What's Wrong with Killing Dogs?

So it's a federal crime to be mean to dogs? Who knew?

What's wrong with what Michael Vick did? I have no inclination to do what he did with dogs, but I have no comprehension of what all the fuss is about. Most people who are upset about killing dogs or letting them attack each other have at some point in their lives caught a fish, which is as extreme a form of murderous torture of an animal as I can imagine. Not only have most of them caught a fish, they have actually eaten many more of them than they've caught. Which is weirder, killing an animal or eating its dead flesh? Most of us have never eaten dog meat, but in some countries it is a delicacy. Is there something evil going on in those countries? Are they violating the natural order of things? Should we invade them or get the UN to intervene? They are killing and eating dogs for god's sake!!!

What is the moral basis -- the natural law, if you will -- that accords special respect and protection to dogs in our written laws? And how does that same natural law allow for fish being clubbed to death on boat decks if they haven't died already from the hook-in-mouth trick we so enjoy pulling on them?

Our reverence for dog life resembles our reverence for human life. Up to a point. It's okay to kill your dog if you think your dog is too sick to go on living much longer or if you just can't afford medical help for your dog. And, don't worry, no legal authority is ever going to ask you to prove that your dog was really sick enough to kill or even sick at all. If you don't have the stomach for killing your dog yourself, you contract with a dog killer -- otherwise known as a veterinarian -- to do the dirty work for you. No federal law against that yet. Our dog reverence is so shot full of loopholes that there is no describable moral order to it at all.

Americans revere horses too, but it's okay to shoot your racehorse in the head in public if it so much as breaks a leg--something I saw the first time I went to a racetrack. And it's more than okay--politicians consider it a leadership demonstration--to hunt. Shoot 'em, kill 'em, cook 'em, eat 'em is the American way for a lot of pretty birds and every four-legged animal other than dogs, cats, and horses.

Between bites at McDonald's today there will be a lot of outrage expressed about Michael Vick getting off easy. I won't understand a word of it.

Comments

[lbrown]

O'Donnell: "It's okay to kill your dog if you think your dog is too sick to go on living much longer or if you just can't afford medical help for your dog."

O'Donnell: "Americans revere horses too, but it's okay to shoot your racehorse in the head in public if it so much as breaks a leg--something I saw the first time I went to a racetrack.­"

Response: It's also okay to kill your comatose parent, spouse or child. But there is a difference between "euthanizing" a person or an animal that cannot sustain life and torturing and murdering them. Euthanization is a last resort for a person or animal that can no longer sustain life or to end terrible suffering they will endure during the process of dying. Hardly the same as drowing, electrouting and hanging.

By your reasoning, I guess Michael Shiavo and millions of other could have just choked their loved ones to death (or stuck them in the bathtub and thrown the hairdryer in with them)instead of pulling the plug and waiting for them to die. Would have been a lot quicker so, what the hell?, according to you.

And yes, I do equate humane treatment for people and animals alike. Humanity is humanity. It's not okay to torture to death anything or anyone.

[pmfelipe]

In this country fighting dogs and fighting cocks is an outrage. However, the mass murder of people is not. If you kill a dog you can go to jail, but if go to war based on lies and you mass murder over 600,000 people you are re-elected into office. You are all outraged by torturing these dogs. However, where is the outrage about torturing those in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Chile, El Salvador & Guatemala.

This country seems to be outraged with dogfighting but most men like to hunt for pleasure. Did they eat the wolves, the bison and a lot of other animals hunted almost to extinction. No they were hunted so they can be in their walls. The Preisdential candidates even boast of being a hunter. How about the marlins that were fished out and displaced on their walls.

I believe that the outrage is totally misplaced. In the NFL you can end your career if you torture a dog but not if you beat your wife.

[baghdadjoe]

I wish that Americans cared about as much about our soldiers as they do about their dogs.

Maybe someday.

[DietrichMoody]

Its obscene that people create this world of a "unique relationship" between them and their animals. Cows are lovely animals but they ruin the earth grazing, etc. Fish taste good, and some dogs are delicacies in certain cultures. Cats carry diseases and rats are so furry and cuddly but we set traps to kill them all the time. In a world with millions of species, man is the only one obscence enough to pick and choose which ones will be afforded this "unique relationship" and which ones are good enough to eat. It's all about how the dog makes us as humans feel. Maybe the dog really hates your guts, but he can't tell you that. If only dogs could talk, set up their own "i hate humans society", but then maybe, if this was the case, we wouldn't like them so much and probably would kill and torture them more often.

[mattcoyne]

Didn't white slave owners fight their slaves for money? Of course losers still had value to their masters and so were not killed. But a runaway was often permanently disabled. Many whites back then thought "negroes" and higher animals were not really capable of "feeling" pain. I think modern scientific research has busted both of those myths. Society in general now must accept this and empathize accordingly.

[CALORNA]

I have listened to you on Frankin, etc, thought West Wing a great show, and thought you were a cool guy,but, your take on the Vic thing is way off the civil path. It should'nt have to be explained to you.

[yellowdogdemocratic]

All of the blogs that I've read try to justify what Michael Vick did by giving examples of other crimes that go unpunished. The fact that chickens in factories are treated cruelly or that other NFL players beat their wives without being punished for it does NOT give a get out of jail free card to someone who enjoys torturing animals. That's bad logic to justify an even worse argument.

[RogerHWerner]

Mr. O'Donnell is correct that American morality is inconsistent and often our social laws make no sense. We have no qualms about sending kids to Iraq to kill but they can't have a beer when on home on leave if they are under 21. It is legal to sell tobacco and alcohol but let's spend billions criminalizing use of marijuana. The big trend in animal control these days is to spend millions on ticketing owners and killing stray cats rather than capturing,­spaying/ne­utering, and releasing them, which would be far cheaper. And yes, when a racehorse is no longer worth racing, these magnificent critters are often abandoned and end up as dog food. We let American companies kill wild mustangs because some foreign cultures like horse meat. You'll get no arguments from me that our society is the hypocritical king of world cultures. What this has to do with Vick's crime is a little fuzzy to me however.

Vick wasn't hunting a wild animal for food or sport and he wasn't killing dogs for mercy's sake. I personally don't hunt but don't object to people who enjoy hunting for sport or because they prefer the taste of wild meat (I do object to lunatics like Cheney who hunt because they seem to enjoy killing). He wasn't abandoning animals that were no longer useful to him. He also didn't just kill his dogs. He appears to have used creative and interesting methods for killing animals that were no longer useful to him. What he did was more than just cruel and inhumane, and, if it were just cruel and inhuman, I might shrug my shoulders and chalk the whole episode up to just one more instance of American hypocriticism. Vick perpetrated an act of extreme and senseless cruelty, which suggests the man has questionalable moral values and oissibly a few screws loose. I'd like to see the book thrown at him and for a fitful financial penalty the man should be forced to use part of his remaining millions to care for his surviving dogs for the rest of their lives.

[Bluesage]

WOW! Suddenly Mr. O'Donnell seems a little less human to me. For some time now I have felt that we as a people and a country have become so much more coarse and less kind to each other and other living things and that makes it so much more difficult to fix the things that are wrong in our society and our politics. This trend has been in overdrive for the past six and a half years of this terrifying Bush administration and the almost complete surrender of the Democrat party. How or if we can heal this is anyone's guess. Being a lifelong animal lover and caregiver and Democrat Mr. O'Donnell, I just don't get the callousness of your argument. What a sorry state when we have to debate the pros and cons of torturing animals for sport and pleasure.

[kbuffler42]

That a person goes to rpisin for killing dogs seems bizarre, but I think many priso sentences are bizarre. That we are repulsed by the notion of pitting dogs against one another and/or killing those who do not perform too our pleasure seems down right healthy. Hunting and fishing for sport seem pathetic to me and are not something I care to participate in. However, I am a meat eater and I haven't sorted out for myself how that fits. All that said, for you to shake your head at the reaction to Michael Vick's behavior is somewhat disengenuous. You are a smart man and you know we are self checking in our own moronic way when we imprison people for these "crimes"

[Republicnotademocracy]

We don't have to be rational about a very emotional issue. We don't like folks killing dogs for sport or eating them. We don't have to defend our position from anyone. As I said, it is an emotional issue. Period.

[BettyG]

What Michael Vick did was against the law, which he well knew, and it was needless cruelty. Being an NFL quaterback is an exalted, leadershop position in our society. He owed more to his fans & the game than to take part in such barbarity. With all his millions, this is the best thing he find to could do? What kind of example is this? What kind of human being enjoys this? And don't tell me dog fighting is a "cultural thing" -- this isn't a "culture" we need in this country.

[rclaire]

Thank god, there are no dogs being killed in Iraq, otherwise there'd be a real public outrage.

[amazedandconfused]

"What is the moral basis -- the natural law, if you will -- that accords special respect and protection to dogs in our written laws?"

I don't think the moral basis is directed at dogs any more than any other living creature.

Humans with healthy minds see the same problem with people who find fun and entertainment in watching the act of throwing dogs together for 'sport', as they do with people who pull the wings off flies just to see them in pain, or hunters who shoot and kill a hawk that flies over their site, simply because they're bored, and they need to see SOMETHING, anything, suffer and die.

I've fished many times with many people and no one has ever done anything to prolong a fish's agony or death.

As for horses - even the biggest gambler at the track, probably didn't put any money down, and gleefully watch Barbaro to see long he'd be able to stand before buckling, or how long it would take his eyes, to glaze over in shock.

Please don't ask us to believe you see no difference in people eating a steak that was killed by workers in a slaughterhouse, and people who stand around a dog fight and get a thrill from watching the bloodied, suffering dogs as they rip into each other.

I doubt anyone that goes to work in a slaughter house gets off, torturing cows and the rest of the livestock brought there. I don't think we can say the same thing about Mr. Vick and the thousands of other people involved in this 'sport'.

[roger3815]

I don't get it either. He would have got less time for rape or robbery. It just goes to show how screw up this country's legal system is.