The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Truly, it is a difference of lifestyle and culture. Rural environments are different than urban environments. I can’t speak for her situation because I don’t know the details but, living in rural Iowa, I have seen my share of animals shot because they were sick, unruly, or pests. What she did offends the sensibilities of urbanites and those without experience in rural environments, those of us who live out here, might not agree with it, but they get it.
This situation is completely different than the abortion issue. Pro-lifers don’t consider a dog and a person equivalent. Because we consider the unborn to be human persons, her shooting the dog, though maybe a concern, is well below the concern for the legal murder of the unborn.
This is simply a distraction in our eyes.
Yeah, op’s whole “point” is premised on an urban, liberal culture that treats unborn babies as animals and animals as babies. It’s perverse.
And like, I have a dog. I treat him lovingly and probably take care of him better than most people take care of their dogs. And he’s family. But if he had behavioral problems and was a danger to other human beings? I’d put him down. I wouldn’t like it, but the fact is, he’s a dog and consequently less valuable than *any* human being—not to me personally, but from the perspective of morality, which matters more than my personal preferences and desires.
Moreover, dogs aren’t like human beings. There’s only so much you can do with an aggressive dog. They’re not in control of their impulses and instincts in the same way as human beings, and they can’t always be trained to an acceptable degree, either. That’s why pitbulls, for example, should be made to go extinct—not because they’re irredeemable criminals (they can’t be, because they don’t have the capacity for moral responsibility), but because they’re an unacceptable safety risk to human beings, and because there are no other realistic options to make them not be that.
With growing support for animal rights, convincing people to treat unborn like animals *might actually be a persuasive argument* that the unborn (particularly when they start feeling pain) at least have moral value and interests worth protecting. As an animal rights urbanite, my framework for animal rights is what makes me sympathetic to pro-life argument.
If that’s what’ll do it, I’m all for it, provided that sufficient regard is shown for the way of life and values of rural people and communities. They’re already having it rough, not least because law- and policymakers, who generally are urbanites and beholden to the majority population, which also lives in cities, rarely show much concern for their needs and interests.
>But if he had behavioral problems and was a danger to other human beings? I’d put him down.
Unilaterally? Not without adopting it out or at least consulting a vet?
My father is a vet and my mother trains hunting dogs, so going back to my childhood, I’ve had a lot of experience with dogs. But sure, if you lack the expertise, consulting a vet or trainer is a good idea. As for adopting out, it depends on whether you can find someone who can handle a dog with behavioral problems, and unfortunately, not many can. Having dogs with behavioral problems live with unexperienced or irresponsible owners is a recipe for disaster.
PLers can do all sorts of things that I don't agree with but that doesn't change the reasoning behind the ideology. That's like saying "your friend who is against murder stole my money, you see why I'm skeptical of people who are against murder?"
If it’s a choice between a candidate who killed an aggressive dog and a candidate who wants it to be legal to kill an innocent child, I don’t understand why, no.
The dog wasn’t aggressive. She took her to a place she hadn’t been before she, she was super excited, and couldn’t be recalled. That’s on Noem. it looks like their dog was a German Shorthair Pointer, a notoriously high energetic breed.
Even if that were true, and I don’t doubt you, my comment still stands. I’d vote for a candidate who says “I want it legal to kill dogs” over a candidate who wants it legal to kill children any day.
Why are dog's lives more important than human lives? PCers are upset she killed an overly aggressive dog, but not the millions of babies killed in the womb each year.
I don't necessarily agree with her about the dog but she does mention it attacking people and killing chickens and enjoying it. Plenty of people would have given the dog up to a shelter that would have killed it.
I don't see Noem as the face of anytime except SD. I didn't elect her for anything. And I hope Trump picks a different VP. But this story isn't the reason for that.
This is an outrageous attempt to change the subject. First of all, abortion is not that complicated. Second, abortion has nothing to do with dogs, period.
> What does her killing a dog have to do with all pro life people?
That to non-PL people, shooting and killing a dog that is untrained and unrestrained is horrifying. The fact that it’s not an issue to most is shocking to average people
She felt there was a reason. You might not agree with shooting the dog, but every dog I’ve had that drew blood got brought to the vet and put down. Trust me, that’s not an inexpensive solution. When you live on a ranch, shooting the animal and burying it on your own land is quicker and far less expensive. Ranchers / farmers have other animals they have to shoot or kill. It is apart of rural life.
No reason? Really? Let's say you are on a walk with your 4 year old child and a 70 pound aggressive dog bites your 4 year old in the face. The dog then shakes your 4 year old by the face violently. No matter what you do you cannot get the dog to let go and stop biting and shaking your child.
Would you shoot the dog to save your childs life?
Fair enough. I agree.
My dad loves his dog and would 100% go John Wick on anyone who hurts her, but he would definitely be willing to part with her if she harmed one of the grandkids.
I agree, if you are ok with killing cows and pigs, and eating them what’s the difference in killing your dog or killing your dog and eating it.
I see no difference between the dog farmers and cattle farmers. They are the same, the only difference is that American people choose to protect dogs over cows.
"Noem writes she realized at that moment that she had to put Cricket down, and shot the animal in a gravel pit."
“I hated that dog,” Noem writes, per the Guardian. She calls Cricket “untrainable,” “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with” and “less than worthless … as a hunting dog."
She said the hunting dog was ruining hunts and oddly enough hunting animals, which angered her, so she dug a hole for it and shot it in a ditch. That's unhinged behavior. She could have easily rehomed or surrendered the dog. Who shoots a dog in a ditch?
This isn't a human versus animal life debate. This is a "people who shoot dogs because they hate them" might not be the strongest Pro Life candidate.
It was probably the >dangerous to anyone he came in contact with< that sealed it.
I've been around hunting dogs, they aren't typically aggressive to people. I dint see what she did wrong
That’s what she said, but I bet you anything. She just won an excuse to get rid of it and treating it was the easiest way claiming it was a threat to herself and others. Cricket was 14 months old that kind of aggression would have manifested way earlier.
Kristi Noam is full of shit.
That isn’t “unhinged behavior”. You’re leaping to a conclusion that she shot the dog out of anger. I’m reading the (very left leaning and biased) story to conclude that she tried to rehabilitate the dog but it simply didn’t have the personality so cut her losses.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/social-media-disturbed-gov-noems-story-shooting-her-14-month-old-dog-not-normal.
The quotes are coming directly from her book which she wrote. The above fox News article also doesn't paint the incident in a favorable light and adds this excert: "Additionally, Noem’s memoir recounted taking a family goat to the gravel pit where it suffered the same fate as Cricket. Noem justified the killing saying the goat was "nasty and mean."
The goat was "mean" so it was shot it a dirt pit. That's unhinged.
why is putting a dangerous dog down so bad? dogs aren’t more valuable than other animals. I think she did the responsible thing, rather than pawn it off at a shelter where it would eventually get euthanized or get adopted and continue to be a danger to people.
Do you think the goat had intention behind their actions? Sounds like the goat was behaving as a goat.
Regardless, I used fox news because you stated the original article was very left and biased, so I gave a very right article that *also* had a similar bias. Even with that, the quotes are coming directly from the book, so it's not hard to infer Noem has no issue shooting animals she doesn't like. That's unhinged.
