The Logic Of Mercy Killing

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, luckily PETA just got a crapload of $$$ from Linda McCartney, so they'll be around foaming at the mouth for quite a while, MagiK. Oh, and did I mention she is now an ex-PETA-freak. But, I think what someone once said to me about the Sierra Club rings true w/ animal rights activists like PETA: I'm glad they're around, because it makes me "the middle."

Oy! If your the middle, Im off the scale [img]smile.gif[/img] Oh well if she is an Ex-Peta freak then I might actually be able to have a conversation with her and no one would have to froth then I hike with the Siera Club here in Maryland all the time and we have some rousing debates (yes they still let me hike with them) but in the end, the majority of the ladies are the tree huggers and are usually younger, while the guys are more pragmatic but let things lside so they can hike with the young ladies [img]smile.gif[/img] It's all good.

Originally posted by Charean: Thank goodness for being in the middle!! I think Magik was talking about the food chain out in the wild. Although I would disagree, I like living amongst critters better than people, but I am not the most social of critters, myself. But then everyone knows that your the JoMonster

[Charean]

Magik... cough cough... You are bad... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Nothing wrong with being a JoMonster... SOMEBODY has to do it!

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 1. It is my personal experience (with friend or relatives and their pets, farm animals, etc) that the majority of animals are euthenized not when they are in extreme pain but rather when they become extremely inconvenient to deal with.

I agree with this. I don't think that people who believe euthanasing animals and not euthanasing people think they are hypocritical at all - animals' lives are so much less worthy than humans that we should be able to kill them when we please, but humans' lives are so important we can never let them die, even if they personally don't value their life at all. You can put your pet down even if they're not sick, if you're just sick of it or can't take care of it anymore, or can't afford whatever medical treatment they need, even if they would make a full recovery.

I personally believe people should be able to choose whether they have to suffer or not. I do understand the legal problems though. Assisted suicide is the problem - when you have to rely on someone to pull the plug or administer drugs or whatever then they are responsible.

Magik, is the Siera club you're talking about the one established by Leopold in like the 30s?

And in direct contradiction of TL's observations, we never put an animal down that was not in extreme distress. Oh I suppose we could have gone broke trying to pay for super hi-tech surgical procedures but that would have been creating an even worse problem for a greater number of animals. We put horses down for broken legs (more serious in a horse than in humans) we put down dogs thast were horribly wounded in fights with animals that were rabid or that had caused serious greivous harm (porcupines) we did not kill our pets and livestock just because they were inconvenient.

Im not sure about the Sierra Clubs history, but there is A Sierra club branch for Howard County in Maryland it is populated with what I lovingly call tree huggers [img]smile.gif[/img] As I siad usually it is the younger female set that tends to be the real deal, the men tend to just go along for the scenery. [img]smile.gif[/img] (other Sierra Club memberships may differ)

[ 11-04-2002, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

MagiK, I argue that a horse with a broken leg is put down more for its inconvenience than anything else. Sorry, but I don't see how the loss of one of 4 appendages consitutes such distress that the horse is better off being put down. I'm not accusing you of anything. I am quite aware that animals are CHATTEL. I've put down dogs that were fully capable of living a couple of more years, but their mobility issues and tendancy to shit all over themselves and my house made it simply too inconvenient to help them live out that timespan. But, let's not act like the horse said, "Oh, I broke my leg, please shoot me."

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: MagiK, I argue that a horse with a broken leg is put down more for its inconvenience than anything else. Sorry, but I don't see how the loss of one of 4 appendages consitutes such distress that the horse is better off being put down. I'm not accusing you of anything. I am quite aware that animals are CHATTEL. I've put down dogs that were fully capable of living a couple of more years, but their mobility issues and tendancy to shit all over themselves and my house made it simply too inconvenient to help them live out that timespan. But, let's not act like the horse said, "Oh, I broke my leg, please shoot me."

Maybe some rich people can afford the care it takes to do what you are talking about, but we could not have afforded the medical bills. So if you consider feeding and caring for all the other animals and people a convenience then your argument is valid. However we did not have thoose kinds of funds at the time.

[Timber Loftis]

No one does. It's an economic decision. Again, animals are chattel. But, when we make those decisions, the prime mover of the decision is what we need or want or can tolerate doing, not the absolute best interests of the animal. Note that in my first post I didn't say "a little inconvenient," I said "extremely inconvenient." Get over being defensive for a moment and see the truth of it, friend.

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: MagiK, I argue that a horse with a broken leg is put down more for its inconvenience than anything else. Sorry, but I don't see how the loss of one of 4 appendages consitutes such distress that the horse is better off being put down. I'm not accusing you of anything. I am quite aware that animals are CHATTEL. I've put down dogs that were fully capable of living a couple of more years, but their mobility issues and tendancy to shit all over themselves and my house made it simply too inconvenient to help them live out that timespan. But, let's not act like the horse said, "Oh, I broke my leg, please shoot me."

Maybe some rich people can afford the care it takes to do what you are talking about, but we could not have afforded the medical bills. So if you consider feeding and caring for all the other animals and people a convenience then your argument is valid. However we did not have thoose kinds of funds at the time.

I also have to ask, (not that it was an issue at the time) how exactly do you get a 1200lb horse 25-30 miles to reach the nearest phone? Ever seen what a horse with a broken leg does? It thrashes around and keeps trying to get up, usually breaking one or more of its other legs in the process untill it is exhausted. Did you know that a thrashing horse can break your ribs with no effort at all while you are trying to calm it down? I would say that all in all money and situation dictate wether a broken leg is terminal to a horse and convenience had little to do with how we treated ours.

EDIT: Geez I wish I could type![/QUOTE]

[ 11-04-2002, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by MagiK: And in direct contradiction of TL's observations, we never put an animal down that was not in extreme distress. Oh I suppose we could have gone broke trying to pay for super hi-tech surgical procedures but that would have been creating an even worse problem for a greater number of animals. We put horses down for broken legs (more serious in a horse than in humans) we put down dogs thast were horribly wounded in fights with animals that were rabid or that had caused serious greivous harm (porcupines) we did not kill our pets and livestock just because they were inconvenient.

I don't deny many people love and cherish their animals and do all they can for them when they're sick. We've euthanased two cats, one was 16, had cancer and was in terrible pain, one was 17 and had a stroke which partially paralyzed him. On the other hand, we've spent thousands on operations and examinations for our poodle which some people wouldn't have even considered (eg one memorable person in the vet surgery commenting that getting them put to sleep only costs $40 - why pay for expensive operations? Plus, you can just get a new dog!). But the fact is you can euthanase pets and you can't humans and it's certainly not because we appreciate their suffering more than humans'.

Originally posted by MagiK: Oh I suppose we could have gone broke trying to pay for super hi-tech surgical procedures but that would have been creating an even worse problem for a greater number of animals.

Why is that? Bit confused [img]graemlins/confused2.gif[/img]