Troll....
ya lost the war...get over it.

which

great

did

prevent

it

people's

The relaxed attitude to cat declawing which seems to focus around Amerrykuns
says a lot about their attitude to living things in general. They have no
respect for their own lives or the lives of humans in other countries, so
who gives a flying f#ck about the furry animals.

From the land that invented the drive thru' heart attack, I'm really
surprised that they don't yet have the Starbuck's drive thru' delivery
service fast food (Ya'all have a nice day) McCat burger bar.

Maybe a 28st lard arse feels threatened by the fact that the cat may try to
consume them if a double episode of Tricia ever hit their 348 channels of
cable shite and postponed the feeding of their 58 cats by more than 1 hr.

Maybe the white trash trailer scum that feels the need to declaw a cat is
the victim of a much reduced educational system that see's even its top
students graduate with little more than a rudimentary knowledge of the 3
R's.

To declaw a cat may not (once recovered) be painfull for the cat, but it is
as cruel as a double mastectomy or castration without due cause.

Why is it done?

Certainly not for the cat's benefit, and if it's not for the cat's benefit
it must be for the owners benefit, if it's for the owners benefit THEN THEY
SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CARE FOR A CAT.

Chas.

Oh please, get over yourself. If you're that concerned with the welfare of
cats why don't you spend your efforts educating people not insulting them.

Like Connie said, most people will decide not to declaw if they are informed
about the procedure.
Your approach just pisses people off and informs nobody.

Was that intentionally insulting and stupid, or are you too full of
self importance to be civil? Perhaps you live in Spain, home of the
inquisition and the Conquistadors who raped and pilliaged the New
World? Perhaps England, home of mad cow disease where they continued
to use the brains of infected animals because it is wasting money not
to? Or France where they gave HIV infected blood to unknowing people
because they didn't want to spend the money to test it.

Or an African county that tells their people that HIV medication is
poison and the US is using it to try and kill them. They also tell
them that HIV and sexual intercourse are not related. Or Italy where
it is better to allow a young woman to die than to allow her to choose
an abortion.

Or Cuba where people risk their life to flee an oppressive government.
Perhaps Switzerland, where we are now finding that they were
complicant in helping the Nazis steal untold fortunes during WWII. Or
an arab country where a female can be legally murdered for the
terrible crime of showing her bare head in public.

Or dozens of other countries where human rights are worthless. Who
among us is perfect? Ahhhhh, I forgot, it is you.

Oh, isn't that the same America that came to the aid of people who
were suffering under WWI or WWII? The same country that gives billions
of dollars each year in humanitarian and economic aid to other
countries?

Okay, I do have to agree with you on that one :-)

That is another very stupid statement. The educational system in the
United States needs help, but it is better than that in some other
countries and only slightly less than that in others.

It also does no good to insult people who's only crime is to disagree
with you.

Funny that you should mention castration. Do you do that in your
wonderful country? If you do not castrate males and spay females, then
you are contributing to the overpopulation problem. I do understand
that your reference is to humans.

A friend of mine had a double mastectomy because her mother died of
breast cancer and she had a high probability of developing it during
her lifetime. Should that be outlawed, she didn't have cancer yet, so
why let her do that? Was it mutilation or was it a way to save her
life? She and I think it was a way to save her life, some would say
there was no "due cause."

You think that only you can determine what you choose to call "due
cause." If declawing is the only way that a person can have a cat,
then by that person's definition, it IS "due cause." What we are
arguing here is WHO gets to define that "due cause."

Ahhhhh, so unless a person does exactly what YOU think they should,
they should not be allowed to own a cat. You sign your name as Chas,
but if that is the case, you should sign it as "He Who's name cannot
be spoken. The One, the Almighty."

There are always going to be debates on many subjects. Calling people
names is not the way to discuss an issue. If you want to disagree with
my thoughts on declawing, so be it. Insulting people, let alone an
entire country, is stupid.

By the way, are you really just another troll, as others have
suggested? Or are you really so stupid that you believe what you
wrote.

WELL SAID!

