Canine birth control, FDA approves non-surgical neutering See alsospay And Neuter Dog News Dog Health An alternative for neutering has just been approved Getty Images
Share On FacebookShare On TwitterShare On Reddit+ April 15, 2012 Dog owners who squirm at the prospect of putting their male dogs under the knife to be altered will soon be able to take advantage of a new alternative.
Recently, the FDA approved a revolutionary way to sterilize male dogs - Zeutering.
According to the Dogington Post, Zeutering will allow veterinarians to sterilize dogs without the use of anesthesia, or for that matter, surgery. For those men who do not like to see their male dogs lose their "boy parts", the procedure also allows the dogs to retain their testicles.
Ark Sciences created the sterilizing zinc injection; one which promises no stitches and relatively no downtime. Click here to read one dog owner's experience with this injection.
The injection is designed for puppies between the ages of 3 and 10 months and it is touted as a cost effective alternative to traditional neutering.
While organizations are free to choose their neutering methods, substituting one million castrations with Zinc neutering among non-profits could save over $50M of donated dollars every year. Imagine the potential windfall of $50M becoming readily available for other animal welfare programs including dog adoption, responsible breeding, pet education, etc. Ark Sciences hopes that their product will aid in the dramatic reduction of pet euthanasia,
The executive team at Ark Sciences will not rest until we dramatically reduce the US pet euthanasia rate of 4 million annually. Our vision is Full Adoption USA by 2015. We are now training veterinarians supplying them with our sterilization product. By second quarter in 2012, it will be ready for sale at a price that will allow them to sterilize up to five dogs for the price of one castration (on average), five times faster, and five times safer. We have other products on the way that will be game changing for other animals.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
The news: House Republicans want to be double-plus sure that poor women have difficulty getting abortions. To that end, on Wednesday, the House’s Judiciary Committee decided to send H.R. 7, the aptly titled "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," to the floor of the House.
An all-male subcommittee considered the bill before it was approved according to a party line vote. The Judiciary Committee’s 22 Republicans, all of whom are pasty men, voted for the bill, while the committee’s Democrats, five of whom are women, voted against it.
Just in case you were curious, here’s a little glimpse into what the committee meeting looked like:
The background: But wait, there’s more! H.R. 7 seeks to stop federal funding for abortions through services like Medicaid. However, the federal government hasn’t funded abortions through Medicaid since 1976, thanks to a rider known as the Hyde Amendment. The only exemptions are for cases of rape, incest, or medical emergency, and that’s only since 1992.
Fifteen states have anted up and shelled out to cover abortions for Medicaid recipients, thanks to the federal government’s intransigence. In the other 35 states, poor women are already out of luck.
States in blue subsidize abortions for Medicaid recipients. Source: Wikimedia Commons
Of course, Medicaid isn’t the only way in which the federal government might fund abortions. Members of the armed forces and other federal employees cannot receive health insurance coverage for abortion through their jobs. H.R. 7 also makes sure that flexible spending dollars and tax credits for medical procedures will specifically exclude abortion, except in instances where you can document your sexual assault for the IRS. The bill also denies tax benefits to small businesses.
The takeaway: In choosing to prioritize this bill — it’s the first one to be marked up this year — the Judiciary Committee’s Republicans have emphasized their dedication to restricting women’s access to legal abortions in every middling way possible, even when it redoubles existing policy. They’ve also showcased their commitment to making decisions about abortions through all-male subcommittees, actively denying women the ability to comment, and making ridiculous partisan gestures rather than getting essential work done.
Just in case there was any confusion about the committee’s priorities as a partisan organization, which it isn't exactly supposed to be — as Chairman Bob Goodlatte points out, the Judiciary Committee, “is at the forefront of some of the most significant issues facing our nation,” from civil liberties, to immigration reform, to terrorism, to overseeing the Department of Justice and Homeland Security — the committee uses its official Facebook page to repost Fox News videos, and its verified Twitter to retweet things like this:
Maybe the busy committee could spend a little less time posting partisan cable news clips and trying to deal abortion a death of a thousand symbolic cuts, and get back to some of the pressing national security and civil liberty issues that it’s primarily responsible for addressing.
That, or the 113th Congress can spend its second year as it did its first: bickering loudly while getting nothing done.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Who needs the right to choose what to do with there own bodies? As far as the terminating pregnancy issue- the woman and ONLY the woman has the right to do with their own body as they see fit.
Who needs the right to choose what to do with there own bodies? As far as the terminating pregnancy issue- the woman and ONLY the woman has the right to do with their own body as they see fit.
Case closed.
Good, then she shouldn't ask me to pay for it via increased healthcare costs or social services.
I assume she'll be taking care of herself, without the burden falling to the rest of us, unwillingly.
Thanks!
We are advised NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.
We are advised NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.
Good, then she shouldn't ask me to pay for it via increased healthcare costs or social services.
I assume she'll be taking care of herself, without the burden falling to the rest of us, unwillingly.
Thanks!
If a woman is poor and needs assistance, then YOU raise and pay for that child that results from the potential child until that child that resulted from the potential child reaches adulthood.
If a woman is poor and needs assistance, then YOU raise and pay for that child that results from the potential child until that child that resulted from the potential child reaches adulthood.
Whats that?..............crickets!!!!
No, thanks - I choose not to.
We are advised NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.
Who needs the right to choose what to do with there own bodies? As far as the terminating pregnancy issue- the woman and ONLY the woman has the right to do with their own body as they see fit.
Case closed.
AGAIN,,,,your projecting and deflecting by saying ONLY the woman has the reproductive choice....most choices for women are DANGEROUS ONES...albeit 'as safe as they can be'.....
woman's choice in birth control 1. chemical 2. abortion 3. abstinence 4. tubal ligation
men's choice in birth control 1. condoms 2. make sure woman takes chemicals 3. abstinence 4. vasectomy
you see the woman's choice is VERY invasive....and as long as the men don't have to get invasive/chemical/surgical treatment they would tout the woman's right every time...laying the load on them...(no pun intended)
so let me know when
WIC-WOMEN INFANTS CHILDREN
changes to
MIC-MEN INFANTS CHILDREN
and while your at it maybe you could work on a woman's viagra/cialis?
that should level the playing field....
chemicals and surgery what choices.......as long as they aren't your choice/responsibility......you have no right to carry a flag for woman's choice......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
reproduction is the foundation of human civilization and survival.
Pro-death or Pro-life.....when those folks die....and not before then.........will know 'for sure' if their choice was correct!
That is of course if there is a God!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Who needs the right to choose what to do with there own bodies? As far as the terminating pregnancy issue- the woman and ONLY the woman has the right to do with their own body as they see fit.
Case closed.
Case reopened.
Women who contain sperm are terminating the property of a man and a woman.
By your logic, shouldn't men be allowed to determine if their sperm should be allowed to go full term?
Men and women need to both agree to an abortion.
Anything else is not equal treatment under the law.
Women who contain sperm are terminating the property of a man and a woman.
By your logic, shouldn't men be allowed to determine if their sperm should be allowed to go full term?
Men and women need to both agree to an abortion.
Anything else is not equal treatment under the law.
Absolutely not! Until a potential child is able to live independently, at least 6 months, it is part of the woman's body. Her choice to do with her body as she sees fit. Sorry! Get over it.
Absolutely not! Until a potential child is able to live independently, at least 6 months, it is part of the woman's body. Her choice to do with her body as she sees fit. Sorry! Get over it.
CASE CLOSED
So at 5.5 months, she can choose to abort?? Wow ... ultra liberals are REALLY delusional. That's called murder.
We are advised NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.
Absolutely not! Until a potential child is able to live independently, at least 6 months, it is part of the woman's body. Her choice to do with her body as she sees fit. Sorry! Get over it.
CASE CLOSED
The Roe v Wade decision never makes the case that the fetus is part of a woman's body. The argument is, the mother does not have to be forced to carry the life to full term. In other words, the baby inside the womb is a parasitic life that a woman does not have use her energy and allow to fully develop. The 28 week limit put on abortions is an arbitrary number. Like Harry said, 5.5 months doesn't make the life inside the mother any different than at 6 months.
Again, nobody in their right mind believes the "potential child" in the womb is part of the woman's body. It doesn't exist in a woman's body without a donation from part of a man's body.
Logged
