Isn't this hypocritical?

Question

For the people in the government to say others are cruel to animals when they euthanize them? What is that? Is that being humane? I don't think so. So the very people who slap others a huge fine should also be fined for animal cruelty themselves. Euthanization is animal cruelty. And you cannot escape the guilt and fault of that. We can't treat animals like thrash and just kill them if nobody wants them. This is what tax payers are paying for? Paying someone to pretend like they are all compassionate and love animals only to euthanize them? I'm not blind. Although I do agree that anyone who is cruel to animals should be punished, the government has no right to cry "animal cruelty"! They are part of the game.

I just love animals. It just bothers me to know that alot of them are killed for nothing. Don't animals deserve the right to live just as we do?

Well first of all I'm talking about how alot of animal shelters kill dogs and cats just because they can't find a home for them. In most cases these animals are not sick or dying. They just need a home.

These people point the finger at people who have mistreated animals and rightfully so. But they themselves have animals euthanized so; they are just as wrong. And euthanization of human beings is absolutely rediculous. I don't know why people have an insane fantasy about killing people and animals.

Without animals humans would not survive! We need them!

Answer 1

Are you saying that it is also animal cruelty to euthanize a sick, dying, and suffering animal? I wish they would be that humane to humans!

Answer 2

Well there is a reality that has to be dealt with here - there are far more animals than suitable owners because too many unsuitable owners had pets in the first damn place.

What are we suppose to do? House these animals forever at taxpayer expense? I love animals too, but not to the point I would put the well-being of Fido or Fluffy over that of a human being! If it's $50 to keep an animal in a shelter this month or $50 so that Grandpa can get his heart medicine then I vote for Grandpa, and euthanize the animal.

You cannot expect the tax payer dollar to maintain an animal over it's natural life if no one wants to assume care for the animal. You want to be angry - be angry at the neligient pet owners who don't properly spay or nueter, or who get a pet only to consider it an incovienence later and give it to a shelter to become someone elses burden.

Answer 3

Would it be more just treatment to not feed them and cram them into tiny cages with hundreds of other animals and deny them vet treatment and decent walks or playtime? When there is no more room and no more money, should they just let animals roam free to breed more animals that need homes and to be fed etc. etc. etc.

I am not saying it is the best solution for shelters to do this, but there are limits to their resources. Shelters do not have an endless source of money and volunteers and they have limits to what they can do.

Stop whining, go out and adopt some animals, donate some $$ and some time to your local shelter.

That is a better solution than posting this on Yahoo. You can save more than a few animals right there.

Answer 4

The term euthanasia refers to a person or animal that is sick or dying. Killing an animal that isn't sick or in pain, isn't called euthanizing.

Answer 5

It is hyprocritical and the same thing happens in regular hospitals expecially with the eldery and others that cannot speak for themselves. They are killed on a daily basis by overloading their bodies with drugs to keep them unconcious and then by slowly staving them to death.

Answer 6

If you are talking about Barbaro, the horse was suffering.

Is it more humane to allow it to continue suffering?

Answer 7

quit paying taxes