Most of us don't think that it's a crime to perform said genital mutilation because most of us have gone through it, without choice.
It's culturally acceptable to us that it is done. Yet female genital mutilation (oh, all right, let's call it by its kosher name... circumcision) is frowned upon. Simply because one form of mutilation is more familiar than the other. (though female circumcision is inherently more dangerous and has no benefits, compared to male circumcision).
I personally think that circumcision that is not carried out under medical conditions carries a danger that is unacceptable. I also think that the difference between circumcision and sterilisation is huge, haveing had a vasectomy myself I can assure you that no visable 'mutilation exists at all.
Now, somebody brought up some people having their 5-year old's tongue pierced. How is that categorically worse than having a baby's ears pierced?
I have an issue with both, believeing that this kind of cosmetic change is a choice that should be made by the person involved when they are able to make that choice.
However I do and have had piercings and the tongue is a lot more prone to infection and associated injury (in particular chipping of teeth) than the ear (or for that matter nose) is. The blood flow and number of nerve endings differs massively between the two as well, so it terms of pain when done and healing time involved they are significantly different.
And nobody has demonstrated how piercing a cat is more ethically reprehensible than tagging cattle... or livestock nose-rings... both of which are piercings...
Now, don't get me wrong... I hate piercings. I absolutely hate them. Ick. I even shudder at the though of ear piercings. We've decided at home that our daughter will be the one to decide whether she wants her ears (or anything else) pierced, once she's old enough to decide for herself.
But I still don't see anything
immoral about piercing, in our current society, in any way. Sure, it's involuntary for the animal, and it's probably the animal's right to refuse it... but it's also probably their right to decide if they want to die in childbirth, have a zillion babies, drown themselves in a sewer or take the high road and skeedaddle. It's not nice to pierce the animals, but illegal? Hardly. Prosecuting a person for performing piercing per se, as long as they use sterile instruments and do not cause the animals much pain, probably will not prosper in court, not if the defendant has a halfway decent lawyer.
As someone who grew up in the country and around farms I would argue very strongly that a big difference exists between taging of cattle and piercing a cat.
First lets look at ear tags, these are not simply cosmetic, and form a vital part of identifying and tracking a particular animal. In this day and age of increased awareness of the importance of disease control and management the ability to track and ID a particular animal is vital. A similar function is carried out on domestic pets, microchipping and is in reality no more or less invasive or painful than tagging, and many farms now use it in place of tagging,
Now nose rings, firstly the widespread use of fixed nose rings in cattle is pretty much past now, most rings (including the one you pictured which is a weaning ring) are temporary and 'clip' in place rather than being actually pierced. This is done to remove the risk of infection and the risk of the ring getting snagged and tearing the animals nose open.
Which leads me onto the big difference between a cat and a cow (and I did mention this earlier), cows are inherently docile animals with no ability to climb or a general desire to leap about, as such they run a low risk of catching a ring on items and ripping them out (and even given this low risk farmers have still moved to clip on rings to remove even that slim chance). Nor is a cow able to try and pull a ring out using its limbs.
Cats are natural climbers and travel by leaping from place to place, massively increasing the risk of catching and tearing a piercing, they are also more than physically able to reach any part of the body with mouth/paws and so will try and remove items of this nature.
Nose rings also serve a function in cattle, for weaning, control and harnessing of animals; I would love to know what purpose these piercings in cats serve (other than satisfying the vanity of the owners - which for me is not a valid one). They are also vital in the control of bulls, animals that are naturally aggresive and more than capable of killing a person, they last time I checked even the most nasty of tom-cats doesn't pose much of a risk to life and limbs.
Pig rings have also been mentioned I believe and these once again are temporary fittings (clips) rather than true piercings and again serve a purpose, that of controlling digging by the snout (which a pig will do). The surpring thing here Niky is that the Wiki page that picture comes from (and the tensioing screw on that plastic weaning ring is quite clearly visable - showing that it is not pierced) covers this in accurate and clear terms), yet you seem to have just grabed a nasty looking picture and used it to support your view without looking into the facts behind it.
Its also worth mentioning that in most countries the fitment of a fixed nose ring to cattle must be carried out by a vet, which was (as far as I am aware) certainly not the case for these cats.
Piercing a cat serves no purpose at all, carrys a high risk of infection and associated injury and I believe (in this case) was not carried out under the control of a vet. None of these applies to taging or rings in cattle (particulalry if the rings are clips).
Sorry but the valid use in cattle or livestock of any type does not validate piercing in cats.
Regards
Scaff