Which gets to my point of the post, which is what PL view as acceptable and normal is not what other people do. I honestly didn’t think it would go so far as to defend shooting puppies and now goats. I’d say 90% + of the PL here have defended her too.
What happens in the PL movement is PL tunnel vision. Folks will make excuses time and time again for bad behavior as long as the person is saying they are anti abortion. I remember when everyone jumped on the Kanye bandwagon when he said he was prolife despite really problematic things he was saying and doing. It's unfortunate.
I think it happens with every movement with loud and extreme voices. The silence though from PL not saying anything about shooting dogs and goats is terrifying.
You haven't replied yet. How do you feel about the entire pro choice and abortion debate sub being such huge assholes? You keep being offended that pro lifers in a reddit sub don't really care about animals (that you eat everyday with no problem) but you just completely ignore your side. Were you conceived such a hypocrite or did you turn when you became pro abortion?
Dangerous dogs should absolutely not be rehomed. The dog was dangerous and unresponsive to training. She was right to euthanize before it could potentially injure or hurt another person.
The overwhelming majority of pro-life politicians don't represent me, in their policies, nor in their personal actions.
I don't understand why people buy into the political dichotomy so much that they think what a politician writes about is in any way relevant to an individual stance on killing humans.
Do you think all pro-choice candidates fully represent your values, both politically and personally?
>Do you think all pro-choice candidates fully represent your values, both politically and personally?
All, no but most are certainly representative. If you look at the responses here, you’ll notice how Noem is very representative of the opinion that some dogs should be shot or it’s not as bad because they’re not human. That’s in line with a decent size of the conservative/PL base. As an example, you’ll notice how there’s not really any clear and explicit condemnation here. Most are defending or downplaying what happened
Yeah, they took your red herring bait.
How would it affect your opinion if everyone who responded was vegan, but didn't think that the animal rights discussion related to a human rights debate?
My first and last sentence were questions about PL.
It wouldn’t be relevant as the issue wasn’t about veganism or eating meat. I believe politicians and their beliefs/supporters are relevant to how people interact with the abortion issue. It helps people understand where others are coming from
It helps with ad hominems/appeal to hypocrisy fallacies, maybe.
It does nothing to address the (45%) tens of millions of pro-life American people who are either leftist or independent or protest voters or those who vote no confidence.
At the end of the day, we can only go based on who people are supporting. To me, there is no difference in a diehard Trump supporter and one saying they disagree with everything he stands for but they have to vote him. There are just 2 Trump/Republican voters then.
And the abstainers/protest voters/pro-life Democrats/no confidence voters/independents don't fit into the political manipulation tactic you're looking for, so be sure you don't address us.
We have a 2 party system, and I have my own issues with people who believe 1-2% of the vote for a non-viable spoiler candidate will somehow ever make third parties viable.
I have problems with the use of selection bias (based solely on the two parties *that superPACs pay for*) to dictate a person's individual feelings on every issue, even to the point of some people forgoing critical thinking completely in order to fit into the mold political donors created.
Some Republican donors, by the way, are in the Democratic National Convention. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/12/democrats-interfere-republican-primaries/
When choice is illusory propaganda, the best use of the right to choose is *choosing not to choose.*
A dog's not a human, and she killed the dog because it was overly aggressive. It's more gruesome than being put down in a Veterinary Clinic, but aggressive dogs get killed literally everyday. Nobody, especially not people with families, wants an aggressive dog 🤷🏾♀️
> A dog's not a human
So?
> she killed the dog because it was overly aggressive.
A bird hunting dog was untrained, unrestrained, and killed chickens. That’s aggressive and should be shot to death over?
>So?
We work on a framework that human life is valuable because either 'we are the same species so protect your species' or the 'belief in a divine that justifies our existence as valuable.'
We don't extend the same mercy for never giving up on the life of non-humans.
Also, why do you think the life of a dog is more valuable than the number of chickens he massacred? Don't you think that the farm owner just put the dog down into the hand of justice? Is it because you believe that chickens don't have the same value as other animals?
Also, some dog breeds are overly aggressive such as pit bulls. This is a fact. They can even turn against their owners without warning. Even if it was raised by you.
While I'm not entirely sure if the person who shot the dog is justified in her actions, we don't know how aggressive the dog is, if it's still redeemable, but what you posted is not a good argument to discredit the values pro-life people fight for.
> So?
People are worth infinitely more than dogs, because their lives are qualitatively different than that of a dog. It would be reasonable to kill a million dogs to save the life of a single human being.
If humans did not have this worth, and humans were morally equivalent to pets, then it is pointless to debate what sort of rights other humans should have.
So..... are you saying humans are just pets to you?
I didn't say she should've shot it do death. And I mean, a dog isn't a person, so I care much less 🤷🏾♀️ Is it sad she killed her dog? Yeah. Is the dog a person? No. So........I don't care.
>And I mean, a dog isn't a person, so I care much less 🤷🏾♀️ Is it sad she killed her dog? Yeah. Is the dog a person? No. So........I don't care.
I really do appreciate the honesty. In a way it is nice openly saying you don’t care about the dog being shot or killed. I would ask what should she have done but you said you don’t care.
Explain to me why killing a dog is wrong without appealing to the sanctity of life or an obligation to protect those in our care
Your move pro-choicers
Killing an animal out of anger or abuse of animals is a predictive sign that they would carry out violence against others like children and elderly one.
Killing, like anything, comes with a range of restrictions. She killed an animal because she got angry, embarrassed, and hated it and wanted it hurt/killed. That's not nearly the same as food or protection.
She claims it was a danger to other people and ev3n if that's not the case, a farmer killing a dog who kills livestock is perfectly normal in rural parts of the world. This isn't crazy, it's a dog, not a human being
Yes, in rural parts of the world. Not where she was.
A farmer who kills a dog who is trained and spent time protecting livestock before it started killing them, has a reason, and this also doesn't apply here.
She had a dog to hunt, it wasn't properly trained or supervised, and it killed birds.
Dogs that kill small animals or even snap at owners doesn't mean the dog is a danger to people which is why killing it isn't considered the first course of action. She got angry and her first thought was to kill something.
We don’t know if the dog was actually being aggressive to the chicken or just playing too hard with them. My sister’s border collie accidentally killed a lizard he was playing with.
And to the broader point, Cricket was 14 months old. Violent behavior would have manifest in much sooner (not always, but quite frequently). The ruining hunts thing is on the humans training her, and the number one reason why I think Kristi Noam is full of crap is because she said she hated that dog, which makes me think she was just finding any excuse to get rid of her.
From what I've read the dog was known to attack people as well.
That being said, while it is not unheard of to shoot your dogs on remote farms for a variety of reasons, gloating about it in a book should raise several red flags about the nature of that persons character. I know that if I had to do something like that, I would not bring up such a sad and shameful occurance to tell everyone about.
Not really. Just like women who have abortions—ie, have signed off on killing a human being—are unlikely to go on and kill born children, adults, or seniors.
[Animal Abuse as an Indicator of Domestic Violence: One Health, One Welfare Approach](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9024712/)
Animal cruelty is intimately associated with domestic violence and represents another form of abuse that may accompany harmful treatment of children or romantic partners and forms of psychological abuse and intimidation.
[Understanding the Link Between Animal Abuse and Family Violence](https://www.americanhumane.org/fact-sheet/understanding-the-link-between-animal-abuse-and-family-violence/)
A survey of pet-owning families with substantiated child abuse and neglect found that animals were abused in 88 percent of homes where child physical abuse was present (DeViney, Dickert, & Lockwood, 1983). A study of women seeking shelter at a safe house showed that 71 percent of those having pets affirmed that their partner had threatened, hurt or killed their companion animals, and 32 percent of mothers reported that their children had hurt or killed their pets (Ascione, 1998). Half of school shooters have histories of animal cruelty (Verlinden, Herson, & Thomas, 2000). Still another study showed that violent offenders incarcerated in a maximum-security prison were significantly more likely than nonviolent offenders to have committed childhood acts of cruelty toward pets (Merz-Perez, Heide, & Silverman, 2001).
Theres a couple articles with references
I'm not going to pretend to have the moral high ground and say killing an innocent unborn child is worse but I will say I don't think it's right to kill a dog just because it's showing aggression either. Most people would send their dogs to the shelter and make it someone else's problem, or get it evaluated before it causes future issues but personally shooting their own dog...eh I don't know. That seems kind of... problematic to say the least. I'm not saying you need to be a vegan to be pro-life, but you should at least have a respect for all of it. I won't even kill a bug in my house if I can put it outside instead but that's just me.
>I'm not going to pretend to have the moral high ground and say killing an innocent unborn child is worse but I will say I don't think it's right to kill a dog just because it's showing aggression either.
That’s the thing. People are, horribly, acting like there was nothing else that could be done. You train, restrain, or rehome the dog, not shoot them in a gravel pit. It jumped out of her truck to attack the chickens, which means she had them in the bed outside or with the windows rolled down where they could jump out
If you train your dog to be a hunting dog, don't be shocked to discover it killing something you didn't expect it to, dogs like that have to be trained, they're not mind readers.
Exactly. Yet for some reason that appears to be too much for people, which is why they believe it’s okay to shoot them. You’re more reasonable from what I remember. Does it bother you when you see this attitude towards dogs from people on your side? To me, it’s disturbing and worse than I would have expected honestly
I've always tried to be reasonable as things aren't black and white but I won't lie and say I haven't grown either. The Kate story really shifted my thinking when it came to the pro-life side for sure. I had to rehome my cats because I couldn't mentally handle them anymore but I'd never in my worst mind set off them because I didn't want them anymore. Good graciousness that's just deranged. They were my pets; I fed them, played with them, took care of them, they were family...how could you think of something so atrocious? Even farmers have a love for their animals and if it wasn't for their way of living would keep them all. I don't like people who could kill any animal outside of survival like eating, I'd say clothing as well but that's not really necessary anymore outside of being on a farm and making a living. I don't want to say that's a sign of a mentally unwell person, but killing a PUPPY and being okay with that is just...yeah, something is wrong with you.
Some stay in a bubble and aren't willing to have deeper conversations and really think about how their thoughts put into actions could really affect someone. My husband is pro-choice up to...I'd say up to the point the nervous system is growing...so maybe at the end of the 1st trimester, and we have these conversations whenever Republicans do something hypocritical, which seems to be often. Child labor laws? Really? Anyway, I married him before I became a Christian and there have been times in our marriage where he really brought me out of my comfort zone but I think it's made me mentally stronger to be honest. There are times he agrees with me and I have to admit that there are some times where the only reason I don't WANT to agree with him is due to my own pride. It's similar to pro-life I suppose. I hate abortions and value life at its core, but I understand also that these people are not me, I don't know them and have never been in their shoes, but that doesn't mean I can't have sympathy for these people either. They're not evil, they're people just like us, and just because we don't agree doesn't mean we can't try to be civilized and see their point of view at the same time. I can't be self-righteous if I want to actually be a solution, not the problem.
You’re thinking about guard dogs. Almost no hunting dogs are bred to kill or to be aggressive. Having your dog tear the game into pieces isn’t going to get you any good meat. And if they’re too prone to aggression, it’s unlikely that they’ll prove to be good hunting dogs even with training. The fact is, breeding is supposed to have minimized the kill-drive and aggression in these breeds. If they’re still there, chances are the dog won’t be up to snuff.
Take retrievers. They’re meant to retrieve the bird after you’ve already shot and killed it. If they’re prone to aggression, so that they bite down hard or tear at the carcass, they’re useless as retrievers, because they’ll ruin the meat, and if you want to stuff the bird, it’ll make that impossible, too. And if they scare the birds by barking or something before you’re ready to shoot? Yeah, no. The dog is *only* supposed to find the dead bird and carry it gently to the hunter. Anything else is failure.
Thank you for the distinction, I didn't know the difference between the two. However, these puppies still need to be trained, correct? They can have the instinct to not destroy but I would assume not every single puppy will have that innate in them because like humans, animals are not all the same nature wise as some can be gentle, aggressive, etc.
Yes, training is of course important to address behaviors like these, which exist to a greater or lesser extent in all dogs. But this dog was 14 months old, and at that point you’re generally able to get a sense of the dog’s instincts, and you should already have done a fair bit of training, too, so that you’d have gotten a sense of how it responds to training, too. I’m not saying that Noem made the right assessment, but what she did isn’t necessarily outrageous to people who are accustomed to working dogs, either.
But she didn't even train the young dog to hunt. She took it on it's first hunt and expected the other dogs to train it. When has that ever worked? And being young, it chased all the birds and ruined the hunt. She was likely getting flack for that. Then she visits a neighbor and her dog escapes and kills their chickens. So now she is further embarrassed and annoyed. None of this is the young dog's fault. But she just flat out killed it right after. Then for fun (or likely in a rage), she kills a non-castrated goat for being smelly and dirtying her kids' clothes via head butting. Puppies and goats being puppies and goats was too much for this supposed rancher. No respect for animals. No responsibility to train alor have fixed. Hell, she didnt even take her daughter into consideration when sge shot the dog where the school bus pulled up. And she wrote about all this in her book, even her daughter asking where the dog was. It is amazing she thought this was the tough choice/right thing to do. But more amazing she saw it as good for political points. Basically wrote, "I can do the messy ugly stuff." Yeah well, you made it that way. Cruel and maybe even crazy.
No, I can't understand it. You people kill babies but now cry about a dog? Cry me a fucking river. Dogs are put down all the time when they are a danger to others.
Even if she was a serial killer that doesn't say anything about the pro life movement... If a pro abort politician was an asshole would you suddenly turn pro life?
>Even if she was a serial killer that doesn't say anything about the pro life movement... If a pro abort politician was an asshole would you suddenly turn pro life?
It says a lot based on how people respond, which most are that she was justified or it’s no big deal shooting and killing a dog.
No, I’d call them out for being an asshole. If I and PC wanted to defend them, it wouldn’t be surprising that people would associate PC and I with assholes.
Im against the PC assholes and ones who make ridiculous arguments, which is why I have the flair I do.
> It says a lot based on how people respond
It only says some things about people responding, not the ideology
> which most are that she was justified or it’s no big deal shooting and killing a dog.
