I‘ve said before that once you start messing with definitions of relationships or humanity, such as with marriage or abortion, there’s no end in sight for where it could go. Now there’s a case in Vermont that is looking for “legal recognition” of the relationship between people and pets.

A couple’s dog (one of two) was shot while the couple was on a camping trip with their dogs and this one wandered onto someone’s private property. He already paid $4,000 in damages to them, but that’s not enough. The guy has to undergo counseling and perform community service because they’re calling it “animal cruelty” and saying that “the loss of Shadow caused them emotional damages far beyond $4,000.”

If an animal wandered onto my land, especially a potentially dangerous dog, I’d feel fully justified in shooting it. Especially with only a pellet gun. That the pellet severed the dog’s aorta is unfortunate but not animal cruelty. Even the intentional shooting of a dog should be balanced by the owner’s responsibility to keep it with them and on a leash.

“Animal cruelty goes on everyday everywhere,” Sarah Scheele said. “But if there’s a law that recognizes pets as beings that deserve respect, maybe people will think twice before they’re cruel to an animal.”

Right. We’ll have to tread super-carefully to make sure that nobody can consider our treatment of any animal cruel, and at the same time, we’ll smile on allowing abortions where the fetus can obviously feel the pain. Where’s the “respect” for life? Even if some don’t call that life fully human until birth? Ultrasounds have shown that fetuses react to abortifacts by writhing in what would be called pain if a post-natal child were doing it. Having the fetus go through almost the entire birth process and then crushing its skull is just as cruel. But, for heaven’s sake, don’t shoot at a dog! You’ll pay hefty fines and have to go to counseling.

Talk about hypocritical.

[tags]animal rights, animal cruelty, abortion[/tags]