ABLC's "ethical veganism"

[brimstoneSalad]

Likewise, but clearly as regards the issue of testicle detection, neither of us seems to have much solid evidence on the issue, so I'm moving on.

It seems fair to be agnostic on the issue.

We can probably both agree that we are discussing an issue of harm reduction. Vaccination, I believe we can agree, carries unbelievable low risks (serious risks are far below 1%). So this is false equivalency. Research suggests risks of adverse affects for traditional spay/neuter procedures may be closer to 50% for certain breeds: https://theaggie.org/2013/04/04/uc-davis-study-shows-negative-effects-of-neutering/

There are benefits too, which also vary by breed. It also depends on when the spaying or neutering happens.

This is the first link I found that seems to have a good breakdown of both:
http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/long-term-health-risks-benefits-spay-neuter-dogs/

If we're talking about risk and benefit limited to the single animal, we have to look at both carefully.

But that's aside from behavioral improvements that protect the dog and lead to a happier life (without the sexual anxiety and drive to run off and mate), and the benefits to society at large and potential unwanted litters.

Again, it's only "unduly cruel" if worse than the results of neuter itself.

We can't really weigh that.
So, instead of trying to figure out of behavioral anxiety outweighs personal health risk or not, we should leave it up to professionals and look at the other known issues to tip the scale. Professional consensus seems to be spay and neuter.

Rates of bone cancer and joint disorders appear up to 4x higher for early neutered dogs http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055937

I know there's some argument for the delay, I think we should leave that for veterinary advice though.

I feel like there's a lot of condemnation of spaying and neutering by non-experts, and this shaming has to stop. What ABLC is doing by shaming pet owners for this is pretty shitty. There are benefits and small risks, and there's enormous social benefit and reduced risk of creating unwanted animals (which is a huge harm).

I have zero emotional investment in this issue, but I think it's a little irrational to assume you can remove a mammal's reproductive system without any ill effect.

There are both benefits and drawbacks. The important point is trusting professional consensus on this one. Which is to spay and neuter.
People who care about animals and know the most about the issues recommend this.

I cannot say for certain how that might be weighted against other concerns (not being a dog), but it's work consideration at the very least.

What can we consider? We're neither able to read the dog's mind and glean idealized interest, nor are we probably more qualified to comment than the professional consensus on the matter; one not of animal agriculture, but animal loving vets and people who work in shelters and non-profits, etc.