Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/04/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I did not say they were not giving. I implied the $5000 pet operation is immoral because it's being spent on a beast rather than a human being. A beast who exists merely to amuse its owners. I would further state that bloated babies have a moral right to the $5000 in lieu of the beast. Sam S Douglas M. Sharp wrote: > ... > I'm sure whoever can afford $5000 for a vet and drive a Volvo is > financially well enough off to donate to charities too. Who says > that the pet owners are not giving too, does one exclude the other ?? > Douglas > > > Sam schrieb: > >> To some, the death of a pet is akin to the death of a child, and to >> others the emotional resources and money spent on animals is a >> scandal. If the time and energy spent taking care of pets was >> expended on visiting the abandoned sick and aged, or the money spent >> on having a pet operated on was paid into the medical account of an >> uninsured sick and needy human being, so much suffering could be >> alleviated. It baffles me when someone fains concern (many times via >> documentary photography) for, example, a bloated, fly covered, >> starving African child, and then rushes in the Volvo to the Vets to >> have the dog operated on for cancer at a cost of $5,000. Vanity pets >> have no place in a world of suffering human beings. >> >> Sam S >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >