Read our cookies policy.
BennyTheSnitch wrote: »
Saddened. Can't believe that the 'option' of killing animals is even being debated. This is meant to be a MONEY Moral Dilemma. I can't think of a single reason why any animal should need to be killed for financial reasons.
I'm shocked that the owner of this thread would ever consider putting animals down as being an option in a situation like this.
Pippitypip wrote: »
Wholeheartedly no, for all the reasons others have said.
However I'd be really interested in knowing if any of the "Yes"s have ever had family pets?
I truly believe those who aren't pet owners (and never have been) simply don't understand the concept of pets being part of the family.
I also think this thread is bound to offend - prob not a wise choice to put up for friendly debate.
BigMummaF wrote: »
I've only read the first page but have to put an opposing thought to these particular statements. Apologies if I am repeating something already stated, but I am quite worked up about this one!*Agreed, but that is NOT the case here. There is no suggestion that the person is deliberately & wilfully disposing of a bundle of fur bought on a whim!**Again, agreed but read the story-line again--nobody will take them!Again I agree with [mostly] everything you say but please read the original post again. I can speak with a little authority on this as I have had many similar family discussions concerning decisions made, when money was not so much of an issue as it is now.The fact is, at the time, anyone can take on a commitment that is comfortable & manageable but NO-ONE can see into the future. It is a sad fact of adult life, that $H1t Happens for whatever reason & can destroy the very foundation of everything you treasure & hold dear. It is very fortunate indeed if you can still hold an opinion such as this * without ever having to consider the other side of the story. If nothing else, the recent reports on charity events such as Sport Relief are graphic records of just how some people's lives can change in the blink of an eye."Walking a mile in another's shoes" seems a very appropriate saying for this one...
Enchantica wrote: »
....This thread isn't easy for some to stomach and some of the responses were not easy to read.....
....This should not be proposed as a kill and not to kill question. It should be "which shelters will take my animals?"
katehesk wrote: »
There is obviously two sides to the debate, and there is a lot of sentimentality when it comes to animals, especially pet animals.
Those who suggest that having the animals put to sleep is a viable solution I would postulate that they are simply not animal lovers (and that is not said in criticism, it is just my opinion). But I am an animal lover & simply recognise that "There by the Grace of...."
Any one who has had pets AND loved them could simply not consider having their animals put to sleep and would go to any length to find an alternative solution. The bare fact remains that some HAVE no other option, when all other avenues are closed.
To those people who simply own an animal, but do not particularly value animals or find value in owning animals....then maybe they could consider this. This is obviously not the case here, for the 'lady in question'.
I am in the first camp, and could not consider having a healthy animal put to sleep, especially if it was one I had lived ALONGSIDE and LOVED for any period of time.
I stated in the first post I made on this thread that I thought this dilemma was pretty disgusting. I have not read every post but have noticed that Martin has tried to defend the question, and I do appreciate people have different opinions, but at the very least this thread seems to promote irresponsible pet ownership i.e. If you lose your job and can't afford to keep your animals, just have them put to sleep, problem solved. In all fairness, I don't think people are saying that.Imo, that is simply not a moral solution.
katehesk wrote: »
All I can say in response is that I whole heartedly disagree.
I must admit I struggle to truly empathise with the situation (and that is from a position of having, in the past, lived in relative poverty and kept animals). But I simply cannot imagine having my animals put to sleep, regardless of my financial circumstances, and nor can I understand how anyone could do that.
Hokie97 wrote: »
She made the choice to take them in, she needs to find a way to care for them. If that means working in any job that she can get, she needs to do it. She lost her job, but there are other jobs out there, even if it is scrubbing toilets or flipping burgers.
If it was someone with children you wouldn't suggest they put them up for adoption or kill them, would you? I am so tired of people who think that it is okay to perform "convenience euthanasias." And no well respected Veterinarian would agree to do it anyway. Doing so goes against everything we as animal care professionals believe in.
I can't even believe that this is a consideration, hypothetical or not.
David_Q-T wrote: »
I am so deeply offended by this item that I am unsubscribing from your newsletter and will no longer visit your website.
Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support