betsy Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Just as well euthanasia isn't legal for humans in Australia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max#1 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) That people discuss 'what you keep vs what's suitable for rehoming' is great. An important and interesting discussion - with many people from many backgrounds and experiences having different viewpoints. To answer PF - I didn't take it literally that those were the only two options for puppies. I thought the third option was non-show, non-breeding quality puppies going as pets to normal non-showing, non-breeding people. If getting a dog from a breeder means I have to show/breed I'm in big trouble if I ever want one. I should add - I thought that option was obvious enough it didn't need specific mention? Edited March 21, 2011 by Max#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJean Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Aren't we all here on this forum for the same basic reason? Or is it to beat each other up? what is this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxx'sBuddy Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The issue for me is this: If a breeder kept those puppies and homed them they would be castigated and told they were a bad breeder BUT a rescue can do exactly the same thing and they are made out to be heroes. This is wrong on so many levels as it should not matter where these pups were whelped as IMO humans should leave their emotions out of this and start thinking about the quality of life(or lack thereof) that these dogs will have. These pups will need so much critical care throughout their lives and if the new owners cannot meet those needs the pups will need to be re-homed or be pts. We really do need to think about the ethics of this situation and tease out the ethical issues as there are many. To tease out these issues surely we must come from the position of what is best for the dog and look at this issue critically and honestly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) To tease out these issues surely we must come from the position of what is best for the dog and look at this issue critically and honestly? Some of us believe that there are worse fates than death for a dog. I am one of them. No one can say for certain what quality of life these dogs will have. How can you rehome them when you have no clear idea of what their needs will be? Comparisons between the situation for dogs and humans is irrelevant. The sooner that's grasped, the better. Edited March 21, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 From the mouth of a 10 year old child, who recently read the book "A Dogs Purpose"."The breeder should have noticed something was wrong and put them to sleep so they would have a better second life :p because their life will not be fulfilled in their two legged dog form". "It's hardly cute...just very sad." My daughter asked me to put this in after she saw the video. Smart Kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busterdog Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I suggest everyone read this thread again, and wherever mention is made of dogs, substitute in your mind discussion of humans. Everyone here would say that they believe in HUMANE treatment of dogs. That means treat them as we would a human (before you post a comeback to that statement please post your alternative definition), so those who want to euthanise these dogs must be in favor of doing the same to disabled humans. I don't think so. Your other alternative is that you have a different set of moral and ethical standards for dogs versus humans, or humans vs any other animals. Let's hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busterdog Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I am currently raising a mini pinscher pup with cerebral palsy, and whilst her disability is nothing like the one these babies have to deal with I'm sure many breeders would have put her down because she isn't a candidate for breeding or showing, nor would I be comfortable rehoming her as a pet at this stage if I can't be sure she won't deteriorate (even though I have someone willing to take her) I'm sorry, I find that statement offensive, Maybe those 'many breeders' might have put her down from an ethical, humane point of view, based on her expected quality of life, NOT because she wasn't potential ribbon winning or pumping out puppies as their motive. :p fifi edited for spelling and to bold the text because I'm peed off. What would you have done Fifi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busterdog Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 This thread is about the benefits adopting legless dogs lol!strangeness took centre stage a loooong time ago True. I have Kelpies/Kelpie-ish dogs so leglessness would not play out well for them :p I guess I was just trying to ascertain the reason for the above posters' feelings of affront. Perhaps they were under the misapprehension that 'many' was being used as the noun for 'majority'. For clarification 'many' only means 'the majority' when you say: "the many" e.g. music for the many As used above, many just means "a large number of people". Nowhere near a majority or all and hardly offensive really unless you're determined to be snotty in which case, go nuts ... I also found The Ark's comment offensive. If I had a legless puppy or one suffering from cerebral palsy I would also opt for euthanasia, but for humane reasons not because it was unsuitable for showing or breeding. There are usually only a few puppies in a litter that are suitable for showing or breeding anyway and I certainly don't pts those that don't make the grade. However I wouldn't hesitate to pts any puppy that was born deformed or carrying a genetic disorder that prevented it from leading a normal life. Let's get this straight. You are offended because of a statement that most people would euthanise these dogs, and you go on to say that you would euthanise these dogs. I can only surmise that you took offense at the imp,ovation that they would be euthanised on the basis that they would not be show dogs or breeding potential. Your excuse for euthanasia is their quality of life. Come again? You have just written off most of the humans in the paraolympics, particularly those with cerebral palsy. Ask them about their quality of life, and translate their answers to the dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifi Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Firstly, I would have euthenased the puppies in this thread at birth as I've already mentioned. secondly, this is not a debate about human vs animal euthenasia - its already been mentioned that there is support for disabled humans. fifi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifi Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Just as well euthanasia isn't legal for humans in Australia probably right there, this thread has me and :p so perhaps I'm heading for self euthenasia fifi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) I suggest everyone read this thread again, and wherever mention is made of dogs, substitute in your mind discussion of humans. Everyone here would say that they believe in HUMANE treatment of dogs. That means treat them as we would a human (before you post a comeback to that statement please post your alternative definition) As requested: hu·mane (hy-mn)adj. 1. Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion: a humane judge. 2. Marked by an emphasis on humanistic values and concerns: a humane education. Treating dogs like humans is anthropmorphising, not humane. Your other alternative is that you have a different set of moral and ethical standards for dogs versus humans[/b], or humans vs any other animals. Let's hear it. I eat animals but I'm not a cannibal. By your logic, I should be. As I can own an animal I should also own human slaves? Ah, nope. Yes, I do have a different standard of treatment for humans and animals. Dogs are not humans. Therefore direct comparison between the species doesn't fly with me. Comparing euthanasia of severely disabled pups with Nazi policies (as has already happened in this thread) is crap. Pure and simple. These little animals will live or die, will only have the care that their owners dictate. No welfare system, no assistance with medical expenses, no checks and balances, no respite care. No thanks. Edited March 21, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Come again? You have just written off most of the humans in the paraolympics, particularly those with cerebral palsy. Ask them about their quality of life, and translate their answers to the dogs. It doesn't translate to me. I'm not talking about Ark's cerebal palsy pup, I don't know what the quality of that dog's life is and she is best placed to judge. She is also is not seeking to rehome it, she is committed to it herself. But I do know that these legless pups aren't people. Nothing we know about dogs tells us that they have an intellectual, spiritual or creative life independent of physical limitations, they don't have a societal safety net, they get rehomed to people who may not understand how incredibly vulnerable and needy they are, who may be looking for a short-term virtuous glow or novelty value, they can't see their life in context and accept short term misery and pain for what joy may come tomorrow, they can't conceptualise or plan ahead, they have no personal growth to be achieved through suffering as some religous would have us believe of people. Someone earlier spoke as a vet nurse who had seen disabled pups over their lives and the toll it took on them. I have no problem with people keeping pups with a disability that doesn't substantially affect their quality of life, but when it does it's a kindness to pts. Making them endure as a novely item so humans can feel virtuous or politically correct is the cruelty to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busterdog Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Firstly, I would have euthenased the puppies in this thread at birth as I've already mentioned. secondly, this is not a debate about human vs animal euthenasia - its already been mentioned that there is support for disabled humans. fifi So you would only keep disabled humans alive because they or their carers get welfare? It's not about welfare, it's about quality of life. PF said that they are offended at being judged for doing something other than keep a dog that is not suitable for rehoming. So you can't rehome it, you are not keeping it, what is the only alternative? How dare someone suggest you would do exactly what you said you would do. PF, I bet you didn't even realise you said that, did you? You and Fifi both said you wouldn't keep disabled dogs, Fifi because she/he can't get welfare for them, PF because they can't be rehomed. I am offended at your holier than thou attitude, when you are the ones who want to euthanize the dogs because you don't want to put the effort in to keep them, and then get offended when someone calls you out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Firstly, I would have euthenased the puppies in this thread at birth as I've already mentioned. secondly, this is not a debate about human vs animal euthenasia - its already been mentioned that there is support for disabled humans. fifi So you would only keep disabled humans alive because they or their carers get welfare? It's not about welfare, it's about quality of life. PF said that they are offended at being judged for doing something other than keep a dog that is not suitable for rehoming. So you can't rehome it, you are not keeping it, what is the only alternative? How dare someone suggest you would do exactly what you said you would do. PF, I bet you didn't even realise you said that, did you? You and Fifi both said you wouldn't keep disabled dogs, Fifi because she/he can't get welfare for them, PF because they can't be rehomed. I am offended at your holier than thou attitude, when you are the ones who want to euthanize the dogs because you don't want to put the effort in to keep them, and then get offended when someone calls you out. Wow, there's a few leaps of logic there. I've never said anything about me keeping such a dog. I did say that what people chose to keep is their business and none of mine. As I've never bred a dog in my life, I fail to see how I could keep one. Rehoming is different to me. If you can't predict a dog's needs, how can you responsibly rehome it? Do you leave it in the hands of others to determine their quality of life with so many variables unanswered? While we're accusing people of being sanctimonious, consider what sort of behaviour it is to put words in people's mouths and then judge them accordingly. If you can't debate this without becoming insulting, perhaps you'd better give it a rest. Edited March 21, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifi Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Firstly, I would have euthenased the puppies in this thread at birth as I've already mentioned. secondly, this is not a debate about human vs animal euthenasia - its already been mentioned that there is support for disabled humans. fifi So you would only keep disabled humans alive because they or their carers get welfare? It's not about welfare, it's about quality of life. PF said that they are offended at being judged for doing something other than keep a dog