Oh shut up, you sniveling, bleeding-heart, liberal fool!

If you could read you'd know that's NOT what I wrote.

I wrote it's the pet owner's personal responsiblity to kill his
pet if the pet is severely injured and in pain and has no
chance to live through its injuries. I say leave the vet out of
it unless there is a question as to the severity of the injuries
being death causing. I think any intelligent person realizes
if and when his pet is suffering badly and has no chance of
recovering. This is when a real man will take the responsiblity
of ending his pet's suffering without further ado. The method
of terminating a pet's life should be left up to the individual
but it should be fast and humane so the animal never knew
what hit it.

To take a kitten who's going blind to the vet to have her
killed is to abdicate one's responsiblity and obligations
in more ways than one.

S.Simon




"Donal" wrote in message ...

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

snip
That's not to say these animals shouldn't be treated as
humanely as possible while being raised and dispatched
as humanely as possible when their time comes.

So, are you saying that you should pay good money to a vet to ease their
passage into the next world? $100 could feed an African baby for about two
years. Would it not be better to put your sick pet into a weighted sack,
and throw it into the river, so that you could donate the $100 to an African
charity??

In other words, is three minutes of suffering for a dumb pet worth two
years of life for a human??



Regards


Donal
--