ronnewmexico wrote: A PETA member usually holds that any personal involvement or useage of animals in other than their natural state is a ethical no no.
Clueless Git wrote:ronnewmexico wrote: A PETA member usually holds that any personal involvement or useage of animals in other than their natural state is a ethical no no.
I would be interested in any buddhist teachings that do not accord with PETA's position on that, if anyone knows of any?
BFS wrote:LauraJ wrote:I'm so glad the puppy is recovering.
I second that!
catmoon wrote:Well it's my turn. Kitty is very ill at the vet's and under treatment. We will know if she will recover or not within the next 24 hrs. If not, well... I'm gonna have to call the shot one way or the other. I might end up with a half paralyzed cat to care for. This could get difficult.
ronnewmexico wrote: The dog one night escaped from our care and was hit by a car. Severing its spinal cord it seemed. It died very shortly thereafter,nothing could be done. But I did not kill it to put it out of its misery....Easier for me to pull the trigger as I cared for that dog very much it was my wilderness companion for many a trek. But would it have been better for that dog not to suffer the natural course of things? Of course if its suffering could have been spared I would have done so, but that was not possible as it was not possible for me to prevent it from killing that baby rabbit. That was the circumstance of its dying.
The removal of suffering when we can takeing a animal to the vet to get pain meds or heal a injury is actually removing suffering. Suffering removal by death....all we remove is the present appearence of suffering. Nothing says we remove the suffering. WE kill... we do not in any manner shape nor form remove suffering with our action. This is a differing circumstance than assisting removal of suffering.
Users browsing this forum: Adamantine, MSNbot Media and 13 guests