that is not suitable for rehoming. So you can't rehome it, you are not keeping it, what is the only alternative? How dare someone suggest you would do exactly what you said you would do. PF, I bet you didn't even realise you said that, did you? You and Fifi both said you wouldn't keep disabled dogs, Fifi because she/he can't get welfare for them, PF because they can't be rehomed. I am offended at your holier than thou attitude, when you are the ones who want to euthanize the dogs because you don't want to put the effort in to keep them, and then get offended when someone calls you out. You have got to be joking !!! I didn't say WELFARE, I said SUPPORT !! How do you know I havn't owned a disabled dog or cat or bird ? I would euthenase the puppies IN THIS THREAD because they would not be able to survive, (read all the reasons why in this thread) not because I don't want to put the effort in. By the way Diva, fantastic post :-) off to pour myself a Bailey's I think ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busterdog Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) I suggest everyone read this thread again, and wherever mention is made of dogs, substitute in your mind discussion of humans. Everyone here would say that they believe in HUMANE treatment of dogs. That means treat them as we would a human (before you post a comeback to that statement please post your alternative definition) As requested: hu·mane (hy-mn)adj. 1. Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion: a humane judge. 2. Marked by an emphasis on humanistic values and concerns: a humane education. Treating dogs like humans is anthropmorphising, not humane. Your other alternative is that you have a different set of moral and ethical standards for dogs versus humans[/b], or humans vs any other animals. Let's hear it. I eat animals but I'm not a cannibal. By your logic, I should be. As I can own an animal I should also own human slaves? Ah, nope. Yes, I do have a different standard of treatment for humans and animals. Dogs are not humans. Therefore direct comparison between the species doesn't fly with me. Comparing euthanasia of severely disabled pups with Nazi policies (as has already happened in this thread) is crap. Pure and simple. These little animals will live or die, will only have the care that their owners dictate. No welfare system, no assistance with medical expenses, no checks and balances, no respite care. No thanks. Can't remember mentioning Nazis, and that is a classic and simplistic attempt at a straw man argument. I'm happy to explain that to you if you need. You further exemplify your welfare mentality, that you won't do anything unless you get welfare to do it. Personally I admire people who are willing to do things for themselves, without expecting others to pay for them. I admire someone who is willing to care for a disabled dog, as opposed to those who find it easier to just knock them on the head because no-one else is willing to pay. All dogs only have the care that their owners provide/dictate. There is an obvious logical conclusion to that argument, and I suspect you don't want to euthanise all dogs. The point of agreement here is that you would euthanize the dogs in question because either you think their quality of life would be poor or it is too much effort to look after them. Either way you are validating the original statement which offended you. Edited March 21, 2011 by Busterdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Can't remember mentioning Nazis, and that is a classic and simplistic attempt at a straw man argument. I'm happy to explain that to you if you need. Never said you did. Said it had happened in the thread. I'll pass on being patronised thanks. Shall we just remember however, that you're the person that wants to directly compare disabled dogs to disabled people? You further exemplify your welfare mentality, that you won't do anything unless you get welfare to do it. Personally I admire people who are willing to do things for themselves, without expecting others to pay for them. I admire someone who is willing to care for a disabled dog, as opposed to those who find it easier to just knock them on the head because no-one else is willing to pay. My "welfare mentality"? :rolleyes: I've never been on welfare in my life. That's not a brag but a thank God I've never needed to be. Again you put words in my mouth. The welfare SYSTEM exists to provide support to people who cannot support themselves. That includes children with disabilities and their carers. It's not about what I would do but ensuring that these dogs aren't left in the lurch. It's about support, not just money. Its about physio, special ed, counselling, transport AND money. Did you not read what I said about things like respite care? Where's the respite care for a dog owner who cannot leave a dog alone for a few hours? Where's the counselling for the stress of raising a dog that is totally, utterly dependent on you for its every basic need? Not from the rescuer rehoming them, that's for sure. What happens if the new home can't adequately provide for these dogs? Where's the safety net then? All dogs only have the care that their owners provide/dictate. There is an obvious logical conclusion to that argument, and I suspect you don't want to euthanise all dogs. I'd sure as hell raise an argument for euthanaising a few owners though. I'd start with those who can't find it in themselves to provide an adequate standard of care to healthy dogs. The point of agreement here is that you would euthanize the dogs in question because either you think their quality of life would be poor or it is too much effort to loom after them. Either way you are validating the original statement which offended you. I would not rehome them. Personally I would have euthanased them at birth. The two statements aren't necessarily connected. Edited March 21, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxx'sBuddy Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 To tease out these issues surely we must come from the position of what is best for the dog and look at this issue critically and honestly? Some of us believe that there are worse fates than death for a dog. I am one of them. No one can say for certain what quality of life these dogs will have. How can you rehome them when you have no clear idea of what their needs will be? Comparisons between the situation for dogs and humans is irrelevant. The sooner that's grasped, the better. Totally agree PF. I would have euthanised the pups asap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxx'sBuddy Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Wow busterlove so much authority and so few posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now