cropped ears or docked tails (the latter with an exception for hunting dogs, according to the law).

Furthermore, your dog cannot compete, you can get a ban for further shows and you don't get your fee back. And the government may fine you up to € 5,000.

 

[Rolfe]

Ah so the authoritarian governement gets between you and your vet.

Hell no! I AM my vet. The authoritarian government listens to advice, and to public opinion. Much of the driving force for these bans has been vets saying, this is pointless and causes unnecessary suffering, let's not do it.

That's part of what appals me about this issue. The very idea of doing that to a newborn animal would be absolute anathema. I mean, it wouldn't even be a question. And yet we stand by while people do it to tiny babies.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

The sight of a dog with cropped ears makes my skin crawl. It's bonkers lunatic. We gave that up generations ago and there are no adverse consequences.

We're rapidly finding the same is true for docked tails. Dogs seem to manage just fine if you let them keep the part of the anatomy they use to express their feelings.

This closely parallels the circumcision debate. Proponents go on and on about claimed health benefits, but when you look at a population that hasn't been multilated you find that there is no huge incidence of the conditions highlighted. If you were to approach a population with no tradition of such mutilation and suggest it should be done routinely "just in case", you'd be laughed out of court. If you weren't ostracised as being a creepy weirdo.

Rolfe.

 

[The Big Dog]

I certainly had no idea that this thread was going to evolve into such a detailed comparison of humans to animals!

Lets take a detailed look at the history of that in Europe:

A bizarre moral inversion occurred in prewar Germany that enabled large numbers of reasonable people to be more concerned with the suffering of lobsters in Berlin restaurants than with genocide. In 1933, the German government enacted the world’s most comprehensive animal protection legislation. Among other things, the law forbade any unnecessary harm to animals, banned the inhumane treatment of animals in the production of movies, and outlawed the use of dogs in hunting. It banned docking the tails and ears of dogs without anesthesia, the force-feeding of fowl, and the inhumane killing of farm animals. Adolf Hitler signed the legislation on November 24, 1933. This was only the first in a series of Nazi animal protection acts. In 1936, for example, the German government dictated that fish had to be anesthetized before slaughter and that lobsters in restaurants had to be killed swiftly.

 

[Ryokan]

I certainly had no idea that this thread was going to evolve into such a detailed comparison of humans to animals!

Humans are animals.

Lets take a detailed look at the history of that in Europe:

A bizarre moral inversion occurred in prewar Germany that enabled large numbers of reasonable people to be more concerned with the suffering of lobsters in Berlin restaurants than with genocide. In 1933, the German government enacted the world’s most comprehensive animal protection legislation. Among other things, the law forbade any unnecessary harm to animals, banned the inhumane treatment of animals in the production of movies, and outlawed the use of dogs in hunting. It banned docking the tails and ears of dogs without anesthesia, the force-feeding of fowl, and the inhumane killing of farm animals. Adolf Hitler signed the legislation on November 24, 1933. This was only the first in a series of Nazi animal protection acts. In 1936, for example, the German government dictated that fish had to be anesthetized before slaughter and that lobsters in restaurants had to be killed swiftly.

Argument by Hitler. Always effective.

Yes, Hitler loved animals. He was even a vegetarian. But I'm not sure 'If Hitler did it, it was evil by definition' is a proper argument.

ETA: It also makes a mockery out of those countries, like mine, who both have these sort of laws and resisted and fought against the nazis.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I certainly had no idea that this thread was going to evolve into such a detailed comparison of humans to animals!

Lets take a detailed look at the history of that in Europe:

A bizarre moral inversion occurred in prewar Germany that enabled large numbers of reasonable people to be more concerned with the suffering of lobsters in Berlin restaurants than with genocide. In 1933, the German government enacted the world’s most comprehensive animal protection legislation. Among other things, the law forbade any unnecessary harm to animals, banned the inhumane treatment of animals in the production of movies, and outlawed the use of dogs in hunting. It banned docking the tails and ears of dogs without anesthesia, the force-feeding of fowl, and the inhumane killing of farm animals. Adolf Hitler signed the legislation on November 24, 1933. This was only the first in a series of Nazi animal protection acts. In 1936, for example, the German government dictated that fish had to be anesthetized before slaughter and that lobsters in restaurants had to be killed swiftly.

Not sure what you are arguing here - other than HITLER BAD!!! Are you saying that you are against these animal protection measures because it will lead to less protection for humans? How does that fit in with the current analogy with circumcision? Are you trying to say that protecting babies from circumcision is a human rights abuse, caused by giving animals too many rights (or is that a rights abuse too?), and HITLER! Could you expand upon your argument, because I'm really not understanding what you are trying to say.

 

[Caper]

4 boys in our family. Oldest two circumcised, youngest 2 not. I don't think any of us give a ****.

I am always stunned at the amount of debate this topic gets and how passionate people are about it.

 

[ddt]

I certainly had no idea that this thread was going to evolve into such a detailed comparison of humans to animals!

Lets take a detailed look at the history of that in Europe:

<snip>

Really? Ever heard of the fallacy "argumentum ad Hiterlum"?

And ever heard of the quote function? You lifted that paragraph from this book without proper attribution.

You might also want to consult a map, Europe is bigger than just Germany.

As well as a history book. Genocide was not yet on the radar in 1933, Aktion T4 only started in 1939.

And many of those animal welfare laws were either not upheld or repealed. The one against vivisection only lasted 3 weeks.