MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Anne put the animals down?
Comments
-
Clive_Woody wrote: »The 'only one solution' you propose is merely your point of view, the idea of open debate is that different points of view are discussed.
The other 'option' is killing defenseless animals for no viable reason. Why kill when there is another option? I think this 'debate' needs to be taken off because there are far too many nasty comments. It is going to get really ugly.0 -
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.0 -
A recent Radio 4 environmentral program compared owning a large dog to owning a 4x4 due to the environmental cost of feeding the animal, space required etc. Surprising really, but another factor that needs to be considered when owning a pet on this overpopulated planet.0
-
For all the sanctimonious people on here face reality. In the UK more money is given to animal charities every year than to children's charities. Equating putting an animal to death to killing children answers the question why animal charities receive more donations; people are out of touch and have the wrong priorities.0
-
I don't understand this dilemma - surely she can phone the RSPCA or a sanctuary or similar and they will take them.
OK, so the RSPCA may then end up having to put some of them down anyway, but looking at it cynically, that would still be money saving - you have to pay vets fees even to have an animal put to sleep.
I find it pretty much impossible to believe that "no-one will take them".0 -
Can't she give them to the RSPCA? There has to be another way other than having them euthanized.0
-
Can't the RSPCA or the dogs home take them in?0
-
To be honest I did think of the meat option but people in this country are generally too squeamish to do that. I know I wouldn't do it myself.Dafydd_911 wrote: »Being a moneysaving website, the obvious solution is to take the pony and the goats to the abertoir, and have them turned into meat (horsemeat is a delicacy on the continent, tastes like roast beef) buy a big freezer and you will save a fortune on your meat bills. keep the dog, cat & gerbil, they can eat the same meat, saving you even more money on dog & cat food, plus walking the dog will keep you fit and healthy!:beer:0 -
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.
pippitypip.I know I'm in my own little world, but it's ok - they know me here!0 -
If she can't re-home the animals of course they should be put down.
I'm not callous, and i respect animals' right to live, exist, thrive, be protected in their natural environment. HOWEVER... supporting survival of wildlife diversity in their own habitat is one thing... oversentimentality towards in-bred, dirty, ungrateful home-jackers is quite another... don't breed animals/pets that probably won't be wanted, support your own species first... feed all the starving children in the world before you get misty eyed over all the stray cats and dogs out there...
on the other hand if some of these animals were pigs or goats she could also fill up her freezer and help her budget that way.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards