Lawsuit to prove our furbabies have souls
 

If this woman wins this lawsuit, animals will no longer be viewed as just property. Just read this article on msnbc

Woman sues to prove dogs are 'living souls,' not property - TODAY Pets & Animals - TODAY.com

I'm definitely going to keep an eye on this.

I'll keep an eye on it, too. All I have to do is look into my Sophie's eyes to KNOW she has a good soul :2hearts2:

There is no doubt animals have souls, feel pain and love (not just our pets but all animals). And they all need our protection, there is just too much animal cruelty in this world.

Do you know what the ironic part is? Humans cannot survive without animals, plants and insects. We would become extinct. However, animals,plants and insects can survive without us. We don't really contribute to the ecosystem so why do we insist on destroying the very things that keep us alive.

Okay getting of soapbox now.

It seems unlikely but I sure hope she wins. What a great step in the right direction that would be.

I've always believed that my furkids have souls. I know one day I will meet them in heaven.

All of my babys have souls! Eventhough we dont speak the same language,they always manage to get the point across as to what their needs are.
Just last night,it was a bit past dinner time for the furbabys,Mina came and sat beside me. She didnt bark,growl or whine,she didnt even look pitiful,but I knew what she was saying and not because I had looked at the clock. I just knew
How can a living breathing thing do that if there is no soul?

If this lawsuit is won, imagine the implications. In the long run if the country takes this on puppy mills can be eradicated! I want this to happen SOOOO bad!

This would be a huge win for animal ethics! Animals definitely have a soul. The problem is that humans have always made up the rules to suit humans. It is time for a change.

Can't remember all the details, but this isn't necessarily a good thing for pet lovers. They say vet and grooming cost could go through the roof because of the much more expensive insurance coverage they would need. There would be other things this would impact, so don’t be too quick to decide, until you learn exactly what this would mean. Personally, I believe Joey has a soul, but I don't know if I want that written into law. Some say, we wouldn't even be allowed to own them anymore, it would be seen as slavery.

i will be keeping my eye on this also// its about time

Well, we (own) are responsible for our skin kids and that isn't slavery.

I'd love to see a change from dogs being viewed as property, as it might put more bite in animal welfare laws. There could very well be a standard of care established, which would give law enforcement more authority to take animals that aren't being properly cared for, from irresponsible owners....just like kids.

We may be responsible for our skin kids, but we can't sell them, and unlike many parents, I don't believe we own them.


I'm just saying that there are pros and cons to every law, don't automatically think this is a good thing for pet owners, and it probably would be a nightmare for most breeders.

That has long been an argument between Tom Regan's Animal Rights movement and Peter Singer's more utilitarian approach to animal ethics. I tend to agree with Singer as he believes animals should have equal consideration as opposed to equal rights. THere is a big difference as one speaks to welfare and the other to rights. I have been studying this in great detail as my artwork and graduate school work deals with animal studies...... I am considering getting my phd in animal studies/art. I will keep an eye on this as it proceeds through the courts but it is unlikely that a judge will rule in favor of the dog. It has encouraged conversation which is always valuable and something I aim for in my artwork.

Good maybe you'll be able to explain it better, but the article I read seemed to have so many drawbacks. Glad you are thinking about pursuing this, I'm sure this area will have so many changes in the future, and I hope the changes will do what we want. I think most of us are more concerned with welfare not animal rights because it sounds like if animals really had rights, we couldn't have pets.

Also, it concerns me that some people would try to control what others are doing with their pets. So many people think it's abusive to dress our pets, others think it's abusive to ever leave them alone.

Well, maybe this case would at least bring the conversation of the horrors and greed of the puppy millers. With this being in the light more, it would help to make people more aware of the what puppy mills are. In my case, I had no idea and since getting my first yorkie, I have come to learn so much about this subject and there is still much more to learn.

There could be some unintentional consequences to this like medical care for pets going through the roof. We would definitely have to wait and see how these things would be worked out if this lawsuit is a victory.

But one thing is for sure, animals already have criminal rights as stated in the article so declaring that animals have a soul would be an extension of this. Giving them criminal rights pretty much says they are more than just property. Given that animals (all animals not just our furbabies)are more important to the ecosystem than humans, I would think we want to protect them as much as we want to protect ourselves. Our survival as a species depends on it.

I'm not entirely sure how US law works, but I know in Canada, when the Supreme Court (or any level) makes ground breaking decisions like this they are VERY careful in the wording of things, and make sure that definitions do not mess things up.

So I totally see the point of being cautious. I think that if a judge were to clearly define that intentionally breeding an animal to be defective is a cause for a suit for damages and medical bills, it could eliviate the worry of groomers or vets being more liable. I think they would likely have to attack this problem with the breeders, which yes would create a lot of problems for good breeders, cause then the judge would have to evaluate what a "reasonable breeder" would be set as.

Ok sooo totally realized this post is full of legal garble, sorry... lol potential lawyer in the making. :P If only the law school apps considered this.

If anything, in the US, our greed and corruption would probably prevent a lawsuit like this.

I can see it now, the puppy mills sending lobbyist to vote against something like this:D The puppy mills owners would pretty much buy off.....oops I mean contribute to the campaign funds and thats' how law works here in the US.
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Wow that is an awesome point!!!!! Gave me the chills, I love thinking beyond our little bubble. It reminds me that it all means so much more than we know.....

Hmm, so then eating a hamburger would be a form of cannabalism?

This has far reaching consequences. Many probably have not even been considered yet.

My DH asked me last night "if mills arent allowed to sell puppys and kittens,why would breeders be allowed and how would they go about deciding what a mill was and what a breeder was?" Its an interesting thought.

Exactly. That's why it's imporant to never let you emotions decide on a law.

I have to agree with this. As stated earlier, this could have some serious unintended consequences. If passed the wording has to be well-thought out and what it means for an animal to have a soul.

It does seem at least in this article, that by declaring that her pet has a soul, she will be able to recoup more of her financial losses than just her furbaby being viewed as property.

So then, can we write them off on our taxes? They are dependents?

Lol, now there's an idea!

I am a bit nervous too... I would love if there were NO puppymills in this world! I'd be afraid that the cost of pet ownership would skyrocket out of almost everyone's reach. There are repercussions to everything.

I absolutely believe that animals feel emotions. Dogs and cats especially and maybe that is because they are the most common animals to interact with humans. I don't know but when I look at my boys, they have all the love in the world shining in their little brown eyes and I know they have feelings and emotions. (I believe 'having a soul' is a religious thing, so I hesitate to agree on that level)

I wish her great success in her lawsuit. However, since many states do not even do a great job of defending young children from child abuse I don't hold much hope for this one.

There has to be a way to stop the indiscriminate breeding of dogs and sales by pet stores but I as well as others have not found the key. Compassion seems to be at a minimum these days. When I was younger there was much more interest in animal's rights and creating humane solutions for the over population of unwanted animals. Now so many cities only have high kill slaughter houses to solve the surplus animal problem. What has happened to the heart of this country?

I'd love it if there was a way to get everyone to just respect all others...all living things...and treat them with the respect and consideration they deserve, but I do not think it is possible to do that with legislation. I do not see how common sense, logic, morality, or reason can be legislated with positive results, and I have seen no examples that it does. Legislation creates criminals from perfectly nice people who were 'law-abiding' before being 'transformed' into 'outlaws' by a 'quill and a vote' which do little else besides providing a revenue stream so more people can impose their will on the remaining, non-governing others.

I am not involved in the battle between 'home/hobby' breeders and 'standards/show' breeders. They have their positions for what they do and why they do it, although I do think caution regarding inherited health issues must be voluntarily taken by all who deliberately breed to prevent unnecessary suffering by innocent animals.

Cruelty is already covered by legislation, but legislation has not stopped cruelty, abandonment, or any other mistreatment of innocent animals, so, logically, I think I'd want to see something like that lawsuit, well-meaning as it is, tossed in the bin due to the inability and inappropriateness of humans to legislate logic, reason, common sense, or morality.

I can see by looking at them that my fuzzbutts are living, breathing, thinking individuals, with minds and talents of their own, and the capability to love, care, trust, respect, and give due consideration to other, and different kinds of, creatures. I treat them as such, and they return my love and respect multi-fold.

If you are interested in pursuing this topic further, I can recommend several books. One that I personally like takes a middle approach to the arguments within the animal ethics movement. It is called Loving Animals:Toward a New Animal Advocacy, by Kathy Rudy. She basically builds a case for love being a central theme within animal advocacy and she does this in a scholarly way, without relying on emotions.

:thumbup: I guess I have reached the age where I just can't jump on this with out seeing so many problems. Being an old fashioned Bible believer I think humans were given the responsibility to take care of the planet and all it's creatures. I know how child like Yorkies are. But they are still animals. They are not little people. The law doesn't protect unborn human children or give them a soul. I find it hard to think that we as a society can give animals a soul by law. IF we could enforce the laws we already have, there would be no animal cruelty, abuse or puppy mills. Beaten children, abandoned cats,store robbery, car jacking, rape etc... More laws do not make us more moral. Education is what will make a difference. Teaching children how to respect life and care for people, the planet and all animals, at a very young age is where we must start.

Growning up on a farm , hunting and fishing, taught me a respect for life that helped form the man I am.

Anyone that can torture an animal is not a man. How they can do it is unfathomable in my mind. I have to think that these types are not wired properly. To take pleasure in another animals suffering takes a sick person.

Passing laws will not change this type of person.

Mn. has some pretty strict animal protection laws on the books, and they are enforced. But there is no one out there actually investigating. It takes common citizens to inform them when there is a problem.
Up here in the north woods we hear of these cases at least 3-4 times a year. Always the perpatrators are tipped off by a citizen.

People up here are pretty vigilent about watching for perpatrators of animal abuse. You can't tell Me that these large puppy mills don't have someone that knows about them and could tip off the authorities?
It happened here less than two months ago. The Couple had been breeding for less than a year before authorities shut them down.

One thing that would help considerably, is to convince your local lawmakers that the laws/punishment that are already on the books are not harsh enough.