|
stella41b -> RE: "Dropping off" an animal ... (2/23/2009 10:46:00 PM)
|
I'm probably going to be uncharacteristic here, though my inner instinct and gut reaction is telling me not to touch this one with a bargepole, but I'm coming in here late and have the advantage of almost a dozen or so pages of responses.
This is a first for me, truly it is, because I can honestly state that I understand Firmhand's reasoning and thinking. I knew from the OP that Firmhand is to some degree an animal lover and therefore when it came to dumping dogs, even before I reached the page in question, I knew that even he would not dump any dog that he honestly believed did not haver an outside chance of survival. And it is on the basis of this premeditated attempt by him at assessing the risks posed to the animal and considering the chances of survival alone which cause me to accept his plea of mitigating circumstances.
Do I condemn him? No, because I do not condemn any person, no matter what they have done. This is despite the fact that we all must make moral choices in our lives and not always is there a clear division between good and evil. This is also bearing in mind that though the intention may be good and the actions may be good the actual result renders everything evil, and vice versa. Therefore I can be taken that I also would not condemn Treasure for shooting the animal. I am also trying to imagine what I would have done had I have been in his situation, under the stress of having to make such a decision, and without the cool contemplation and sense of emotional detachment which I now have, I might have done the exact same thing. I am guided by the principle that no matter what a person has done, no matter how bad, evil, depraved or heinous towards a fellow being, that same person has the capacity to do good and also make good of their thoughts and actions.
However... this neither justifies the action nor does it make it any better.
I am an animal lover, I especially love cats, indeed, some of my most successful emotional relationships in life have been with cats who have had the major advantage of not being human and also being able to understand me. I also love dogs, perhaps not as much, I also love horses, sheep, cows, in short animals in general.
I have had cats, but do not have a cat. This comes from the time when I was living in Warsaw, when Trotsky was stolen from the landing outside my apartment and then when the authorities refused to extend my artistic visa I had to give Widdecombe away and rehome her. This is where I came to the decision that cats need stability and until I can guarantee or provide a home and love and care for a cat for the rest of its natural life I will not form another relationship with a cat.
You see a cat, like a dog, is not a human being. I can enter into a relationship with another human being much easier than I can with an animal. Why? because the human being is independent, if the relationship fails or breaks down we can part company and everything works out in the end. However just like a child, an animal, whether it be a cat, a dog, or a Siamese pot-bellied pig is entirely dependent on me for its home and its welfare and this constitutes both a responsibility and commitment on my part. In the case of an animal that commitment is for the rest of its natural life. I am prepared to take in an animal on the same terms. I am prepared to look after and take care of an animal for a specified period agreed with its owner but I will always honour that commitment. The animal's welfare will always come first.
You see I entirely agree with what they write in the animal shelters - a pet or animal is for life. End of.
Therefore I am looking at the situation given in the OP, with two choices, neither of which I find personally acceptable and I'm thinking, 'how did this situation arise?' I'm also thinking, 'how long has this situation been continuing for?' I'm also thinking 'what is being done to prevent such a terrible situation and a terrible decision being made?' As there wasn't really much information on the thread concerning this, I am making my own assumptions here.
You see, just as I have the aforementioned view on keeping animals, based on a sense of personal responsibility, this also extends to who and what is accepted into my home. As it is my home I am responsible for deciding who or what crosses my threshold and under what circumstances.
But you know it's just like with children. You don't just keep having babies hoping for the best when it comes to their welfare and taking a chance that it all works out somehow. Can you imagine someone dumping a four year old child in someone else's neighbourhood because they cannot afford to keep the kid? You wouldn't take your child with asthma or diabetes out in the back and shoot him through the head with a 9mm just because of increased medical bills, would you? Would you take your 10 year old to a city 100 miles away and leave them in the hope that they would find a way of surviving?
Treasure and Firmhand, you both love children right? You would never do anything to harm them, right? But then again you both say the same on this thread about animals. So what's with the accepting of animals into your home under your responsibility and into your care, and to present us all here with the choices that you have presented to us here in the OP?
It's the exact same argument here, these animals are going into your home under your responsibility dependent on your care and the welfare you provide for them. Now you may claim that it's different because they're animals, but yet the relationship is the same and you are the same humans who are entering into that relationship. What is the value of your love for those animals?
Something to think about perhaps?
|
|
|
|
