Puppy Support?

Get your dog fixed. He'll be a better pet, AND no accidental impregnation issues.

In terms of a plot device - it would probably depend on who was negligent in allowing the two (2!) non-fixed dogs to get together.

 

I tried Googling, but all I got was discussion of who owns the puppies.

 

I remember reading a historical novel (Huck Finn? I don't think so, but similar era) and the owner of the male dog got the pick of the litter of the puppies. Like, as payment for stud services.

Different world back then, pet-wise.

 

Do you know for a fact that the neighbor's dog isn't fixed? Unless they're breeders it's just as much their responsibility to fix their dog to make sure they don't wind up with unwanted puppies.

 

It just came to me because I feel like I've heard of this sort of thing before, but the plaintiffs were always breeders. It's not just the cost of the puppies, it the fact that they have no use whatsoever for mutts, they can't breed their dog in the meantime, and I think it can also negatively impact the bloodline of the bitch.

But just your random dog? Oh hell no, that's on them to spay if they don't want puppies.

 

Animals as we see them (though we are a cut of the same cloth so to speak)
are ignorant to our laws and customs. So at best it could be a minor charge
of assault if they were to press charges, followed by a fine of perhaps $100 or
so.

Though, it would be nothing more than a verbal warning to control your animal
from an act that is dictated by nature. Humans are the only animal to criminalize
such an act performed amongst our own. Though we try to make claim to be above
other species, even though we are at our core subject to the same problems as those
of considered lesser intellect that get a free pass. But that is a discussion for another
time entirely, while there is an ongoing debate about it.

Ultimately it would result in a punitive fine of property damage at the most.
Considering pets are considered under law as property and not viable to
stand in as witness to a proper court and plead their own case.

My as a species we are convoluted.

 

His dog wouldn't be raping the other dog. Dogs don't commit rape (and not just because they don't possess the capacity for mens rea).

 

http://scienceblogs.com/observations/2011/01/28/reverse-bestiality-when-animal/
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/animals-can-be-giant-jerks/

Stolen from a forum asking a similar question

Getting consent for sex is a human social construction. In nature, sexual partners are often determined amongst competing males, and has nothing to do with the female's "wishes". You just have to watch some of those nature shows on public TV to see it.

So in nature it is one long violent sex joke. It is not entirely
out of the realm of possibility for dogs to commit an action
that they don't comprehend. Technicality is yes, but
un-proveable in a court of law.
Only way to know for sure is to find a way to communicate
on a significant level. But since pets are property in the eyes
of the law, this will not be considered rape as we define it.

 

Do you have an article that mentions a dog forcing intercourse on another dog?

 

I really don't want to put too much work into this, considering it is based on a
fictitious event. So feel free to do that bit of legwork yourself if you wish,
as I am not in the mood to do all the research for the sake of it at the moment.

If you find anything one way or another you will have the answer your looking for.

 

I'm pretty sure I already have the answer, so--yay, we're done!

 

This is shaping up to be a prime candidate for the debate room.

 

Nope. Keep that crossed out! Everything's good, here!

 

@Homer Potvin that is good to know.

@BayView
I have come up with a theory, to support my position on animal v. animal rape.
While in the the sense of the law may not see it as such, it will with out a doubt
be sound in logical (if not a crude form).

That being one of the sensory that can be interpreted by most forms of life: Pain.
No doubt something that can be expressed by the party (regardless of sentience
can express, and yes lesser forms can express pain sensory). So by extension of
looking into pre-modern humans and mammals, this should technically apply.

The unwanted and unsolicited act of pain/discomfort can signal a sign of physical
molestation or harm in the form of vocal or visual signs of personal distress.

There by, if 10,000+ years of our own evolution as a species, the unwilling participant
to an unwanted sexual encounter would put up a struggle of some sort. Be it by facial
expression or by physical resistance, or by having a vocal protest. Since a simplistic
creature as a dog can exhibit signs of distress and pain in expression and vocal protest
it is under this criteria that we can assume by extension of our own basic knowledge in
sensory input, that in fact a harmful act has been committed.
Though we are not as adept in our basic emotional cues, as we once were before we
had a better (more sophisticated) form of communication, the premise remains the
same.

Since we are essentially the same for the most part as our 10,ooo yr predecessors
on most fundamental levels, that even a primitive version of modern equivalent can
be an unwilling party to acts of pain, regardless of language and the means to voice it
in such manner.

So you see looking at the more primitive, we are not really much more than they are
in a relative since as we are for all intents and purposes the same. So would be the same
for the canine equivalent under similar condition and circumstance. But in modern age
we enslave other creatures other than each-other