"Just a little cut."
In The Golden Compass a human being's soul exists external to the body in the form of a daemon. The villians of the first book perform experiments on children in which they cut the daemon away from the child; removing the bond between the child and its soul. The rationale for this experimentation is that cutting away the daemon renders the child immune to Dust, the quazi-physical particle version of original sin.
The heroes of the book are disgusted by the practice of cutting away a child's daemon (called "intercission"). To cut away the daemon is an abomination; it goes against the natural state and renders the child a shell of their former self. The villians in the book argue that protecting a child from dust, original sin, is worth the "little cut" of intercission.
So we have two parties in this situation. One party argues that modification of a being can be justified if the benefits outweigh the offsets. The other party argues that modification of a being is an abomination regardless of what this modification provides.
My sibling has a three legged kitten named Weeble. Weeble was hit by a car when younger and so his right front leg sustained terrible nerve damage and was itself broken and useless; the leg would drag on the ground as Weeble romped around. So one day Weeble had a surgery in which his right front leg, testicles, and claws were removed.
Relate that to the idea of intercission.
In what way is modification of a being through surgery justified? While viewing the film version of Golden Compass the audience was anxious and frightened during the scene in which the main character and her daemon are to have intercission performed on them. Yet surely these same people would see no problem modifying the reproductive organs of their pets via surgery. What of removing the claws of cats? What of circumcision? What of removing useless and detrimental appendages such as Weeble's leg? By what means do we define "useless" and "detrimental"? Is is detrimental for a cat to have its reproductive organs and claws; for a child to have its soul?
Certainly any action can have justifications fabricated for it. But by what means are these justifications assessed? Can we truly take offense at the idea of a child having her soul cut away in a book if in real life we remove the claws and reproductive organs of our pets; treating them like property rather than living beings?
I think not.
In Golden Compass the organization who performed intercissions justified their actions by claiming that they knew what was best for the children, that being immune to Dust was worth the hollow daemon-less existence. In what way are we not adopting that same ideology when we neuter our pets, when we remove our cat's claws, when we modify and change and conform living beings to our idiotic idealized notions of how they ought to be?
Are we truly so wise that we know all ends, that we truly understand what is best? Or do we merely rationalize the actions we perform to make our pets less whole, less natural, less free, and more convenient?
How often do we say "Oh, it's just a little cut"?
Too often.


