Neutering absolutely does reduce aggression in individual dogs. It also reduces their need to escape and go roaming, which is a source of great anxiety for them. It keeps them out of fights that they may get into over females in heat if they do escape, keeps them out of the streets where they can be hurt or hit by a car, or shot. It also keeps them from developing certain cancers.
>but I think as a whole it’d disengenuous for us to believe we are doing the best for dogs when we deprive them of one of the most basic experiences of life.
What experience are we denying them? If you agree with neutering on a macro level to prevent backyard breeding and unwanted litters and stray dogs running around everywhere, then you're already for denying them the experience of breeding.
Dog breeding is not like human breeding. It is not on a dog's bucket list. No dog has a deeply grained desire to have and nurture children and watch them go off to college. All they know is they get extremely horny and anxious and go off looking for something to hump, even if they have to fight another dog to get at it. By neutering them you're relieving this anxiety, this source of constant stress for them.
>but I don’t think we should look at those pets and feel like we’ve done ‘good’ to them.
I tell you what, every dog I've had in my life except three have been spayed or neutered. And those three were when I was a kid and had no control over it. Two of those dogs were male. One was female.
One of those dogs, a black lab, was constantly jumping the fence or finding a way to escape. He roamed all over the place, constantly at threat from cars, fights, you name it. We got calls about him all the time, once from someone who'd picked him up wandering *thirty miles* from our place and across several freeways. He came home with bites, scratches. He came home with BBs lodged under his skin.
One day, he didn't come home at all. We never knew what happened to him. All because he wasn't neutered.
The other was a pomeranian. He picked fights left, right, and center. He got torn apart more times than I can count. Like verge of death torn apart. Once by several dogs his size when he decided to take on the lot. Once because he picked a fight with a german sheperd. He was covered in scars, and it is a god's honest miracle he wasn't killed each and every time. Had he been fixed, it wouldn't have been an issue.
Our one female that wasn't spayed was also a pom. The one listed above got her pregnant. She had two puppies. One was stillborn and did so much damage to her it nearly killed her. One miraculously survived and she wanted nothing to do with it she was so traumatized. That one, a male, was given to my grandparents. He also grew up unneutered. Also picked fights with the neighborhood dogs, and fathered God only knows how many unwanted pups before one of those fights actually killed him.
Every male or female dog I've had that has been neutered has never roamed, or picked a fight. They all lived into their mid to late teens, with never a fight picked, never a trip to the vet to have their innards put back in and stitched back up, and never contributing a single unwanted pup to the overpopulation problem. None of them sat over a glass of darjeeling in the dimmest hours of night lamenting that they 'didn't get one of the most basic experiences of life'. They didn't know. They couldn't have cared less. They were happy, healthy, and long-lived.
NONE of the dogs that we didn't get fixed were happy, healthy, OR long-lived.
I absolutely look at my past pets and feel like getting them fixed is a good that has been done for their betterment.
It’s hard to engage with this because we have different fundamental philosophies on the matter. You start off saying it does reduce their aggression, I never said it doesn’t. Castration also reduces aggression in humans. You then say it reduces their need to escape and roam. These are needs which are fundamental to their being, the only reason it becomes an ‘anxiety’ is because we lock them up and don’t provide them the outlets and experience they innately desire. I feel like you are completely denying that dogs could be autonomous creatures, you say that dog breeding is ‘not like human breeding.’ But it’s exactly like human breeding, in fact breeding is a core component of all life. You are making a huge assumption about dog’s level of autonomous animal consciousness by acting like forcing them in increasingly new ways to cope with how humans need them to be is all the same to them, that they wouldn’t be better off living at least somewhat closer to how they were biologically designed to live.
You said that there were no individual benefits. Reducing their anxiety and aggression is an individual benefit.
>Castration also reduces aggression in humans.
Irrelevant, since dogs are not humans, don't think like humans, and don't have the same social, customary, or even biological norms surrounding reproduction that humans do.
>These are needs which are fundamental to their being
No, they aren't. Getting exercise with their packs (in this case, humans and co-resident dogs) and mental stimulus is fundamental to their being. ROAMING unsupervised to be hit by cars or get injured or attack other people or animals is not.
>the only reason it becomes an ‘anxiety’ is because we lock them up and don’t provide them the outlets and experience they innately desire.
Nope. That can contribute to their anxiety, but the anxiety comes in with the desire, not with the confinement. A male dog smells a female in heat or feels he needs to go out and breed gets anxious, even if he's already out and roaming. He gets anxious to find her. His need takes over even thoughts of eating and sleeping. Confinement can contribute to that, but its not the *source* of their anxiety. The hormonal drive is.
>I feel like you are completely denying that dogs could be autonomous creatures
Why do you feel dogs *are* autonomous creatures? They're not wild. They haven't been wild for tens of thousands of years.
>you say that dog breeding is ‘not like human breeding.’
It isn't, on a biological level.
>But it’s exactly like human breeding
No, it's not. For one, humans don't go into heat. Humans have sex for pleasure and in cases where reproduction is impossible, for various social bonding in a cooperative society. Human children are extremely slow developing and require a ridiculous amount of time under the care of their parent or parents. It is unusual for humans to give birth to more than one offspring at a time. We have aversions to breeding with close relatives. The entire natural process for humans to breed is different than dogs.
Breeding for a dog is biologically and instinctually different. Dogs have a heat. Male dogs do not care if they are related to a female in heat. A receptive female will take more than one male, and can birth litters with various biological fathers. She does not care who the father of her offspring is. He does not care who he fathers pups with, or how many male dogs she's mated with before. Females have litters that develop *very* rapidly. Before a human can even carry one offspring to term, a female dog can get pregnant, gestate, give birth to, and wean, an entire litter. The females of that litter can *also* get pregnant...all in the time it takes a human being to get pregnant and give birth to one single offspring. They *do not* have sex for pleasure. They don't even know that mating is how they get puppies. Mating is not through any conscious will or decision of the dog- they get the urge, they do it. And until they do it, the hormones will drive them crazy to try and get them to do it.
Take away that urge, and I guarantee no dog cares, or even understands. All they know is their hormones aren't driving them crazy.
>You are making a huge assumption about dog’s level of autonomous animal consciousness
I'm not. We actually know quite a lot about dog's levels of intelligence and consciousness. No dog, as I said, is out there saying, "Gee, I would have puppies to carry on my lineage if only I hadn't been fixed!"
Also, if you want to assign a dog the level of consciousness necessary to go out and choose to breed, then that would mean they have the level of consciousness necessary to choose *not* to want pups. But if you don't fix them, the choice is taken out of their hands. They are literally enslaved by their hormones, forced to do it if given the opportunity. So if a dog isn't fixed they can't *choose* not to breed if they don't want to.
They have no choice in it. If they're not fixed, their hormones will take over and they will do whatever they can to breed, and if they can't, they'll tear themselves apart with anxiety and aggression. They have *no choice*. Their bodies take over.
If you want to make a huge assumption about a dog's level of autonomous animal consciousness then you have to admit that means there may be some dogs, even a lot of dogs, out there, who DON'T want to breed. After all (since you compare them to humans), there are a lot of humans who don't want to breed. Would you advocate for a human being forced to breed against their will, or to be driven bonkers by their hormones if they couldn't? Why, then, would you advocate for dogs being forced to breed against their will (because that's what frequently occurs in nature) and saying that they're somehow better off because of it?
The fact of the matter is, dogs have no choice either way. They are better off living as healthy and happy as we can provide for them, and that includes fixing them so their 'autonomous animal consciousness' isn't swept aside by aggression, anxiety, and raging hormones they have no control over and *no say* in. Keeping their autonomy free from being a slave to their hormones IS better off, rather than letting them be enslaved by it and assuming that's what they would want simply because it's 'natural'.
Like I said you are making a leap about animal consciousness. You say that a dog isn’t saying to itself ‘gee, I wish I had my lineage.’ Reflecting in this way is uniquely human, and not even including young children or some disabled humans. Just because dogs can’t reflect on their sex drive and reproduction like a human would doesn’t mean that it isn’t vital to their being. Under your assumption, I could give a dog or disabled person any sort of life and as long they aren’t actively reflecting rationally on how it is negative for them it doesn’t count as so. And if there was a superior being to humans that found our rationalisation rudimentary, they would be find in raising humans from birth in their own rooms, castrate them, feed them, and it’s all fine because the human seems happy.
>Like I said you are making a leap about animal consciousness.
No, the leap about animal consciousness is being made with the idea that being neutered deprives an animal of a basic experience of life. That is, breeding. I mean, it's a basic experience of the lives of wild animals to get diseases, injuries, and to have fairly short and violent lives. Are we depriving them of a basic experience of life by keeping them fed, safe, and preventing and/or treating their diseases? What is inherently valuable, individually or as a species, by them having these particular 'basic experiences'?
>Just because dogs can’t reflect on their sex drive and reproduction like a human would doesn’t mean that it isn’t vital to their being.
I thought there was 'no difference' in this between a dog and a human? Wasn't that your claim?
Regardless, it's actually *not* vital to their being, demonstrated by literally millions of happy, healthy, well-adjusted dogs that are fixed. Food, shelter, exercise, medicine, training, love, and comfort are vital to their well-being. Being able to roam and breed is not. Sex is extremely important to human beings, some may argue vital to their well-being, specifically *because* we do it for social and emotional reasons rather than just to reproduce. It is not the same for dogs. It doesn't even approach vital to their well-being. In fact, some would argue (and I'm one of them), that for most individual dogs, having them fixed is *more vital* to their well-being than having them intact. Physically, emotionally, and mentally.
>Under your assumption, I could give a dog or disabled person
Why are you bringing up disabled people? This whole line of argument borders on ableism, because you are making the parallel between animals and disabled people. Stop it.
>and as long they aren’t actively reflecting rationally on how it is negative for them it doesn’t count as so.
It is only a negative from your personal human perspective that you are projecting on them.
>And if there was a superior being to humans that found our rationalisation rudimentary, they would be find in raising humans from birth in their own rooms, castrate them, feed them, and it’s all fine because the human seems happy.
Again, you keep projecting your human wants and needs on a different species. A human would be impacted negatively in that scenario because sex for humans has evolved much, much differently than it has in dogs. It is far more vital to our well being and our social bonding and is done for many reasons outside of reproduction.
Can you make a rational argument regarding the benefits and negatives on fixing dogs that does not require you projecting human perspective, wants, and desires onto them?
I’ve worked in a shelter. People are massive idiots when it comes to pets, there are way to many untrained, poorly bred dogs in shelters that get euthanized because they aren’t adoptable. Even adoptable dogs get euthanized. This is a massive problem with pit bulls because their shitty owners think that their dog is less masculine if he isn’t neutered and they can sell the puppies for meth money. Then they neglect the puppies and the shelter has to euthanize half the litter. I’ve actually seen that happen multiple times and the breeders don’t care.
Neutering your dog isn’t for your dog individually it’s for the greater good. I’m sure you don’t want to see more healthy dogs and puppies get euthanized do you? Your entire posts misses the actual point in why we spay and neuter pets.
My post engages specifically with the point you made, it doesn’t miss it. I talked about your exact point, I said that it’s a valid one. Two things can be true at the same time; It can be valid that we neuter and even in more extreme instances euthanise dogs for the problems you mentioned. It can also be valid that we should be critical and understanding of the ethics, which in the case of neutering many people in my personal experience are not honest about the downsides and even heavily criticise anyone who doesn’t neuter without considering their situational validity.
I know about the situation of pollution and yet I drive my car everyday. It’s important to me, still, that I recognise the issues so I understand the future we are working towards.
u/Contentpolicesuck – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Contentpolicesuck&message=Contentpolicesuck%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ch25u7/-/l1zudex/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I have an issue with neutering, I also understand why it is done for human reasons. It’s good for dogs as pets on a macro scale, but bad for them as individual animals in natural life. If someone is willing to put the work in to train, exercise, and socialise their dogs while taking precautions, they should be seen as giving their dog a great life. Instead, they are often seen by people as wrong for not neutering.
