The ruling was made on the case of a man who was convicted of starving 20 horses and goats on his property. The judge’s decision allotted a separate count of second-degree animal neglect for each animal, noting that each animal was a separate victim on his own.Is this ruling a further erosion of property rights?
The distinction might sound obvious — but it wasn’t legally accepted at the time that Arnold Nix, the defendant, was first convicted in 2009. During his case, Nix argued that the law defines animals as the property of their owners, so the word “victim” shouldn’t apply to them. As of this month’s hearing, the word “victim” does apply. (The Dodo)
If animals are no longer to be considered property, who speaks for them?
12 comments:
PETA sues slaughter houses and wins! Everyone reduced to eating tofu.
I'm probably over in left field
- but I think this is correct.
You don't have to be a member of peta to care about animals, and animal abuse and neglect. It's not all or nothing.
I eat meat. Increasingly, however, I want to know the manner in which the livestock was raised. I don't want to eat an animal that was tortured and stressed.
If animals are no longer to be considered property, who speaks for them?
Mr. Ed voice: I'll speak for them. Wilbur!
The ruling was made on the case of a man who was convicted of starving 20 horses and goats on his property
This is NOT about whether one eats meat or not, or mismanages "property", it is about abject cruelty. When you own property you are responsible for its sustenance. Period.
I'd the kill the mother fucker my self if I found him first....put him in a cage and leave him without water or food for 60 days. Or just put $1.21 worth of .45 ACP though his demented skull, whichever.
Oh, and let me just say it once: Fuck PETA...they are bullshitters who want only your money. Not one of those punks have ever pulled a foal or calf from the womb of a distressed mare or cow....they talk shit and nothing more.
Speaking of talking horses.
We need to be careful... by that I mean, judges and lawyers I suppose, need to be careful that whatever rights they extend to chimps may one day have to be extended to robots.
This is NOT about whether one eats meat or not, or mismanages "property", it is about abject cruelty.
THIS is the crux of the issue. Animals are property but property that can think and feel. You can neglect your house or your car. There is not really a morality issue there. However, neglecting and mistreating your dog, cat, horse, chickens etc, there is a clear morality issue here. Society needs to protect your living property from such immoral actions.
We walk a fine line as omnivores as well. We kill animals for their flesh. We use animals to produce items that we eat, like eggs, cheese and milk. We raise animals and use other parts of them such as leather, feathers and yes....even fur. This is how we live and despite what those strict 'vegans' say, people are meant to eat meat/fish as well as vegetables. We are omnivores. Get over it vegans.
BUT....because we have morals are aware of sin, and should always be valuing of life, we must raise our livestock in a humane manner and when it comes time to kill, it should also be humane. Quick, as pain free as possible and with care to minimize fear. Like April....I don't want to eat an animal that was tortured or stressed.
Arguably animals have a stronger claim than corporations. It's a slippery slope.
Back to the future.
It used to be, back in the Middle ages, animals could be charged with the same crimes as humans*. So the Lefties are once again proving there is such a thing as devolution.
*There's a good movie called "The Advocate" on this subject.
If you give them rights then next thing you know you get in trouble when you shoot them after they steal something.
We don't need anymore riots. Just sayn'
Arm - Like the 8 biggest corporations who got into bed with Pelosi-Care and then demanded and received a tax payer bailout?
I'd say tax payers are lower than animals in Obama's America.
Post a Comment