-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of VeggieBiggs
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 8:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RE: [Re: Ethics of immunocontraception?]]
>Bissell here; Well, the idea that alley cats should be released "back >into
the environment" bespeaks what Shepard and others have described as >the
insanity of modern society about the environment. This is a case of
>psychological seperation which allows people with good intentions to miss
>the point altogether and do harm rather than good. It is the same
>psychological quirk which allows the use of zoos as "conservation" >areas,
or
thinks that designation of parks is an acceptable alternative >to mass land
conversions.
Jamey West replies:
"Steve, you criticize without offering a viable alternative. You use a lot
of
negative terms, such as "insanity of modern society", but offer nothing that
will be up for criticism yourself. I suppose you think birth control in
humans is "dirty" and "unnatural". I can predict your solution to too many
cats. Would you even restrict the use of leghold traps? I guess a cat
would
rather have her leg snapped in a leghold trap than be
spayed/neutered/released. Is compassion maudlin?"
Bissell here:
Yes, compassion is maudlin, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. But,
when compassion leads you to action such as releasing domestic cats into
"the wild" (whatever that is) then it becomes neurotic. Would I rather a cat
have it's leg snapped in a leghold trap rather than
spayed/neutered/released? Yes. Would I rather it have it's leg snapped than
spayed/neutered/adopted by someone? No. It is not the spaying and/or
neutering I object to, it's the release.
By the way, why would you think I objected to human birth control? Did you
really miss my point that badly?
Steven
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|