|
MaxsBoy -> RE: State Superior Court upholds conviction in pierced cat case Anonymous Associated Press Tue Jun 14, (6/14/2011 1:58:00 PM)
|
You misunderstand me. I agree that pets are legal property and have no rights of their own, to an extent. I do think every living thing deserves the right to be treated humanely. That means some animals are meant to be eaten, but that they shouldn't be put through unnecessary pain to get some meat. Killing is necessary, torture is not. I judge pet ownership by the same rules. Sometimes it's necessary to put our pets through pain - vaccines, neutering, even branding in some cases (though I prefer freeze brands, they are less traumatic for the animal). But piercing a cats ears serves absolutely no purpose but to make a quick buck off of the pain of an animal. It doesn't improve the cat's health, make it easier to manage, keep track of it before market, or anything else. Just as docking and cropping on dogs is becoming illegal in some areas, and declawing of cats as well, I feel that piercing of a cat's ears for absolutely no good reason should not be permitted. The one right all creatures should have is the right not to be harmed because some idiot just feels like doing it.
Human slaves are a completely unrelated issue. A human slave (in the BDSM sense) can say no, either by just refusing the mod or by walking out of the relationship. A cat can't do that, and neither can a child. Neither should be subjected to this sort of treatment on the whim of a thoughtless, selfish person. That's my opinion, anyway.
|
|
|
|