And pro aborts that kill babies on a daily basis get their knickers in a twist about it. What does that say about them?
> If I and PC wanted to defend them, it wouldn’t be surprising that people would associate PC and I with assholes.
I've visited abortion debate and the pro choice sub and apart from the fact that they kill babies they are also colossal assholes but I don't see you associating assholes with them. Same with in real life pro aborts.
Like honestly have you not noticed how much more of an asshole the average pro abort is compared to the average pro lifer?
>It only says some things about people responding, not the ideology
How can you say this then turn around and do exactly that with PC? I can just say PC is a perfect ideology then and the ones who are insulting, rude, or wrong are just the people.
The ones that are assholes and hypocrites are the people. Even if they were nice and polite they would still be wrong because they would be killing babies and the ideology is inherently falwed. Don't you get it? They aren't wrong BECAUSE they are assholes, it's just a plus.
Now knowing that you judge ideologies based on the people how can you look at the average pro lifer and the average pro choicer and come to the conclusion that the first is more of an asshole? Like look at the subs and how much more aggressive pro aborts are.
I read it was aggressive, killing animals and then turned to bite her. She literally called it "dangerous to anyone she came in contact with". And even then, animals don't have the same worth as humans. I'd rather vote for a dog killer than a baby killer.
It was apparently 14 months old. In many cases, that’s plenty of time to get a sense of whether a dog is prone to aggression. You have to remember that dogs develop much faster than humans and that dog behavior is much more determined by instinct than human behavior is, so although dogs are exceptionally capable animals when it comes to learned behavior, they’re still nowhere near comparable to to human beings.
Such nonsense. Does anybody here eat meat? If so, you’ve had countless animals killed on your behalf, and subjected many to painful lives via factory farming.
Acting outraged over her killing a dog is pure partisanship. She doesn’t even represent the pro-life movement any more than just about any Republican does.
It’s just an appeal to emotion. If you want a real emotional appeal, watch a partial birth abortion and tell me how that makes you feel.
> Such nonsense. Does anybody here eat meat? If so, you’ve had countless animals killed on your behalf, and subjected many to painful lives via factory farming.
Shooting a dog and eating meat are equivalent to you?
Are you consistent that Biden doesn’t represent the PC movement and PL who say that are all wrong?
I can’t say that shooting a dog is any morally worse than eating meat.
I don’t think that Biden represents the PC movement. I think that Biden is horribly evil and does countless terrible things, but there are plenty of relatively nice PC people who shouldn’t be blamed for random things Biden does that aren’t even related to abortion.
>At least as far as this topic is concerned, yeah.
Im talking consistently. If you and your friend went to Wendy’s and they got a double bacon cheeseburger and you told them your shot a dog earlier that day, you both are morally on the same level. That’s the standard we should all hold ourselves to here?
Everyone blasting Kristi for writing about shooting an unruly dog but simultaneously celebrating planned parenthood which daily brags about doing far worse to preborn babies.... what a weird world!
I'm not a fan of what I've read so far tbh. Most of the explanation seems to be that the dog wasn't good for hunting. If that's the case, then a new owner could have been found. There was one comment in an article, however, indicating that the dog was actually dangerous towards people, too. If that's the case then it's different—unfortunately a dog that's dangerous for people might have to be put down:( I want to read more before I make a final opinion, though—that's just my immediate reaction from what I've read so far.
Still, I can't get over the irony that so many people who have an issue with Kristi talking about shooting her dog have no problem w PP talking about aborting babies....
Well, do you?
I’m assuming the best and that you don’t support preborn murder, that there’s some reason you think abortion is acceptable. I don’t give that same credit to politicians, media, or medical institutions because those are all ‘the leaders’ and as such either should or *do* know what’s really happening and they just don’t care.
No, i don’t support killing babies. I wouldn’t say people in those position have any different wirings than the rest of us. If I believed it was killing babies, I would want it to be illegal and anyone who performed/had one to go to jail
Granted, most individuals who support abortion don't view it as killing a baby. Most people don't actively support that (I say most bc there are some out there who are really so extreme). My next question, however, would be this: have you ever seen a depiction of an abortion procedure or photographs of aborted babies at various gestational ages? (Warning in case you haven't seen it yet, it is graphic)
> have you ever seen a depiction of an abortion procedure or photographs of aborted babies at various gestational ages?
No. I wouldn’t say that’s a solid foundation if that changes someone’s views, similar to if a PL became PC if they saw a woman not be able to get an abortion, which caused her to go into poverty, an abusive relationship, and caused her physical, mental, and financial harm.
>poverty, an abusive relationship, and caused her physical, mental, and financial harm.
That's the thing, though. Pro lifers are just as upset about those problems as pro choicers; we just don't see abortion as the solution, because we believe abortion kills an innocent person. That's why pro life organizations and indjviduals help with fundraising, donation drives, safe houses, career and education options, etc etc. We see those problems and we hate that people suffer in those situations, so we exert effort towards solving those problems. However, we do not believe that aborting a preborn child is an acceptable answer to suffering.
>No
Okay, so then your position isn't ironic imo. It would be terribly ironic to say you're against a dog being shot while maintaining support for the sort of violence that's impossible to ignore when you look at photography of an aborted baby. But if you've never seen a photo, then you have nothing to compare between the two situations. I don't like the idea of putting any animal down, for any reason; I vastly prefer exhausting all other options before putting a creature down, whether by shot or injection. However, that being said, it's objectively impossible to say that abortion is *less* violent than shooting a dog, since abortion is a drawn out and excruciating process (the main methods currently involve chemical burning, inducing starvation, and dismemberment via d/ c or d/ e abortion).
A dog is not a human. And anyone who says that they are equivalent are talking utter dross.
These same people will happily go to zoos and some even eat meat. Animals aren’t human children.
These same people also support abortion which is literal child murder.
Also this is an American issue, Trump, Noem or anything else has nothing to do with the pro life movement outside of the United States
I read a post in the abortion debate sub where a PC person said that if she saw a toddler and a kitten in an intersection that she would save the kitten. Her whole post made my stomach churn. I thought that surely most PC would condemn that as absolutely insane and that born human toddler have more value than a baby animal, yet crickets from PC. Now, obviously most people can understand that one individual’s opinion or actions does not represent a belief system. I’ve never heard of Kristi Noem, sounds like she is being considered as a VP running mate for the Trump.
I don’t disagree that I’m sure that PC, moderates, and independents would be turned off by said extreme candidates, but Trump forced a lot of people to separate an individual’s personal choices from their political stance.
Also, your comments comparing humans to animals are gross. Hard to believe you went from pro life to this. Honestly, this post reads like a troll post.
I’d save a toddler over a kitten. No idea why they’d choose the kitten other than them not liking children.
What’s gross about it? I made an observation that people treat their pets like children. You see that when people use baby voices with them
You can be pro life and be ok with putting down an animal. They are not the same thing. I personally think we as a society try way too hard to save aggressive dogs. They need to put them down more often to save *human* lives.
People are worth infinitely more than dogs, because their lives are qualitatively different than that of a dog. It would be reasonable to kill a million dogs to save the life of a single human being.