I have to respectfully disagree, AG.  Mostly because I truly feel that declaw
is a form of abuse/mutilation. It is necessary to have laws to protect "those
who can't speak for themselves." We shouldn't have the right to *choose* to
mutilate a cat any more than we should have the right to choose whether to
inflict abuse on a child. But you're absolutely right about education. Most
people who declaw really have no idea what the surgery is all about. At the
very least, I think the vets should be *required* to provide information, and
offer alternatives. Unfortunately, all too many of them are quick to offer
declaw...some offer it as a "package deal" to new pet owners along with vaccs
and neutering. I'll be the first to admit the English are way ahead of us in
that respect. Declaw is practically unheard of there...yet they are obviously
not a nation of shredded furniture and skin. They've figured it out...so pet
owners here can, too. Or just not have a cat.

Sherry

very hard to do here.. America is all about choice.. it was outlawed in
California.. www.declaw.org

and just wait a bit.. the "pro" declaw people will be out in force

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 02:09:43 -0000, "Steve Piper"
<piper@coffeefilms.com> wrote:

Perhaps you will have an open mind on my reply, but I am writing this
knowing that I will be totally blasted by many of the others in this
group. I do not believe that declawing is a sin.

I have had many cats over my lifetime and each has led a very happy
life, until their dying day. Each has been declawed because I do not
think it is mutilation and it is the only way that I can be assured
they will not rip up my house.

My best friend is from the UK and I heard all the "terrible" things
about declawing. How it is outlawed in the UK because it is so
barbaric. How it is so painful and will surely result in a lifetime of
humiliation and inappropriate peeing for the cat. This is all hogwash.

He shared all this before he got his first cat. Now that he has cats,
I see that all of his have been declawed, by him. While he preached
against doing it, now that it is his house that was being torn up, it
has become acceptable to declaw.

The only inappropriate peeing that I have seen is because of UTI. None
of my cats has had any problems with their paws after recovery. This
ususally lasts only a few days and has never appeared to be be more
than a minor issue with the cats. It is hard to tell if a cat is in
pain, but there have been no signs of any pain in any cat that I had
declawed.

I have had occation to observe many other friend's cats who have also
been declawed by them. Never has any one of them had the terrible
symptoms that some of the anti-declaw people say are sure to happen.

Lets be realistic about this, it is a debate that will never end. It
is like abortion, capital punishment, the existance of God,
evolution/creation, and eating meat. There are those on both sides.
Most are positive that they have the corner on the truth and the
others are totally wrong.

Both think the other's ideas are barbaric and inhumane. Both point to
studies and personal observation to "prove" they are correct.

Until I have seen proof that declawing has a harmful effect on cats or
that the "other" techniques are effective, I will continue to declaw
my cats. I believe that my cats are extremely happy and live excellent
lives.

I don't know what you consider proof.
I'm sure there are cats who are declawed and can live out their lives
without inconvenience to the owner in the way of biting or peeing outside
the box. There are instances when things don't go that well. My niece
adopted a already declawed cat who's paws never healed properly. He wouldn't
use the box because it hurt and instead peed in her son's room on the
carpeting. She had another cat who was declawed (also done before she
adopted it) and she appeared to be OK - a little standoffish but OK. So
sometimes things can go well and sometimes not.
I guess my OPINION is unless I have a cat doing damage who can't be trained
to use scratching posts I don't think it is worth the risk of causing a
problem where none exists. I have had many cats over the years. Out of all
of them I have only had one who became a problem scratcher. The rest all
used the scratching post with little to no effort on my part to train them.
The one who was a problem only picked at the carpeting at night so I
confined him to a room without carpet. Problem solved. Cost me nary a penny.

You may want to THINK about just giving your kitties a chance to see if
there is even going to be a problem before dragging them off to the vet to
lose a part of their toes.

Just a suggestion.

W

I have all my cats taught to use the scratching post when they are
neutered. It savee furniture and skin and they get to keep their last
knuckle joint. They can also defend themselfs outside, or inside if a
rat or squirrel gets in and they can also have fun climbing the cat
tree.

Plus it's a lot cheaper and my karma is better for it. Oh, and most
importantly of all - it doesn't hurt the cats one bit.