You are viewing thequestionclub

The Question Club - [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
The Question Club

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Dec. 19th, 2012|01:50 pm]
Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry

thequestionclub

[shinygobonkers]
TQC:

From a moral perspective, what are your feelings about the idea of tattooing animals?

This guy has a farm in China (had to leave Belgium due to EU laws) where he tattoos pigs and then lets them live freely, treats them well, gives them names etc. I think people can come visit the farm, like a petting zoo or something. Eventually they die/ get slaughtered and he either stuffs them or skins them and sells the tattooed skins/stuffed pigs to collectors.

piggies

Whereas apparently some pet owners in Russia have taken to getting their pet hairless sphinx cats tattooed for their amusement. This guy and his cat have matching tattoos:



It's my understanding that the animals are sedated during the tattooing procedure. Do you think what they are doing is wrong? How would you feel about someone who decided to tattoo their baby or toddler? Does this differ significantly from tattooing an animal? How come?

What consequences, if any, do you think people who do this to animals should face? What about if someone did this to their baby/toddler?

(for sake of argument, lets assume the tattooing was done in sterile, medically appropriate way by trained professionals)
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: ellelelle
2012-12-19 06:52 pm (UTC)

(Link)

no.
[User Picture]From: ellelelle
2012-12-19 07:01 pm (UTC)

(Link)

no.

EDIT: my initial response was no, just no, to the whole thing, but to be fair to your question, I don't think it would be moral to use an animal as an inanimate object for art or expression, or even idle messing around with a needle and ink. The animal is sentient, they will feel that and there will be no practical improvement in the animals life (as would happen when an animal is given a number or a distinguishing mark). It's needlessly selfish and thoughtless towards the animal.
[User Picture]From: pirahan
2012-12-19 06:53 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I do not approve. Even if the animal is sedated there is still pain afterward. I think this is just horrible. Can't you just use henna instead? :(
[User Picture]From: anchellada
2012-12-19 06:54 pm (UTC)

(Link)

weird
[User Picture]From: shweetnettie13
2012-12-19 06:56 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Not cool. If the animal/person cannot give consent, no tattoo should be given.
From: saloonperfume
2012-12-19 06:58 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I feel like inflicting pain on an animal for aesthetic purposes, whether it's tattooing, tail/ear docking, whatever, is morally wrong.

But at the same time, those pigs are probably happier and healthier than any un-tattooed pigs people everywhere have in commercial farms and stuff so...it's a grey area.
[User Picture]From: gabardinedreams
2012-12-19 07:46 pm (UTC)

(Link)

i thought tail docking was also done for health reasons? and i witnessed as a child a litter of puppies getting their tails docked and none of them cried until their dew claws were removed then they squealed. is this a misconception of mine that tail docking isn't painful to puppies? PLEASE EDUCATE MY IGNORANCE.
[User Picture]From: loveandbees
2012-12-19 06:58 pm (UTC)

(Link)

No no no no no. As pirihan said, there is still pain afterwards regardless of sedation, and that is not fair. Why make an animal suffer just so it looks pretty?
[User Picture]From: coconut_theory
2012-12-19 06:58 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Not cool. For the reason stated above: it's for the owners' amusement.

Doing it to a baby is worse.
[User Picture]From: lutine
2012-12-19 07:00 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I don't think it's good, but I think that there are a lot of worse animals rights issues that need to be addressed before we get panties in a bunch over this. I don't see it as drastically different from punching holes in their ears for tags or whatever.

My cat has a tattoo. They gave her one to show that she's fixed/chipped. I know people who have gotten their child's blood type tattooed (very small) on them, which I think was silly because a) medical alert bracelets, anyone? and b) I don't think doctors are going to know to even look for that.
[User Picture]From: lisasimpsonfan
2012-12-19 07:12 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Plus didn't the Nazi SS get their blood type tattooed on their upper arm? I remember reading about that and then seeing it on TV.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: pastorlenny
2012-12-19 07:06 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Honestly, all i can think of is getting Princess a tattoo that says "Daddy's Girl."
[User Picture]From: checkerbloom
2012-12-19 07:06 pm (UTC)

(Link)

It's stupid. Tattoos hurt while they're healing and animals don't understand that tattoos have to be kept clean and that they shouldn't scratch them, etc. It's ok for a human to choose to suffer for the sake of aesthetics, but animals can't make that decision.
[User Picture]From: druiaen
2012-12-19 07:13 pm (UTC)

(Link)