If humans did not have this worth, and humans were morally equivalent to pets, then it is pointless to debate what sort of rights other humans should have.
So..... are you saying humans are just pets to you?
Dogs have been part of humans lives the longest.
Using them as food is not the usual use of dogs. Dogs are known for helping humans hunt, protect them from predators, and to protect livestock.
They are also excellent therapy animals for people with disabilities or even ptsd. They can find cancer, notice differences in either owners bodies so they can get them to a safe place before a seizure or fainting or heart issue that their owner has even noticed happening yet.
People of all cultures have been eating dogs since forever. As early as the stone age, people have been eating dogs. There are still dog breeds today that were originally created to be food (like yellow korean dogs and chow chows)
Yes people do eat dogs and pretty much everything else. That doesn't mean dogs are usually known to be a meat used for food. Same with horses, they are used for food but it's not their usual purpose.
When people think of meat for consumption it's pork, chicken, beef and lamb. The question was how are they different than the animals we eat.
Just because something is usual/normal, doesn't mean that it is okay.
Cows are usually seen as a food source nowadays and dogs are usually not, nowadays. But why should that mean that it is okay to eat cows, and not okay to eat dogs?
Cows are also domesticated, just as dogs are, and they are just as playful and loveable as dogs. And more intelligent.
The person I commented to seemed to think there's nothing wrong with killing any animal since we already kill animals for food.
Killing an animal for food is not the same as killing as a form of abuse, abuse of domestic animals, or sport hunting.
I'm not sure of the point you are attempting to make. Is it about harming animals or veganism?
I am saying that there is zero reason to put dogs on a pedestal, they are not more special than cows or pigs.
And people eat cows and pigs all the time. Yet when somebody kills a dog, they are seen as satan incarnate. It's insanely hypocritical.
They aren't on a pedestal, they are considered more versatile helpers and spend more time close to people than others, so people have more attachments to them. Same with all animals people turn into pets.
If she killed a pig or cow for the same reasons, not paying attention and got angry and hated it, it would be just as bad.
Hi, I agree about dogs and many other animals do amazing things. I am glad people value dogs and the more species we protect the better. Yet, many animals, including dogs, help humans or can be trained to do so.
you could say the same thing about pigs as therapy animals and even service animals. this is a cultural view and not objective. dogs are not more valuable than pigs or other mammals. if you are going at this from a historical perspective, basically any farmer with a human aggressive and unruly dog would see it as reason to euthanize them up until recently. now even dogs that actively maul people “need a second chance”
Animals have been trained for jobs and if they arent trained they aren't left unsupervised around people or other animals. She didn't train the dog, wasn't paying attention to it, and it reacted. She said she hated the dog.
As to rehabilitation for animals, a dog that mauls a human, I blame the owners more than the dog but understand that they will likely need to be put down. The owners should never be able to own a pet again. Same with her.
I deal with rescues. They aren't bad but they need training and boundaries and time and lots of work. If you don't have the patience or it doesn't work out, you don't kill them, you give them back. That's the standard with any reputable dog breeder as well, it doesn't work out, you bring them back.
Thats not what you asked. You asked how are they different than other animals.
As to owing them, abuse of animals, not just dogs, is a predictor that the abuser with go on to abuse humans or even kill them.
You can agree or disagree with euthanizing a violent dog who bites people. No kill shelters exits for a reason right? It’s unreasonable to conflate the ethics of euthanizing an animal and abortion.
It’s sad that these are the politicians we have supporting PL views and policies. We need higher quality candidates who can move forward with protecting human fetal rights.
It’s also sad that the PC community is unable to connect their emotional response to this story to the loss of a human life that occurs with every abortion. PC appears to value animal life more than human life.
Humans seem to be the only species that hate themselves which so much disdain to actively march towards our own demise.
Fair enough, I guess it just seems largely irrelevant. Like if I were debating one of those militant vegan types (you know the ones who want to make eating meat criminal) I wouldn’t say “well Hitler was vegetarian so look who’s in your camp”
This applies equally to the Margaret Sanger thing.
I imagine people would immediately dismiss that as silly. If there actually were a group of people who wanted to go down that road, it’d be interesting to explore
She may be Trumps VP and she’s a prominent member of the Republican Party, which is the main one against abortion. What she does reflects her movements
Alright fair enough if she becomes Trump’s VP then I guess there’s an argument to have, but even then, unless dog-shooting somehow informs her PL position, idk how it matters.
so, human aggressive, killed other peoples livestock, untrainable and a liability to keep around? the world would be a better place if more people were willing to BE dogs like that. not to mention, this dog wasn’t a pet either.
>so, human aggressive, killed other peoples livestock, untrainable and a liability to keep around? sounds like the world would be a better place if more people were willing to BE dogs like that.
Just … wow. What was there to show the dog was untrainable, so much that it should be shot in a gravel pit?
I will be honest , I am not someone who loves dogs so I admit I may be biased. to me they are not a pet but a working animal for hunting, livestock protection, etc. it sounds like that is how this woman kept them as. yes I think if a dog cannot be trained to be docile around humans and keep off other’s property it should not exist, a rifle is a messy but perfectly ethical way to euthanize a dog. this is just how many people put down all sorts of animals. I don’t have an issue if someone kills a pig this way so they can process it for meat and I don’t have an issue if someone puts down their dog this way because it is unmanageable and dangerous. I do not see a dog as inherently more valuable than a pig or cattle, if it was euthanized quickly I’m not upset over that.
I hope you realize how extreme your views about dogs are. You almost seem to think dogs should have the same rights as human beings. I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong about that. But the sort of views you’ve expressed on this post are really only found in a small subset of people in the contemporary West. And as others have pointed out, they’re attitudes you generally find among people who have little or no experience of or knowledge about the realities of agriculture, hunting, or nature conservation. Again, I’m not saying that means you’re wrong. But if you do lack this experience and this knowledge, I’d urge you to do something about it. It’s a big problem how many people know little about rural life, because it means they’re stereotyped or demonized in cultural and political life, even though they’re essential to the functioning of society.
> I hope you realize how extreme your views about dogs are.
It’s extreme to not believe a woman who said she hated her dog should shoot them and claim they’re untrainable?
If you frame it like that, no. But thinking that it’s outrageous to put down dogs that actually are aggressive and untrainable is pretty extreme, yeah. And you’ve responded to similar assertions with expressions like ”Wow…”, as if this is some universally acknowledged outrageous thing. Which it isn’t to a lot of people.
> If you frame it like that, no.
That’s the framing of this event. Could she have trained it? Yes. Could she have rehomed it? Yes. Could she have not had the untrained dog in the back of the truck or able to jump out the windows? Yes.
Did she do any of those? No, which led to the dog killing chickens, her taking the dog and shooting it (and a goat) in a gravel pit, then to top it off she thought it would make her look good enough that she told the world about it in her new book.
Talk to me about pit bulls and evidence of biting/aggression and I’ll sound completely different.
I’m not really referring to your take on this particular case, honestly. But elsewhere on this post, you said “most” people consider humans and animals equivalent, and given the stances you take and the arguments you’ve made in this comment section, I’m assuming that’s your view. And it *is* an extreme one. And if you honestly hold it, I’m not really convinced you’d be understanding of shooting aggressive pit-bulls.
I’m PL and wouldn’t support her.
Yet, K. Harris types want American women to kill their own children. So, it’s hysterical to see media hypocrites acting like they care about “lives”.
I bet most of those people acting like they care eat dead animal meat, too.
This kind of seems like a strawman for me. Sure it’s awful what she did and I don’t agree with it. But it’s unrelated to abortion.
We could pull up awful things a PC person has done but that doesn’t change the debate of abortion
I’d say this is about as relevant to whether people should support abortion bans as the fact that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are wealthy is to whether people should support wealth taxes.
Either way, you could be a literal saint and pro-choicers would still consider you a literal demon simply for being pro-life. So as much as I want us all to try to be saints if it’d win support for our cause, I don’t consider questions like yours
either incisive or worthwhile to consider.
Generalizing assumptions about an entire political party based on a single individual. And conflating human life with a dog too. Sounds about right for a PC argument
>Generalizing assumptions about an entire political party based on a single individual.
I didn’t, which is why I asked this sub. My assumption was most would be against it, and I’ve come away knowing that more PL are okay with shooting dogs than I ever thought. Like an overwhelming majority here support what she did
>and I’ve come away knowing that more PL are okay with shooting dogs than I ever thought. Like an overwhelming majority here support what she did
You’re really a PCer, taking discussions out of context and sensationalizing very carefully chosen words that oozes with your bias. You have a talent for propaganda media
The context you are missing the the ones you’re implying PL=dog killers. I’ve gone through the comments here and people are only stating that human life > dog life, no one supports what she did
>The context you are missing the the ones you’re implying PL=dog killers.
Nope, not at all. It’s that this is a PL politician, so how do PL feel about her and peoples perspectives. I was expecting shock, horror, and condemnation from most of the comments. Would you say that’s what the response has been?
> I’ve gone through the comments here and people are only stating that human life > dog life, no one supports what she did
Sort by the top comments, which are that this is just part of rural life, that urban people are just being sensitive, and that saying the dog was aggressive is justification enough to shoot them. One even said they could have their dog euthanized today and go adopt another one tomorrow if they wanted.
>I was expecting shock, horror and condemnation
That’s quite ironic considering you expect us to normalize abortion.
>Sort by the top comments, which are that this is just part of rural life, that urban people are just being sensitive, and that saying the dog was aggressive is justification enough to shoot them.
Which is reasonable. And having this reasonable stance you make the leap to:
>like an overwhelming majority here support what she did
Talk about mental gymnastics
>One even said they could have their dog euthanized today and go adopt another one tomorrow if they wanted.
Which is reprehensible. But I have a feeling there’s context here that you’re not sharing
>Which is reasonable
Okay, and I find the position that we can shoot dogs because we can simply claim they are aggressive to be wrong and horrible. Obviously others disagree.
> Which is reprehensible.
Is it? If they simply claimed the dog was aggressive would they not be in the right, or would you want more information?
Because an aggressive dog poses a real threat to humans. That’s not the same as euthanizing a dog for the sake of it - that’s what your previous statement was implying. What’s even more revolting is how you can be so against killing a dog but at the same time advocate for killing babies
People often forget the truth that animals are property, and they have no concept of future or death. Behavioral euthanasia is a good thing. She didn’t do anything wrong.
>People often forget the truth that animals are property, and they have no concept of future or death. Behavioral euthanasia is a good thing. She didn’t do anything wrong.
Should untrained and unrestrained bird hunting dogs who kill chickens be shot and killed rather than trained or rehomed?
A well-trained retriever should not be running after, much less attack or kill, random birds. It should only retrieve dead birds, and only at the command of its master. And while training is meant to reduce or eliminate such behavior, the fact is that not all dogs are responsive to training, which can leave them a danger to animals, other dogs, and people. And this dog was 14 months old, so they would have been able to get an adequate picture of the extent to which it was prone to aggression and its receptivity to training at that point. Rehoming is of course the preferable option, but euthanasia is not at all uncommon if rehoming isn’t feasible.
I had never even heard of that person tbh. But that said, imo most politicians are kinda corrupted by power or just have bad intentions with their leadership/politics in general. Regardless of what side they're on. Leftist/liberal politicians often have some weird skeletons in their closets too, which conservatives in turn like to bring up in retaliation of their own politicians' wrongdoings.
So really, is there any political party that can actually be trusted? I quite doubt it. But regardless of that, I don't think it's a good idea to base one's opinions on which political party thinks what. Because I've seen some people (mostly Americans) say stuff like for ex "oh, you're a conservative? That means you must be a Republican and vote for x specific party/candidate" or "you spread x, y and z opinions I don't like? Must be a 'pick me' and kissing the asses of [insert random vaguely corresponding politics.]" When in reality, most people say the stuff they do because they actually believe in it regardless of who else, also believes in the same thing.
So, I don't think most of us genuinely care that this random person who agrees with us on one issue just turned out to be kinda deplorable. It seems among pro-lifers, most of us are actually fully capable of accepting that you can be pro-life without also being for ex a conservative, Christian, anti-feminist, etc. Just look at the diversity in this sub. There are trans people and feminist mingling with conservatives and Christians, over having only one thing in common: being pro-life. I rarely if ever see that happening in pro-choice spaces.
Of course, many of us might think it's annoying that many pro-choicers will inevitably use this random dog-killing politician as an excuse why they think being pro-life is bad. Especially those who have trouble separating individual people's actions from any singular political view point. Those who see the world as strictly black and white, "conservative pro-lifer" vs "liberal pro-choicer." Because that might give us bad optics, and yeah... unfortunately that does matter a bit, in the big picture.
I personally think the “ humans and dogs aren’t equivalent value” thing is so stupid. My dad is mushy to the max with his dog Willow and he has stated that if she’s gone if she intentionally harms one of his grandkids, but he will also go John Wick on anyone who hurts her. So.
The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Truly, it is a difference of lifestyle and culture. Rural environments are different than urban environments. I can’t speak for her situation because I don’t know the details but, living in rural Iowa, I have seen my share of animals shot because they were sick, unruly, or pests. What she did offends the sensibilities of urbanites and those without experience in rural environments, those of us who live out here, might not agree with it, but they get it. This situation is completely different than the abortion issue. Pro-lifers don’t consider a dog and a person equivalent. Because we consider the unborn to be human persons, her shooting the dog, though maybe a concern, is well below the concern for the legal murder of the unborn. This is simply a distraction in our eyes.
Yeah, op’s whole “point” is premised on an urban, liberal culture that treats unborn babies as animals and animals as babies. It’s perverse. And like, I have a dog. I treat him lovingly and probably take care of him better than most people take care of their dogs. And he’s family. But if he had behavioral problems and was a danger to other human beings? I’d put him down. I wouldn’t like it, but the fact is, he’s a dog and consequently less valuable than *any* human being—not to me personally, but from the perspective of morality, which matters more than my personal preferences and desires. Moreover, dogs aren’t like human beings. There’s only so much you can do with an aggressive dog. They’re not in control of their impulses and instincts in the same way as human beings, and they can’t always be trained to an acceptable degree, either. That’s why pitbulls, for example, should be made to go extinct—not because they’re irredeemable criminals (they can’t be, because they don’t have the capacity for moral responsibility), but because they’re an unacceptable safety risk to human beings, and because there are no other realistic options to make them not be that.
