user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
By letting them go, there would probably be an overpopulation issue, but the killing is simply horrific and wrong. I really don't know what to do about it, but it needs to stop.
I would like to take em all in, but sadly it isn't possible. It's a bit of a tough question, what can they do. I think if more people were responsible enough to get there pets neutered, spayed etc it would make the situation a lot better.
I think it's justified if the animal is incurable or its suffering too much. But animals are probably euthanized way too much.
I once found a mouse that had been attacked by my cat, it was still moving its legs but its chest had been ripped open by my cat. I was 9 at the time so I wanted to save the creature. My dad came out, took one look at it and told me that he had to kill it. I said why? He said it was the most humane thing to do. I was crying because I didn't want him to kill it. He said that he had to do it and that I should go back inside the house. I ran back inside the house crying and then waited about a minute later he came back. I later learnt that he had chopped its head off with a shovel.
He told me that the mouse had been deeply hurt and that leaving it to die would be cruel and hurt the animal even more. He said that giving it a quick death was better then letting it have a slow painful death.
I believe he was right.
If you let them go, most will starve or die of wounds. We need to obviously try and keep the population down but it is more humane to euthanize than to let them die other deaths.
the thing is, it's purely arrogance on the part of the people to
"humanize" the suffering of the animals. Given the chance, animals will fight to live, even if they are gravely injured. In animals, you can see when they themselves "give up", usually moments before their death. I know I am the minority here, but I believe every living beings have the right to fight for life - and it's foolish to think that you are doing them any favors by shortening their life span, especially when it's convinent for the human/society to think that's ok to do so.
by LCD on Tue Sep 14, 04 12:03am
[+]
It's HUMANE.
Example: on Animal Plaent, Steve Irwin and his wife once picked up an injured mother kangaroo and her baby in her pouch and took'em to the vet hospital. They did everything they could but it was a fatal injury (car hit'em or something), so they gave her a quick and painless death, otherwise not only would she have died because of the injury, but the LOADS of ants all over the two (the mom and the baby) would have eaten them alive, BEFORE the injury would have killed'em. Imagine that. So they rid them of their misery. If the animal's gonna die, let'em die painlessly.
Euthanasia is humane nad merciful.
Our cat was 17 and very ill. We had done all that could be done and he was suffering more every day. I just couldn't leave him that way any longer. We had him put to sleep and it took a toll on my husband, who loved him very much. Still, I think we made the best decision.
Humane? Depends on the method. Necessary? Depends on the circumstances. An animal suffering with no possibility of recovery should be humanely euthanized. Too often, I think, euthanizing animals is for the convenience of the "owner." As such, it is despicable.
If the animal has an untreatable illness or injury it would be inhumane NOT to euthanize them, but putting a perfectly adoptable dog or cat down is just barbaric. This is the very thing that made me despise Ahnold; he's a classic example of valuing money over life. He can go straight to Hell as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
