MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Anne put the animals down?

brokeinwales

keep the dog, cat & gerbil, they can eat the same meat

Do gerbils eat meat?

Talent

If you take animals in, you are responsible for their welfare, whilst you can afford it. Having said that, always keep a top predator, that way you can feed it with the rest of them....
I cannot believe people are putting animals welfare ahead of a human. They had a good home while it lasted, now it's gone. Full stop.

mrbrightside842

pippitypip wrote: »

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 obviously wouldn't kill the animals unless illness made it so, but I am a person who doesn't understand pet's being part of the family and being compared to children. I was brought up with a lot of animals, the main one was a German Shepherd who was a lovely dog and who my family loved a lot, but I do still see animals as animals and couldn't compare them to my children or view them in the same emotional way.

Clive_Woody

Enchantica wrote: »

The other 'option' is killing defenseless animals for no viable reason.

Merely your opinion once again. Somebody (charity or otherwise) would have to pay for the maintenance compared to disposal of these animals so the reason would be a cost one.

If these animals were able to 'defend' themselves would that make the situation different in some way?

We are all (well mostly) adults here so an emotive debate should not be beyond us without too much foot stamping, 'ugly' comments and demands for deletion of the thread.

glossyhair

NO NO NO NO NO!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

I am unemployed and living solely on JSA. Money is extremely tight and sometimes it means I have to go hungry so I can buy food and litter for my 2 cats. That's the way it is. It is not negotiable. Apart from the emotional attachment to my pets (which of course there is), I have a legal and moral duty of care and responsibility. They are living sentient creatures not a negotiable expense which can be "got rid of" when it becomes difficult. The PDSA and RSPCA do provide help with VET bills (over a certain level) and I wouldn't hesitate to take advantage of this if I needed to. When I am employed, I do have pet insurance and when I can, I make donations to these charities so they can provide the service to those who need it.

To be honest, with the stress of being unemployed, living below the poverty line for almost a year, struggling to make ends meet and dealing with the "people" at the DWP, my "furry girls" keep me sane and sometimes even a reason to continue in moments of utter despair. Put in the most simple terms, my cats are my family.

I am a huge fan of the MSE website and it has helped me turn my financial life around in so many ways but I think this topic is completely wrong and inappropriate.

There are "members" who post things that are, in my opinion, "out of order" but I certainly never expected it from the MSE team. :eek::eek::eek:

Enchantica

Clive_Woody wrote: »

Merely your opinion once again. Somebody (charity or otherwise) would have to pay for the maintenance compared to disposal of these animals so the reason would be a cost one.

If these animals were able to 'defend' themselves would that make the situation different in some way?

We are all (well mostly) adults here so an emotive debate should not be beyond us without too much foot stamping, 'ugly' comments and demands for deletion of the thread.

Hmmm if animals could defend themselves, what would they do? They would say "eh don't kill me! Give me to someone who cares" Rather obvious.

There are people out there who are willing to pay for vet bills etc for unwanted animals. ME being one of them. I take in elderly, unwanted and abused rats and pay for the bills myself. There are always people out there who are willing to do this. So that is where the animals should go.

To kill an animal or to give it to a no-kill shelter so it can live... what a tough decision that must be.

Relating to someone else's post: people do form emotional attachments to animals and see them as their family. I, and many people I know, are like this. They aren't just 'animals'. They are our family and we have a responsibility to take care of them or find someone who can.

Enchantica

Quote: Down the chop shop with the lot of them, she can always buy replacements if her finances pick up again at a later date.

This is an ugly comment. And part of the reason why this thread should be removed.

Clive_Woody

Enchantica wrote: »

Hmmm if animals could defend themselves, what would they do? They would say "eh don't kill me! Give me to someone who cares" Rather obvious.

So it's okay to kill them then? You only want defenseless animals protected, not ones with claws or big pointy teeth.

Relating to someone else's post: people do form emotional attachments to animals and see them as their family. I, and many people I know, are like this. They aren't just 'animals'. They are our family and we have a responsibility to take care of them or find someone who can.

While I respect your opinion, I feel that you should also try and understand that other people have different opinons. Many people do not see pets as 'part of the family', they are pets and not children.

Enchantica

Clive_Woody wrote: »

So it's okay to kill them then? You only want defenseless animals protected, not ones with claws or big pointy teeth.



While I respect your opinion, I feel that you should also try and understand that other people have different opinons. Many people do not see pets as 'part of the family', they are pets and not children.

I NEVER said that certain ones are protected and others aren't. Ones with big claws and pointy teeth shouldn't be killed either. I have NO idea where you got that from. All animals are defenseless in this situation, they can't speak up for themselves so someone has to speak for them. The owner is in control and the animals are defenseless against her decision.

I DO NOT believe that any healthy animal should be put down. NO idea where you got that from.

pennypinchUK

Perhaps she hasn't looked hard enough for people to take the animals on. There's the PDSA, advertising in the local rag, notices in Post Offices, word of mouth, RSPCA, multiple local animal charities, a long list of people who'll either take some or all of the animals or provide contact names of others who will. It might take some effort to rehome them all but surely that's better than putting animals to sleep solely for financial purposes.