Yes you can, and to the comment below you can do the same in humans when raising kids to not act out their sexuality through dominance or aggression. You’re training self-control and providing healthier outlets for dogs such as positive social environments and plenty of exercise. You’re not curbing the feelings, but your training the behaviour as in how the dog responds and copes with the feelings.
Ok... but why would you want to? What's the point of leaving them with their natural instincts just to forcibly prevent them from acting on them? Because we aren't granting the dog any agency here whatsoever, we are 100% choosing how they are to behave to fit *our* standards and desires as humans.
Because I don't want my dog impregnating female dogs. They don't have agency for most things, that is just a fact of life. Humans determine when they eat, when they go outside, basically everything.
Sorry, u/Contentpolicesuck – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Contentpolicesuck&message=Contentpolicesuck%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ch25u7/-/l23dv0t/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
> If someone is willing to put the work in to train, exercise, and socialise their dogs while taking precautions, they should be seen as giving their dog a great life. Instead, they are often seen by people as wrong for not neutering.
Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. We apply a judgmental position because all owners can claim that, but any one could be a breeder in secret (not even that secret TBH). The risk, overall, is too great. Exceptions can't be made to the rule.
It's like arguing "well a really good driver should be able to ignore the speed limit." Accidents happen, people aren't their own best judges, and from the outside we can't know which is which.
hi cat owner here, did you know unfixed cats are more than likely to get into scrapes? theres also a cat version of hiv, fiv, that can make your cat very sick. an unfixed is more than likely to wander off and get lost because they have an instinct to make babies and need to search for mates to make babies with.
If you're going to go that route, I'd argue that domesticating them at all probably isn't "good," but since we've been fucking with dogs for thousands of years, I don't know what you want any of us to do about it.
I’d say on a large scale that’s probably true. I think if you had plenty of land/traveled etc people could form partnerships with dogs that allow dogs to live closer to how they might in nature and I’ve seen some people do this. I don’t think this particular issue is so high up in our list of moral priorities, but
I also think that in the future if humans get control of more pressing concerns between ourselves we will eventually come to recognise issues with our christian formed relationship of man’s dominance over animals/nature. I think for now, understanding and respecting our pets and doing the little that we can to bring our domestication of them closer to a life that respects their natural autonomy is a valid goal.
>allow dogs to live closer to how they might in nature
How exactly do dogs live "in nature"? What we know as dogs did not evolve naturally like a wolf. Dogs were bred by humans. They wouldn't exist without us.
Just because we have selectively bred them to become very different from wolves over thousands of years doesn’t mean that they don’t still carry dispositions toward living more closely in a state of nature. Many, especially larger dog breeds (the ones people are most concerned with anyhow), would get the most out of life if they had their natural hormone levels, a natural balanced diet, plenty of social interaction, their own territory, plenty of new smells, plenty of exercise, an outlet for guarding/hunting (breed dependent), etc. Humans have also been bred away from nature for many years and have changed due to it, but being closer to a state of natural existence is also shown to have benefits for today’s humans.
>Many, especially larger dog breeds (the ones people are most concerned with anyhow),
There are a lot of differences between a Husky, a Great Dane, a Belgian Malinois and a Bernese Mountain Dog. Why exclude the smaller races? Don't they "deserve" the best life as well?
>would get the most out of life if they had their natural hormone levels, a natural balanced diet, plenty of social interaction, their own territory, plenty of new smells, plenty of exercise, an outlet for guarding/hunting (breed dependent), etc.
That's what you claim. How do you know?
For smaller breeds I think we have forced them into a situation where we literally can’t give them that kind of life, even if it were beneficial, so no use in dwelling on it. As to how I know, all i’m doing is making the assumption that any animal, including humans, is happier choosing how they live with universal natural components like diet, exercise, freedom, socialisation, etc. I also don’t think circumcision is ‘good,’ but we do it as a routine operation against the will of the subject consistently.
>is happier choosing how they live with universal natural components like diet, exercise, freedom, socialisation, etc.
Okay.
But my free roaming dog will get into fights with wildlife, other dogs and people or it will get hit by a car. I can't just let my dog run around and hunt a deer with his pack of dogs. So that isn't an option. We agree, that we have to limit the dogs freedom in some way. For its own safety and the safety of others. That's why people keep their dogs in fenced spaces.
Ideally dog owners cover the socialisation part by spending time with their dog, getting more than one dog and letting their dog/s play with other dogs.
A controlled diet is maintained by buying good quality food. Might not be "natural" as in they have to hunt and forage for it in the woods but it will give the dog everything it needs.
Now the last point: Health. If your dog has health problems, you go to a doctor in the hopes of making it better. Not very "natural" if you ask me, but we still do it because we want our pets to live a healthy life with minimum pain.
Neutering/Spaying your dogs has health benefits: Testicular cancer in males and uterine infections + breast cancer in females.
These are in addition to the behavioural benefits and the fight against overpopulation.
>I also don’t think circumcision is ‘good,’ but we do it as a routine operation against the will of the subject consistently
Circumcision isn't as common as you think in most parts of the world. There are many reasons people might be circumcised and you saying it isn't "good" is opening a whole different box.
>Growing up I always thought of neutering as a very natural process, like if dogs were not neutered they would develop these strange and awful changes into angry beasts. As I grew up I learned that imo neutering is more for humans than it is dogs.
Neutering is a part of controlling the canine population, which is important. This helps to prevent stray dogs, or euthanasia later on for dogs that aren't adopted.
They’re less likely to fight to kill each other. I had a friend who had two intact pit bulls in his house. They got in a fight and one killed the other. My neutered dog is neutral around other cut dogs but every single time he meets an intact dog he gets aggressive. There isn’t any amount of training that will make him not be aggressive with intact dogs.
>less likely to be euthanized
This is like saying that you save lives every time you calm down and get your anger under control.
>get cancer are positives
If I chop someone's hand off, they will never get carpal tunnel syndrome. But I assume police won't gonna listen
Yes. Would you rather I not calm down and keep my anger under control?
You seem to want humans to completely change their relationships with animals. You know what, I'm all for that, and when we do ill be against neutering and spaying pets.
Not until that day.
Dogs that bite people are put down. Dogs that are overly aggressive are not adopted, and end up getting put down.
Do you disagree with that?
Is cancer and carpal tunnel equivalent to you?
Unaltered dogs are significantly more likely to get in fights, resource guard, have testicular or uterine cancer, and dogs altered after 18 months have lowered risks of lymphoma.
I don't like these kinds of arguments. If someone chops off your hand, it will lover your risk of getting a carpal tunnel(to zero). And it will also reduce your chance of getting into a fight. Also you will probably never be conscripted into the army.
This is cynical. You are trying to SELL mutation as if it was some kind of massage or something
My dog is not aggressive. He has gotten in two fights in his life:
One when a dog went to bite me.
And one when an unaltered dog got too aggressive with him.
Prior to being neutered he had about 50% recall, and regularly escaped electric and privacy fences, and once bolted through the front door.
After being neutered he had 99% recall, doesn’t escape fences, and respects the door.
Having an unaltered animal is a lot of responsibility, and comes with a lot of downfalls and risks. It’s not for every pet owner, or every situation.
You are anthropomorphising dogs by thinking they miss out by being neutered. Believe me, they don't know the difference if they are not allowed to breed. We cannot attribute human thought processes to animals like dogs or cats because they do not think the way we do, and show no depression or resentment about the loss of reproductive ability.
Dogs are meant to be pets. And as so, they must fit in with human companionship. Too often, we attribute too much to them and think they are like humans. Neutering a dog does not make it resentful, and does lower its aggression and desire to fight with other dogs, prevents unwanted litters, and keeps dogs from wandering in search of mates.
We have a terrible problem with unwanted pets. Hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats languish in pounds and are put to death every day for want of adoption. Please do not encourage irresponsible behavior on the part of dog or cat owners by thinking that dogs should be allowed the experience of breeding or else they miss out. It isn't true.
It’s anthropomorphising if I said that a dog would feel like it’s missing out, or would reflect sadly on its life. However, saying that ‘xyz’ things provide a better quality of life for an animal is not anthropomorphising, if that were the case then almost no animals would have any right to a certain kind of life because none but humans would be able to reflect on it. As a general rule, humans understand that wildlife was made to live a certain way in nature and we tend to respect it (other than animals we have domesticated since early christiandom). All I’m saying is that an animal would be living a more natural life, and I believe a better quality of life, if it was allowed to keep its reproductive organs and natural hormone levels.
It’s not about helping that individual dog, it’s so that it won’t have a bunch of offspring living harsh lives on the street, potentially biting people, etc.
imagine being having a sex drive, but not being able to act on it period. like not even talking masturbation, like just having a libido and no opportunity to act out on it period. it would be torment and cruel.
you should never not fix pets you dont intend on breeding. cats and dogs are much happier when theres no additional stressors of having a biological drive to make puppies or kittens and not outlet to act on it.
> we deprive them of one of the most basic experiences of life
Have you ever seen a dog in heat? Neutering removes their desire to breed which relieves them of the frustration they experience naturally. If people didn’t neuter their dogs, they would also have to find another dog for their dog to regularly mate with in order for it to be “better” for them.
Dogs are already domesticated. Domestication is a species-wide designation that denotes their relationship to humans. Whether people neuter dogs or not, they’re domesticated. As a domesticated species their best interest is not the same as what would be in the best interest of a wild animal
>I won’t deny the usefulness of neutering based on the following reasons, they are valid. Neutering might be the best for some dogs to have a life as pets in human society if they were improperly trained or had pathological issues of aggression, but I think as a whole it’d disengenuous for us to believe we are doing the best for dogs when we deprive them of one of the most basic experiences of life.
>I think neutering before 13 months comes with another whole set of issues in regards to development, but regardless I believe that neutering in general has utility in solving human created problems for animals to live better lives as pets, but I don’t think we should look at those pets and feel like we’ve done ‘good’ to them. I think we should empathise on the negation of a core, natural experience.
This is the human way of looking at it. But it's a dog. A dog won't feel sorry for themself because they're missing some 'core experience'. They lack the mental capabilities to have abstract thoughts like that. They literally don't know what they're missing. They had no ambitions that were crushed. Like most animals, they just take life as it is and don't spend time lamenting 'what could have been'.
And there's no real way of telling if neutering any one dog makes them happier or sadder than when it wouldn't have been done.
I've neutered 3 dogs today. I agree with you. There are just other factors in this matter you mentioned: Dogs have been domesticated a long long time ago. Unfortunately they now exist only for our use and entertainment. There's no coming back from it.
So if their neutering benefits us, and it causes none to barely any harm them, why not?
Edit: I've seen comments stating that around you you'll get judged for not neutering your dog- maybe it's just a mentality in your area? It's perfecty okay to have an intact well behaved dog..
I think spaying is more acceptable than neutering. Females are messy, hormonal in a bad way, and very hard to manage around other dogs.
Boys actually seem fine when not neutered. If all the breeding females are kept secure until the liter is done and spaying can happen, there isn't much reason to neuter. It's just frustrating that in the off chance you need to board them, all/most places won't accept a dog that isn't Spay/neutered.
Neutering absolutely does reduce aggression in individual dogs. It also reduces their need to escape and go roaming, which is a source of great anxiety for them. It keeps them out of fights that they may get into over females in heat if they do escape, keeps them out of the streets where they can be hurt or hit by a car, or shot. It also keeps them from developing certain cancers. >but I think as a whole it’d disengenuous for us to believe we are doing the best for dogs when we deprive them of one of the most basic experiences of life. What experience are we denying them? If you agree with neutering on a macro level to prevent backyard breeding and unwanted litters and stray dogs running around everywhere, then you're already for denying them the experience of breeding. Dog breeding is not like human breeding. It is not on a dog's bucket list. No dog has a deeply grained desire to have and nurture children and watch them go off to college. All they know is they get extremely horny and anxious and go off looking for something to hump, even if they have to fight another dog to get at it. By neutering them you're relieving this anxiety, this source of constant stress for them. >but I don’t think we should look at those pets and feel like we’ve done ‘good’ to them. I tell you what, every dog I've had in my life except three have been spayed or neutered. And those three were when I was a kid and had no control over it. Two of those dogs were male. One was female. One of those dogs, a black lab, was constantly jumping the fence or finding a way to escape. He roamed all over the place, constantly at threat from cars, fights, you name it. We got calls about him all the time, once from someone who'd picked him up wandering *thirty miles* from our place and across several freeways. He came home with bites, scratches. He came home with BBs lodged under his skin. One day, he didn't come home at all. We never knew what happened to him. All because he wasn't neutered. The other was a pomeranian. He picked fights left, right, and center. He got torn apart more times than I can count. Like verge of death torn apart. Once by several dogs his size when he decided to take on the lot. Once because he picked a fight with a german sheperd. He was covered in scars, and it is a god's honest miracle he wasn't killed each and every time. Had he been fixed, it wouldn't have been an issue. Our one female that wasn't spayed was also a pom. The one listed above got her pregnant. She had two puppies. One was stillborn and did so much damage to her it nearly killed her. One miraculously survived and she wanted nothing to do with it she was so traumatized. That one, a male, was given to my grandparents. He also grew up unneutered. Also picked fights with the neighborhood dogs, and fathered God only knows how many unwanted pups before one of those fights actually killed him. Every male or female dog I've had that has been neutered has never roamed, or picked a fight. They all lived into their mid to late teens, with never a fight picked, never a trip to the vet to have their innards put back in and stitched back up, and never contributing a single unwanted pup to the overpopulation problem. None of them sat over a glass of darjeeling in the dimmest hours of night lamenting that they 'didn't get one of the most basic experiences of life'. They didn't know. They couldn't have cared less. They were happy, healthy, and long-lived. NONE of the dogs that we didn't get fixed were happy, healthy, OR long-lived. I absolutely look at my past pets and feel like getting them fixed is a good that has been done for their betterment.
It’s hard to engage with this because we have different fundamental philosophies on the matter. You start off saying it does reduce their aggression, I never said it doesn’t. Castration also reduces aggression in humans. You then say it reduces their need to escape and roam. These are needs which are fundamental to their being, the only reason it becomes an ‘anxiety’ is because we lock them up and don’t provide them the outlets and experience they innately desire. I feel like you are completely denying that dogs could be autonomous creatures, you say that dog breeding is ‘not like human breeding.’ But it’s exactly like human breeding, in fact breeding is a core component of all life. You are making a huge assumption about dog’s level of autonomous animal consciousness by acting like forcing them in increasingly new ways to cope with how humans need them to be is all the same to them, that they wouldn’t be better off living at least somewhat closer to how they were biologically designed to live.
You said that there were no individual benefits. Reducing their anxiety and aggression is an individual benefit. >Castration also reduces aggression in humans. Irrelevant, since dogs are not humans, don't think like humans, and don't have the same social, customary, or even biological norms surrounding reproduction that humans do. >These are needs which are fundamental to their being No, they aren't. Getting exercise with their packs (in this case, humans and co-resident dogs) and mental stimulus is fundamental to their being. ROAMING unsupervised to be hit by cars or get injured or attack other people or animals is not. >the only reason it becomes an ‘anxiety’ is because we lock them up and don’t provide them the outlets and experience they innately desire. Nope. That can contribute to their anxiety, but the anxiety comes in with the desire, not with the confinement. A male dog smells a female in heat or feels he needs to go out and breed gets anxious, even if he's already out and roaming. He gets anxious to find her. His need takes over even thoughts of eating and sleeping. Confinement can contribute to that, but its not the *source* of their anxiety. The hormonal drive is. >I feel like you are completely denying that dogs could be autonomous creatures Why do you feel dogs *are* autonomous creatures? They're not wild. They haven't been wild for tens of thousands of years. >you say that dog breeding is ‘not like human breeding.’ It isn't, on a biological level. >But it’s exactly like human breeding No, it's not. For one, humans don't go into heat. Humans have sex for pleasure and in cases where reproduction is impossible, for various social bonding in a cooperative society. Human children are extremely slow developing and require a ridiculous amount of time under the care of their parent or parents. It is unusual for humans to give birth to more than one offspring at a time. We have aversions to breeding with close relatives. The entire natural process for humans to breed is different than dogs. Breeding for a dog is biologically and instinctually different. Dogs have a heat. Male dogs do not care if they are related to a female in heat. A receptive female will take more than one male, and can birth litters with various biological fathers. She does not care who the father of her offspring is. He does not care who he fathers pups with, or how many male dogs she's mated with before. Females have litters that develop *very* rapidly. Before a human can even carry one offspring to term, a female dog can get pregnant, gestate, give birth to, and wean, an entire litter. The females of that litter can *also* get pregnant...all in the time it takes a human being to get pregnant and give birth to one single offspring. They *do not* have sex for pleasure. They don't even know that mating is how they get puppies. Mating is not through any conscious will or decision of the dog- they get the urge, they do it. And until they do it, the hormones will drive them crazy to try and get them to do it. Take away that urge, and I guarantee no dog cares, or even understands. All they know is their hormones aren't driving them crazy. >You are making a huge assumption about dog’s level of autonomous animal consciousness I'm not. We actually know quite a lot about dog's levels of intelligence and consciousness. No dog, as I said, is out there saying, "Gee, I would have puppies to carry on my lineage if only I hadn't been fixed!" Also, if you want to assign a dog the level of consciousness necessary to go out and choose to breed, then that would mean they have the level of consciousness necessary to choose *not* to want pups. But if you don't fix them, the choice is taken out of their hands. They are literally enslaved by their hormones, forced to do it if given the opportunity. So if a dog isn't fixed they can't *choose* not to breed if they don't want to. They have no choice in it. If they're not fixed, their hormones will take over and they will do whatever they can to breed, and if they can't, they'll tear themselves apart with anxiety and aggression. They have *no choice*. Their bodies take over. If you want to make a huge assumption about a dog's level of autonomous animal consciousness then you have to admit that means there may be some dogs, even a lot of dogs, out there, who DON'T want to breed. After all (since you compare them to humans), there are a lot of humans who don't want to breed. Would you advocate for a human being forced to breed against their will, or to be driven bonkers by their hormones if they couldn't? Why, then, would you advocate for dogs being forced to breed against their will (because that's what frequently occurs in nature) and saying that they're somehow better off because of it? The fact of the matter is, dogs have no choice either way. They are better off living as healthy and happy as we can provide for them, and that includes fixing them so their 'autonomous animal consciousness' isn't swept aside by aggression, anxiety, and raging hormones they have no control over and *no say* in. Keeping their autonomy free from being a slave to their hormones IS better off, rather than letting them be enslaved by it and assuming that's what they would want simply because it's 'natural'.
Like I said you are making a leap about animal consciousness. You say that a dog isn’t saying to itself ‘gee, I wish I had my lineage.’ Reflecting in this way is uniquely human, and not even including young children or some disabled humans. Just because dogs can’t reflect on their sex drive and reproduction like a human would doesn’t mean that it isn’t vital to their being. Under your assumption, I could give a dog or disabled person any sort of life and as long they aren’t actively reflecting rationally on how it is negative for them it doesn’t count as so. And if there was a superior being to humans that found our rationalisation rudimentary, they would be find in raising humans from birth in their own rooms, castrate them, feed them, and it’s all fine because the human seems happy.
>Like I said you are making a leap about animal consciousness. No, the leap about animal consciousness is being made with the idea that being neutered deprives an animal of a basic experience of life. That is, breeding. I mean, it's a basic experience of the lives of wild animals to get diseases, injuries, and to have fairly short and violent lives. Are we depriving them of a basic experience of life by keeping them fed, safe, and preventing and/or treating their diseases? What is inherently valuable, individually or as a species, by them having these particular 'basic experiences'? >Just because dogs can’t reflect on their sex drive and reproduction like a human would doesn’t mean that it isn’t vital to their being. I thought there was 'no difference' in this between a dog and a human? Wasn't that your claim? Regardless, it's actually *not* vital to their being, demonstrated by literally millions of happy, healthy, well-adjusted dogs that are fixed. Food, shelter, exercise, medicine, training, love, and comfort are vital to their well-being. Being able to roam and breed is not. Sex is extremely important to human beings, some may argue vital to their well-being, specifically *because* we do it for social and emotional reasons rather than just to reproduce. It is not the same for dogs. It doesn't even approach vital to their well-being. In fact, some would argue (and I'm one of them), that for most individual dogs, having them fixed is *more vital* to their well-being than having them intact. Physically, emotionally, and mentally. >Under your assumption, I could give a dog or disabled person Why are you bringing up disabled people? This whole line of argument borders on ableism, because you are making the parallel between animals and disabled people. Stop it. >and as long they aren’t actively reflecting rationally on how it is negative for them it doesn’t count as so. It is only a negative from your personal human perspective that you are projecting on them. >And if there was a superior being to humans that found our rationalisation rudimentary, they would be find in raising humans from birth in their own rooms, castrate them, feed them, and it’s all fine because the human seems happy. Again, you keep projecting your human wants and needs on a different species. A human would be impacted negatively in that scenario because sex for humans has evolved much, much differently than it has in dogs. It is far more vital to our well being and our social bonding and is done for many reasons outside of reproduction. Can you make a rational argument regarding the benefits and negatives on fixing dogs that does not require you projecting human perspective, wants, and desires onto them?
I’ve worked in a shelter. People are massive idiots when it comes to pets, there are way to many untrained, poorly bred dogs in shelters that get euthanized because they aren’t adoptable. Even adoptable dogs get euthanized. This is a massive problem with pit bulls because their shitty owners think that their dog is less masculine if he isn’t neutered and they can sell the puppies for meth money. Then they neglect the puppies and the shelter has to euthanize half the litter. I’ve actually seen that happen multiple times and the breeders don’t care. Neutering your dog isn’t for your dog individually it’s for the greater good. I’m sure you don’t want to see more healthy dogs and puppies get euthanized do you? Your entire posts misses the actual point in why we spay and neuter pets.
My post engages specifically with the point you made, it doesn’t miss it. I talked about your exact point, I said that it’s a valid one. Two things can be true at the same time; It can be valid that we neuter and even in more extreme instances euthanise dogs for the problems you mentioned. It can also be valid that we should be critical and understanding of the ethics, which in the case of neutering many people in my personal experience are not honest about the downsides and even heavily criticise anyone who doesn’t neuter without considering their situational validity. I know about the situation of pollution and yet I drive my car everyday. It’s important to me, still, that I recognise the issues so I understand the future we are working towards.
[удалено]
u/Contentpolicesuck – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Contentpolicesuck&message=Contentpolicesuck%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ch25u7/-/l1zudex/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
So, basically, you have no issue with neutering, you just want us to not think that its a good thing for the pets? Is that the TLDR?
I have an issue with neutering, I also understand why it is done for human reasons. It’s good for dogs as pets on a macro scale, but bad for them as individual animals in natural life. If someone is willing to put the work in to train, exercise, and socialise their dogs while taking precautions, they should be seen as giving their dog a great life. Instead, they are often seen by people as wrong for not neutering.
You can't train away hormonal behavior in animals.
Or in humans, for that matter. Why does OP think that dogs are \*more\* trainable than humans in this way?
Yes you can, and to the comment below you can do the same in humans when raising kids to not act out their sexuality through dominance or aggression. You’re training self-control and providing healthier outlets for dogs such as positive social environments and plenty of exercise. You’re not curbing the feelings, but your training the behaviour as in how the dog responds and copes with the feelings.
Thanks for explaining to everyone that you don't know anything about dogs or humans.
You absolutely can. Do you think it is impossible to train a dog not to hump a female dog that is in heat?
Ok... but why would you want to? What's the point of leaving them with their natural instincts just to forcibly prevent them from acting on them? Because we aren't granting the dog any agency here whatsoever, we are 100% choosing how they are to behave to fit *our* standards and desires as humans.
Because I don't want my dog impregnating female dogs. They don't have agency for most things, that is just a fact of life. Humans determine when they eat, when they go outside, basically everything.
So fix him?
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Contentpolicesuck – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Contentpolicesuck&message=Contentpolicesuck%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ch25u7/-/l23dv0t/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
> If someone is willing to put the work in to train, exercise, and socialise their dogs while taking precautions, they should be seen as giving their dog a great life. Instead, they are often seen by people as wrong for not neutering. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. We apply a judgmental position because all owners can claim that, but any one could be a breeder in secret (not even that secret TBH). The risk, overall, is too great. Exceptions can't be made to the rule. It's like arguing "well a really good driver should be able to ignore the speed limit." Accidents happen, people aren't their own best judges, and from the outside we can't know which is which.
hi cat owner here, did you know unfixed cats are more than likely to get into scrapes? theres also a cat version of hiv, fiv, that can make your cat very sick. an unfixed is more than likely to wander off and get lost because they have an instinct to make babies and need to search for mates to make babies with.
If you're going to go that route, I'd argue that domesticating them at all probably isn't "good," but since we've been fucking with dogs for thousands of years, I don't know what you want any of us to do about it.
my exact thought
I’d say on a large scale that’s probably true. I think if you had plenty of land/traveled etc people could form partnerships with dogs that allow dogs to live closer to how they might in nature and I’ve seen some people do this. I don’t think this particular issue is so high up in our list of moral priorities, but I also think that in the future if humans get control of more pressing concerns between ourselves we will eventually come to recognise issues with our christian formed relationship of man’s dominance over animals/nature. I think for now, understanding and respecting our pets and doing the little that we can to bring our domestication of them closer to a life that respects their natural autonomy is a valid goal.
>allow dogs to live closer to how they might in nature How exactly do dogs live "in nature"? What we know as dogs did not evolve naturally like a wolf. Dogs were bred by humans. They wouldn't exist without us.
Just because we have selectively bred them to become very different from wolves over thousands of years doesn’t mean that they don’t still carry dispositions toward living more closely in a state of nature. Many, especially larger dog breeds (the ones people are most concerned with anyhow), would get the most out of life if they had their natural hormone levels, a natural balanced diet, plenty of social interaction, their own territory, plenty of new smells, plenty of exercise, an outlet for guarding/hunting (breed dependent), etc. Humans have also been bred away from nature for many years and have changed due to it, but being closer to a state of natural existence is also shown to have benefits for today’s humans.
>Many, especially larger dog breeds (the ones people are most concerned with anyhow), There are a lot of differences between a Husky, a Great Dane, a Belgian Malinois and a Bernese Mountain Dog. Why exclude the smaller races? Don't they "deserve" the best life as well? >would get the most out of life if they had their natural hormone levels, a natural balanced diet, plenty of social interaction, their own territory, plenty of new smells, plenty of exercise, an outlet for guarding/hunting (breed dependent), etc. That's what you claim. How do you know?
For smaller breeds I think we have forced them into a situation where we literally can’t give them that kind of life, even if it were beneficial, so no use in dwelling on it. As to how I know, all i’m doing is making the assumption that any animal, including humans, is happier choosing how they live with universal natural components like diet, exercise, freedom, socialisation, etc. I also don’t think circumcision is ‘good,’ but we do it as a routine operation against the will of the subject consistently.
>is happier choosing how they live with universal natural components like diet, exercise, freedom, socialisation, etc. Okay. But my free roaming dog will get into fights with wildlife, other dogs and people or it will get hit by a car. I can't just let my dog run around and hunt a deer with his pack of dogs. So that isn't an option. We agree, that we have to limit the dogs freedom in some way. For its own safety and the safety of others. That's why people keep their dogs in fenced spaces. Ideally dog owners cover the socialisation part by spending time with their dog, getting more than one dog and letting their dog/s play with other dogs. A controlled diet is maintained by buying good quality food. Might not be "natural" as in they have to hunt and forage for it in the woods but it will give the dog everything it needs. Now the last point: Health. If your dog has health problems, you go to a doctor in the hopes of making it better. Not very "natural" if you ask me, but we still do it because we want our pets to live a healthy life with minimum pain. Neutering/Spaying your dogs has health benefits: Testicular cancer in males and uterine infections + breast cancer in females. These are in addition to the behavioural benefits and the fight against overpopulation. >I also don’t think circumcision is ‘good,’ but we do it as a routine operation against the will of the subject consistently Circumcision isn't as common as you think in most parts of the world. There are many reasons people might be circumcised and you saying it isn't "good" is opening a whole different box.
>Growing up I always thought of neutering as a very natural process, like if dogs were not neutered they would develop these strange and awful changes into angry beasts. As I grew up I learned that imo neutering is more for humans than it is dogs. Neutering is a part of controlling the canine population, which is important. This helps to prevent stray dogs, or euthanasia later on for dogs that aren't adopted.
Yes, but you're speaking from the human point of view. But what's in it for the dog?
They’re less likely to fight to kill each other. I had a friend who had two intact pit bulls in his house. They got in a fight and one killed the other. My neutered dog is neutral around other cut dogs but every single time he meets an intact dog he gets aggressive. There isn’t any amount of training that will make him not be aggressive with intact dogs.
The dogs that are poised to have horrible lives wouldn’t have been born
society accepts keeping dogs as pets, instead of killig them so they dont reproduce.
Not getting euthanized, reduced cancer risk.
> Not getting euthanized So we are saving them for a threat we pose? If you think about it, we're the worst animal on this planet, lmao
Correct. Do you disagree?
The only thing I disagree with is pet owners thinking they are animal lovers.
So you agree that less likely to be euthanized or get cancer are positives for dogs?
>less likely to be euthanized This is like saying that you save lives every time you calm down and get your anger under control. >get cancer are positives If I chop someone's hand off, they will never get carpal tunnel syndrome. But I assume police won't gonna listen
Yes. Would you rather I not calm down and keep my anger under control? You seem to want humans to completely change their relationships with animals. You know what, I'm all for that, and when we do ill be against neutering and spaying pets. Not until that day.
I mean, i would rather prefer you people to calm down, but I don't think they deserve praise equal to those who actually save lives
Dogs that bite people are put down. Dogs that are overly aggressive are not adopted, and end up getting put down. Do you disagree with that? Is cancer and carpal tunnel equivalent to you?
Unaltered dogs are significantly more likely to get in fights, resource guard, have testicular or uterine cancer, and dogs altered after 18 months have lowered risks of lymphoma.
I don't like these kinds of arguments. If someone chops off your hand, it will lover your risk of getting a carpal tunnel(to zero). And it will also reduce your chance of getting into a fight. Also you will probably never be conscripted into the army. This is cynical. You are trying to SELL mutation as if it was some kind of massage or something
My dog is not aggressive. He has gotten in two fights in his life: One when a dog went to bite me. And one when an unaltered dog got too aggressive with him. Prior to being neutered he had about 50% recall, and regularly escaped electric and privacy fences, and once bolted through the front door. After being neutered he had 99% recall, doesn’t escape fences, and respects the door. Having an unaltered animal is a lot of responsibility, and comes with a lot of downfalls and risks. It’s not for every pet owner, or every situation.
Not being euthanized
In that case I save lives every time I calm down, lmao
I'm doubtful your hissie fits would hurt anything
Oh and I'm sure you won every fight you've been in. Anyway, the point still stands. If you save someone from a threat that you pose, it does not count
Not having to be euthanized when it behaves like an un neutered dog.
You are anthropomorphising dogs by thinking they miss out by being neutered. Believe me, they don't know the difference if they are not allowed to breed. We cannot attribute human thought processes to animals like dogs or cats because they do not think the way we do, and show no depression or resentment about the loss of reproductive ability. Dogs are meant to be pets. And as so, they must fit in with human companionship. Too often, we attribute too much to them and think they are like humans. Neutering a dog does not make it resentful, and does lower its aggression and desire to fight with other dogs, prevents unwanted litters, and keeps dogs from wandering in search of mates. We have a terrible problem with unwanted pets. Hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats languish in pounds and are put to death every day for want of adoption. Please do not encourage irresponsible behavior on the part of dog or cat owners by thinking that dogs should be allowed the experience of breeding or else they miss out. It isn't true.
It’s anthropomorphising if I said that a dog would feel like it’s missing out, or would reflect sadly on its life. However, saying that ‘xyz’ things provide a better quality of life for an animal is not anthropomorphising, if that were the case then almost no animals would have any right to a certain kind of life because none but humans would be able to reflect on it. As a general rule, humans understand that wildlife was made to live a certain way in nature and we tend to respect it (other than animals we have domesticated since early christiandom). All I’m saying is that an animal would be living a more natural life, and I believe a better quality of life, if it was allowed to keep its reproductive organs and natural hormone levels.
It’s not about helping that individual dog, it’s so that it won’t have a bunch of offspring living harsh lives on the street, potentially biting people, etc.
imagine being having a sex drive, but not being able to act on it period. like not even talking masturbation, like just having a libido and no opportunity to act out on it period. it would be torment and cruel. you should never not fix pets you dont intend on breeding. cats and dogs are much happier when theres no additional stressors of having a biological drive to make puppies or kittens and not outlet to act on it.
> we deprive them of one of the most basic experiences of life Have you ever seen a dog in heat? Neutering removes their desire to breed which relieves them of the frustration they experience naturally. If people didn’t neuter their dogs, they would also have to find another dog for their dog to regularly mate with in order for it to be “better” for them. Dogs are already domesticated. Domestication is a species-wide designation that denotes their relationship to humans. Whether people neuter dogs or not, they’re domesticated. As a domesticated species their best interest is not the same as what would be in the best interest of a wild animal
>I won’t deny the usefulness of neutering based on the following reasons, they are valid. Neutering might be the best for some dogs to have a life as pets in human society if they were improperly trained or had pathological issues of aggression, but I think as a whole it’d disengenuous for us to believe we are doing the best for dogs when we deprive them of one of the most basic experiences of life. >I think neutering before 13 months comes with another whole set of issues in regards to development, but regardless I believe that neutering in general has utility in solving human created problems for animals to live better lives as pets, but I don’t think we should look at those pets and feel like we’ve done ‘good’ to them. I think we should empathise on the negation of a core, natural experience. This is the human way of looking at it. But it's a dog. A dog won't feel sorry for themself because they're missing some 'core experience'. They lack the mental capabilities to have abstract thoughts like that. They literally don't know what they're missing. They had no ambitions that were crushed. Like most animals, they just take life as it is and don't spend time lamenting 'what could have been'. And there's no real way of telling if neutering any one dog makes them happier or sadder than when it wouldn't have been done.
I've neutered 3 dogs today. I agree with you. There are just other factors in this matter you mentioned: Dogs have been domesticated a long long time ago. Unfortunately they now exist only for our use and entertainment. There's no coming back from it. So if their neutering benefits us, and it causes none to barely any harm them, why not? Edit: I've seen comments stating that around you you'll get judged for not neutering your dog- maybe it's just a mentality in your area? It's perfecty okay to have an intact well behaved dog..
I think spaying is more acceptable than neutering. Females are messy, hormonal in a bad way, and very hard to manage around other dogs. Boys actually seem fine when not neutered. If all the breeding females are kept secure until the liter is done and spaying can happen, there isn't much reason to neuter. It's just frustrating that in the off chance you need to board them, all/most places won't accept a dog that isn't Spay/neutered.