If your "subject" can't say "yes" to whatever you want to do to it, that's a pretty big indicator that you should not be doing it. I can understand this not applying in medical situations, or even in the situation where they gave my dog a tiny little "I'm not a tramp" stamp after she was neutered, but when it's for the amusement of someone else just... no.
[User Picture]From: meshuggenah42
2012-12-19 08:26 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Wait, they tattooed your dog after she got fixed?
[User Picture]From: whataspacecase
2012-12-19 07:14 pm (UTC)

(Link)

while I think its a terrible idea across the board, I'm also surprised to find there are people who have to time and energy to care about tattooing their pets. I MEAN WHAT ON EARTH
[User Picture]From: xtoolchickx
2012-12-20 12:10 am (UTC)

(Link)

This was basically my thoughts.
[User Picture]From: onedotfour
2012-12-19 07:28 pm (UTC)

(Link)

If you're keeping an animal to love and care for you wouldn't do anything to hurt them or put them through any discomfort unless its for their own good. Although in comparison to what the meat industry does to animals, what this man is doing to his pigs is humane and even admirable... that is only in comparison to waiting to be slaughtered whilst living in filth in an over crowded unsanitary pen.
[User Picture]From: judaskiss
2012-12-19 07:46 pm (UTC)

(Link)

THIS is what people are getting mad about? While turning a blind eye to the everyday atrocities that happen at farms/slaughterhouses in general? A few fucking tattoos? Give me a break.
[User Picture]From: kaelstra
2012-12-19 07:57 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Protip: People can have feels about more than one issue at a time.
[User Picture]From: kaelstra
2012-12-19 07:57 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I do not approve. The animals cannot give consent to this.
[User Picture]From: scatterbeetle
2012-12-19 11:31 pm (UTC)

(Link)

With that logic, animals can't give consent to much of anything. They can't consent to vet visits, or immunisations, or surgeries, or anything else that humans put them through for good or bad.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just when I read your response it made me think of what I said above.
[User Picture]From: ginkaruja
2012-12-19 08:08 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I really don't know how to feel about decorative tattooing of animals. It's hardly the worst thing out there, and....it would make it nearly impossible to steal the animal. Where as I.D. tattoos can easily be removed as they're fairly small and done in the ear or on the stomach, no one is going to want to try removing ALL of that.
[User Picture]From: judaskiss
2012-12-19 08:12 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Lol, this had occurred to me, as well. The dude probably has no worries about anyone stealing his pigs. Tattoos can be useful in that case.
[User Picture]From: thehoodiewhore
2012-12-19 08:16 pm (UTC)

(Link)

The pigs are probably are probably living better lives than most pigs in the world. There's worse things happening to animals, but I'm still against it. It's like cropping/docking, just aesthetic.
[User Picture]From: meshuggenah42
2012-12-19 08:23 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Ugh, disgusting
[User Picture]From: striga
2012-12-19 09:10 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I'm leery of sedating anyone for non-medical reasons, because there are risks (albeit slight) involved with sedation. Both that and the aftereffects of healing from a tattoo make me against it. I don't know if there are social implications for these animals based on looking so different from other members of their species, but it's also a possibility that a responsible animal lover should consider.

I'm far more against people tattooing babies, unless they have an excellent reason. If they lived in a culture where having no tattoos would be a source of social embarrassment, then I suppose I could see the point, though I wouldn't be comfortable with the custom. If it were for a medical reason I could see that too, but I'm not personally aware of any situation in which a medical bracelet wouldn't serve just as well. If parents tattooed their child for their own amusement or to try to force their child into some identity which the child is too young to freely choose, my first thought is that those parents should have the words "poor judgement" tattooed across their foreheads.
[User Picture]From: heyfashion
2012-12-19 09:54 pm (UTC)

(Link)

this is just absolutely wrong to me. Even just seeing the pictures is upsetting. I wish they had been under a cut :\

Edited at 2012-12-19 09:55 pm (UTC)
[User Picture]From: shinygobonkers
2012-12-19 10:11 pm (UTC)

(Link)

sorry. didn't think they would be that level of bothersome :/
[User Picture]From: kikkyo
2012-12-19 10:50 pm (UTC)

(Link)

No, I don't agree with it. Why should these animals be put through pain for their owners' amusement? They can't give consent, therefore they shouldn't be forced to get the tatoo.
[User Picture]From: rainbowstevie
2012-12-20 01:22 am (UTC)

(Link)

*shrugs* If it doesn't hurt the animal, then I don't see the problem. The animal is never going to be aware of what's on its skin and form an opinion about it like a person would.