i mean we allow partial birth abortions.....since we don't care about human life, why do we care so much about a couple of ruthless pitbulls????????
2007-07-27 09:33:09 · 18 answers · asked by james_r_keene 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well you do make a good point but I still find Vick to be a disgusting and reprehensible human being.
2007-07-27 09:36:35 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Let me tell you this. Our society if f ucked up. Yeah we allow partial birth abortions but they have not grown 100% im not saying its right but its not 100%. And yes pitbulls are ruthless they started out fight them in the old days. But that not right either. And you main question can't he do what he wants with them. That like saying these are my kids I can make them fight to the death if I want to. I would not be that mad at him if he had just betted on the fights alot of people do. But when they read the charges he just made my stomach upset. They said Vick himself murder dog that could not or would fight by strangling them, drowning them, electrocuting them, body slamming them and more. Im a huge Mike Vick fan but that kind of turned be against him.
2007-07-30 14:59:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hear you, believe me I do. Abortion is murder as far as I am concerned, whether it is done in the first few weeks or at partial birth. Human life is precious, the second greatest gift from God.
But I abhor cruelty to any life form. Please, I don't mean to equate human beings to animals, hear me out.
To take an animal, any animal, and torture it is repugnant to me. What Mr. Vick did, what anyone similarly does, is barbaric and cruel. These animals know no right or wrong, no good or bad. To viciously torture an animal simply because it doesn't understand a human command is not only barbaric, but it shows the deviant, dark nature of the person doing it.
Perhaps the hearts of those who willfully abort a precious human life and those who torture animals are both corrupt.
But they are not beyond Help. Notice the capital H.
2007-07-27 09:55:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Let's accept the underlying premise of your question, just for discussion here. Given a true premise, doesn't it make sense that how a society treats its animals is an indicator of how it treats its people? If we DEvalue the significance of what people do to animals, how can we trust that those same people won't escalate their violence.
Jeffrey Dahmer acquired his habits as a boy - torturing and killing animals.
How about holding people accountable for the cruelties they inflict on animals - and thereby send the message that humans deserve at least as much protection and consideration as animals do.
By the way, we don't allow partial birth abortions, nor have we ever.
2007-07-27 09:53:30 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Even in partial birth abortions we care about the mother's life who may have other children who need her. Dog fighting is cruelty to animals and we do not have a right to be cruel to our animals.
2007-07-27 10:14:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Since partial birth abortions are allowed why not a retroactive abortion on Vick? It will save future dogs, and the liberal way is to not value human life as much as other animals.
2007-07-27 09:50:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Pit bulls are only as ruthless as their owners train them to be. Therefore, fighting dogs are a direct reflection on the personality and value of their owner. He can do what he wants with them, just as anyone can do pretty much anything, but he should not be surprised when he has to face the consequences for his actions.
2007-07-27 09:40:45 · answer #7 · answered by joecool123_us 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If they even think about allowing that jerk back onto the field, I'll be there personally picketing him.
I'm a conservative who believes that anyone who intentionally harms children, the elderly and animals, is nothing more than a peace garbage. Vick is trash. :)
2007-07-27 09:42:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
Of course not. There are laws against fighting your dogs, just like there are laws against abusing them, starving them, etc. If he did that--the evidence presented at the trial will determine whether or not he did--then no, he cannot do that to them.
2007-07-27 09:50:45 · answer #9 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
There are animal cruelty laws that make dogfighting, among other activities, illegal.
The laws are backwards, perhaps, when more value is placed on an animal than on a human, but, they are what they are, for now.
2007-07-27 09:39:27 · answer #10 · answered by Bryan F 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