If an animal is ruled to be "family", and people can seek damages for emotional distress brought on by their loss at the hands of another as though they were a human child, then other people need to be held to greater responsibility for animal welfare. The abuse/neglect of an animal needs to be just as serious as a crime against a human child, etc.
And what will this mean for veterinarians, who sometimes have to euthanize an animal? Will they then be guilty of murder? Or will it be that they can assist your four-legged family member end their life humanely, but a human doctor can't help another two-legged family member with the same? Or will veterinarians be given license to do the same for people since animals are family members and all family members are on equal footing? Will human doctors be allowed to treat animals then, since they're "family members" and not "companion animals"? What about spaying and neutering, or other decisions responsible "furparents" make? Will those be a crime? And what about taxes? Since they would be "family", they should be tax deductions, right? (Personally I kind of agree with this part - I spend a huge amount yearly on my four cats and one dog. But I don't advocate making them "family" - just tax deductible!)
There's a line to be drawn between animal welfare and insane fervor.
The whole "pets are not people" thing will need to be revamped, and personally I think the people in that article are those that make "animal lovers" look bad. Also, an interesting thing the defendant brought up was that if the court allowed this, it would be granting "animal parents" rights that grandparents themselves don't have over losing grandchildren, so where is the line drawn there?
If pets are reclassified as "family", what about taking them into stores (my local grocery store just put up a big "NO ANIMALS OF ANY KIND (except those serving the disabled)" sign - I'm sure due to people bringing in those pocket/purse dogs, ferrets, hedgehogs, sugar gliders and other small animals while they're shopping.)? Will "discrimination" laws apply to them, as it's discrimination against a "family member", though of a different species?
The term "companion animal" is just that. My animals are family to me too, but I also recognize that they are just that at the end of the day - animals. I feed them top quality animal food, take them to an animal doctor, etc. They might be family and be my "kids", but I'm still going to call these people bringing this case insane.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sforzinda
no subject
Date: 2009-12-19 11:34 am (UTC)If an animal is ruled to be "family", and people can seek damages for emotional distress brought on by their loss at the hands of another as though they were a human child, then other people need to be held to greater responsibility for animal welfare. The abuse/neglect of an animal needs to be just as serious as a crime against a human child, etc.
And what will this mean for veterinarians, who sometimes have to euthanize an animal? Will they then be guilty of murder? Or will it be that they can assist your four-legged family member end their life humanely, but a human doctor can't help another two-legged family member with the same? Or will veterinarians be given license to do the same for people since animals are family members and all family members are on equal footing? Will human doctors be allowed to treat animals then, since they're "family members" and not "companion animals"? What about spaying and neutering, or other decisions responsible "furparents" make? Will those be a crime? And what about taxes? Since they would be "family", they should be tax deductions, right? (Personally I kind of agree with this part - I spend a huge amount yearly on my four cats and one dog. But I don't advocate making them "family" - just tax deductible!)
There's a line to be drawn between animal welfare and insane fervor.
The whole "pets are not people" thing will need to be revamped, and personally I think the people in that article are those that make "animal lovers" look bad. Also, an interesting thing the defendant brought up was that if the court allowed this, it would be granting "animal parents" rights that grandparents themselves don't have over losing grandchildren, so where is the line drawn there?
If pets are reclassified as "family", what about taking them into stores (my local grocery store just put up a big "NO ANIMALS OF ANY KIND (except those serving the disabled)" sign - I'm sure due to people bringing in those pocket/purse dogs, ferrets, hedgehogs, sugar gliders and other small animals while they're shopping.)? Will "discrimination" laws apply to them, as it's discrimination against a "family member", though of a different species?
The term "companion animal" is just that. My animals are family to me too, but I also recognize that they are just that at the end of the day - animals. I feed them top quality animal food, take them to an animal doctor, etc. They might be family and be my "kids", but I'm still going to call these people bringing this case insane.