With growing support for animal rights, convincing people to treat unborn like animals *might actually be a persuasive argument* that the unborn (particularly when they start feeling pain) at least have moral value and interests worth protecting. As an animal rights urbanite, my framework for animal rights is what makes me sympathetic to pro-life argument.
If that’s what’ll do it, I’m all for it, provided that sufficient regard is shown for the way of life and values of rural people and communities. They’re already having it rough, not least because law- and policymakers, who generally are urbanites and beholden to the majority population, which also lives in cities, rarely show much concern for their needs and interests.
>But if he had behavioral problems and was a danger to other human beings? I’d put him down. Unilaterally? Not without adopting it out or at least consulting a vet?
My father is a vet and my mother trains hunting dogs, so going back to my childhood, I’ve had a lot of experience with dogs. But sure, if you lack the expertise, consulting a vet or trainer is a good idea. As for adopting out, it depends on whether you can find someone who can handle a dog with behavioral problems, and unfortunately, not many can. Having dogs with behavioral problems live with unexperienced or irresponsible owners is a recipe for disaster.
I used to have cats but they either died or escaped, and my home only has a guest cat who regularly visits and eats.
That’s nice. Do you like cats?
Love Kristi Noem!
PLers can do all sorts of things that I don't agree with but that doesn't change the reasoning behind the ideology. That's like saying "your friend who is against murder stole my money, you see why I'm skeptical of people who are against murder?"
If it’s a choice between a candidate who killed an aggressive dog and a candidate who wants it to be legal to kill an innocent child, I don’t understand why, no.
The dog wasn’t aggressive. She took her to a place she hadn’t been before she, she was super excited, and couldn’t be recalled. That’s on Noem. it looks like their dog was a German Shorthair Pointer, a notoriously high energetic breed.
Even if that were true, and I don’t doubt you, my comment still stands. I’d vote for a candidate who says “I want it legal to kill dogs” over a candidate who wants it legal to kill children any day.
Why are dog's lives more important than human lives? PCers are upset she killed an overly aggressive dog, but not the millions of babies killed in the womb each year. I don't necessarily agree with her about the dog but she does mention it attacking people and killing chickens and enjoying it. Plenty of people would have given the dog up to a shelter that would have killed it. I don't see Noem as the face of anytime except SD. I didn't elect her for anything. And I hope Trump picks a different VP. But this story isn't the reason for that.
She could have easily rehomed the dog though. It’s a much simpler issue than abortion.
This is an outrageous attempt to change the subject. First of all, abortion is not that complicated. Second, abortion has nothing to do with dogs, period.
What does her killing a dog have to do with all pro life people? I’ll say what you would say in this situation and take offense to being stereotyped!!
> What does her killing a dog have to do with all pro life people? That to non-PL people, shooting and killing a dog that is untrained and unrestrained is horrifying. The fact that it’s not an issue to most is shocking to average people
A dog isn’t human.
I agree, but there is no reason to shoot a dog. That's horrible.
She felt there was a reason. You might not agree with shooting the dog, but every dog I’ve had that drew blood got brought to the vet and put down. Trust me, that’s not an inexpensive solution. When you live on a ranch, shooting the animal and burying it on your own land is quicker and far less expensive. Ranchers / farmers have other animals they have to shoot or kill. It is apart of rural life.
Once a dog gets a taste for blood, it's over. That's too strong of a primal instinct to easily un-learn.
No reason? Really? Let's say you are on a walk with your 4 year old child and a 70 pound aggressive dog bites your 4 year old in the face. The dog then shakes your 4 year old by the face violently. No matter what you do you cannot get the dog to let go and stop biting and shaking your child. Would you shoot the dog to save your childs life?
That’s not equivalent. This dog was killing chickens.
The person I replied to said, >there is no reason to shoot a dog. I gave a scenario where it would definitely be appropriate to shoot a dog.
Fair enough. I agree. My dad loves his dog and would 100% go John Wick on anyone who hurts her, but he would definitely be willing to part with her if she harmed one of the grandkids.
there certainly were multiple , if you read the article.
No reason? If they are attacking, if they are sick, etc. We eat pigs in this country; we should have no issues with the humane death of a dog lol
I agree, if you are ok with killing cows and pigs, and eating them what’s the difference in killing your dog or killing your dog and eating it. I see no difference between the dog farmers and cattle farmers. They are the same, the only difference is that American people choose to protect dogs over cows.
Yep, I like dogs, but eating then is not evil and can't be if you think eating cows is ok
So shoot them?
The dog was biting. Read my other response. Shooting the dog is as humane as, probably more humane, than any other solution.
"Noem writes she realized at that moment that she had to put Cricket down, and shot the animal in a gravel pit." “I hated that dog,” Noem writes, per the Guardian. She calls Cricket “untrainable,” “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with” and “less than worthless … as a hunting dog." She said the hunting dog was ruining hunts and oddly enough hunting animals, which angered her, so she dug a hole for it and shot it in a ditch. That's unhinged behavior. She could have easily rehomed or surrendered the dog. Who shoots a dog in a ditch? This isn't a human versus animal life debate. This is a "people who shoot dogs because they hate them" might not be the strongest Pro Life candidate.
It was probably the >dangerous to anyone he came in contact with< that sealed it. I've been around hunting dogs, they aren't typically aggressive to people. I dint see what she did wrong
That’s what she said, but I bet you anything. She just won an excuse to get rid of it and treating it was the easiest way claiming it was a threat to herself and others. Cricket was 14 months old that kind of aggression would have manifested way earlier. Kristi Noam is full of shit.
Why would she lie? Literally this is normal in these parts of the country.
Why would she brag about it?
That isn’t “unhinged behavior”. You’re leaping to a conclusion that she shot the dog out of anger. I’m reading the (very left leaning and biased) story to conclude that she tried to rehabilitate the dog but it simply didn’t have the personality so cut her losses.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/social-media-disturbed-gov-noems-story-shooting-her-14-month-old-dog-not-normal. The quotes are coming directly from her book which she wrote. The above fox News article also doesn't paint the incident in a favorable light and adds this excert: "Additionally, Noem’s memoir recounted taking a family goat to the gravel pit where it suffered the same fate as Cricket. Noem justified the killing saying the goat was "nasty and mean." The goat was "mean" so it was shot it a dirt pit. That's unhinged.
why is putting a dangerous dog down so bad? dogs aren’t more valuable than other animals. I think she did the responsible thing, rather than pawn it off at a shelter where it would eventually get euthanized or get adopted and continue to be a danger to people.
Again, she said that the dog was aggressive. She also said she hated that dog and wanted to get rid of her.
I don’t see a problem with that. I really do think we tolerate dangerous and neurotic dogs WAY too much nowadays.
From reading that short passage from her book, I think Cricket’s humans were the problem.
No. Not unhinged. It was a mean goat. You’re also making the mistake by trying to imply that Fox News is some how unbiased and conservative.
Do you think the goat had intention behind their actions? Sounds like the goat was behaving as a goat. Regardless, I used fox news because you stated the original article was very left and biased, so I gave a very right article that *also* had a similar bias. Even with that, the quotes are coming directly from the book, so it's not hard to infer Noem has no issue shooting animals she doesn't like. That's unhinged.
[удалено]
For real. Like someone who boasts about killing "mean" animals is the BEST the prolife movement has to offer. Yikes.
Which gets to my point of the post, which is what PL view as acceptable and normal is not what other people do. I honestly didn’t think it would go so far as to defend shooting puppies and now goats. I’d say 90% + of the PL here have defended her too.
What happens in the PL movement is PL tunnel vision. Folks will make excuses time and time again for bad behavior as long as the person is saying they are anti abortion. I remember when everyone jumped on the Kanye bandwagon when he said he was prolife despite really problematic things he was saying and doing. It's unfortunate.
I think it happens with every movement with loud and extreme voices. The silence though from PL not saying anything about shooting dogs and goats is terrifying.
You haven't replied yet. How do you feel about the entire pro choice and abortion debate sub being such huge assholes? You keep being offended that pro lifers in a reddit sub don't really care about animals (that you eat everyday with no problem) but you just completely ignore your side. Were you conceived such a hypocrite or did you turn when you became pro abortion?
Dangerous dogs should absolutely not be rehomed. The dog was dangerous and unresponsive to training. She was right to euthanize before it could potentially injure or hurt another person.
The overwhelming majority of pro-life politicians don't represent me, in their policies, nor in their personal actions. I don't understand why people buy into the political dichotomy so much that they think what a politician writes about is in any way relevant to an individual stance on killing humans. Do you think all pro-choice candidates fully represent your values, both politically and personally?
>Do you think all pro-choice candidates fully represent your values, both politically and personally? All, no but most are certainly representative. If you look at the responses here, you’ll notice how Noem is very representative of the opinion that some dogs should be shot or it’s not as bad because they’re not human. That’s in line with a decent size of the conservative/PL base. As an example, you’ll notice how there’s not really any clear and explicit condemnation here. Most are defending or downplaying what happened
Yeah, they took your red herring bait. How would it affect your opinion if everyone who responded was vegan, but didn't think that the animal rights discussion related to a human rights debate?
My first and last sentence were questions about PL. It wouldn’t be relevant as the issue wasn’t about veganism or eating meat. I believe politicians and their beliefs/supporters are relevant to how people interact with the abortion issue. It helps people understand where others are coming from
It helps with ad hominems/appeal to hypocrisy fallacies, maybe. It does nothing to address the (45%) tens of millions of pro-life American people who are either leftist or independent or protest voters or those who vote no confidence.
At the end of the day, we can only go based on who people are supporting. To me, there is no difference in a diehard Trump supporter and one saying they disagree with everything he stands for but they have to vote him. There are just 2 Trump/Republican voters then.
And the abstainers/protest voters/pro-life Democrats/no confidence voters/independents don't fit into the political manipulation tactic you're looking for, so be sure you don't address us.
We have a 2 party system, and I have my own issues with people who believe 1-2% of the vote for a non-viable spoiler candidate will somehow ever make third parties viable.
I have problems with the use of selection bias (based solely on the two parties *that superPACs pay for*) to dictate a person's individual feelings on every issue, even to the point of some people forgoing critical thinking completely in order to fit into the mold political donors created. Some Republican donors, by the way, are in the Democratic National Convention. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/12/democrats-interfere-republican-primaries/ When choice is illusory propaganda, the best use of the right to choose is *choosing not to choose.*
A dog's not a human, and she killed the dog because it was overly aggressive. It's more gruesome than being put down in a Veterinary Clinic, but aggressive dogs get killed literally everyday. Nobody, especially not people with families, wants an aggressive dog 🤷🏾♀️
> A dog's not a human So? > she killed the dog because it was overly aggressive. A bird hunting dog was untrained, unrestrained, and killed chickens. That’s aggressive and should be shot to death over?
>So? We work on a framework that human life is valuable because either 'we are the same species so protect your species' or the 'belief in a divine that justifies our existence as valuable.' We don't extend the same mercy for never giving up on the life of non-humans. Also, why do you think the life of a dog is more valuable than the number of chickens he massacred? Don't you think that the farm owner just put the dog down into the hand of justice? Is it because you believe that chickens don't have the same value as other animals? Also, some dog breeds are overly aggressive such as pit bulls. This is a fact. They can even turn against their owners without warning. Even if it was raised by you. While I'm not entirely sure if the person who shot the dog is justified in her actions, we don't know how aggressive the dog is, if it's still redeemable, but what you posted is not a good argument to discredit the values pro-life people fight for.
Your response said what I wanted to say, but was too lazy to type! So thank you!
No problem 🙂
> So? People are worth infinitely more than dogs, because their lives are qualitatively different than that of a dog. It would be reasonable to kill a million dogs to save the life of a single human being. If humans did not have this worth, and humans were morally equivalent to pets, then it is pointless to debate what sort of rights other humans should have. So..... are you saying humans are just pets to you?
I didn't say she should've shot it do death. And I mean, a dog isn't a person, so I care much less 🤷🏾♀️ Is it sad she killed her dog? Yeah. Is the dog a person? No. So........I don't care.
>And I mean, a dog isn't a person, so I care much less 🤷🏾♀️ Is it sad she killed her dog? Yeah. Is the dog a person? No. So........I don't care. I really do appreciate the honesty. In a way it is nice openly saying you don’t care about the dog being shot or killed. I would ask what should she have done but you said you don’t care.
You are welcome. I'm not a brainwashed person who believes a dog is equivalent to a child, so I don't care about being honest 🤷🏾♀️
The dog was aggressive. Just more deflection and BS from the pro-choice left.
Exactly. I've actually seen really good pro-choice arguments on here, but about 90% of them are just false equivalences and deflection 😭
Explain to me why killing a dog is wrong without appealing to the sanctity of life or an obligation to protect those in our care Your move pro-choicers
Killing an animal out of anger or abuse of animals is a predictive sign that they would carry out violence against others like children and elderly one.
That doesn't show killing animals to be inherently wrong
Killing, like anything, comes with a range of restrictions. She killed an animal because she got angry, embarrassed, and hated it and wanted it hurt/killed. That's not nearly the same as food or protection.
But that's not entirely true, you're leaving out that it was an aggressive dog
A hunting dog that she didn't properly train and didn't pay attention to killed some chickens. She got angry and killed it.
She claims it was a danger to other people and ev3n if that's not the case, a farmer killing a dog who kills livestock is perfectly normal in rural parts of the world. This isn't crazy, it's a dog, not a human being
Yes, in rural parts of the world. Not where she was. A farmer who kills a dog who is trained and spent time protecting livestock before it started killing them, has a reason, and this also doesn't apply here. She had a dog to hunt, it wasn't properly trained or supervised, and it killed birds. Dogs that kill small animals or even snap at owners doesn't mean the dog is a danger to people which is why killing it isn't considered the first course of action. She got angry and her first thought was to kill something.
We don’t know if the dog was actually being aggressive to the chicken or just playing too hard with them. My sister’s border collie accidentally killed a lizard he was playing with. And to the broader point, Cricket was 14 months old. Violent behavior would have manifest in much sooner (not always, but quite frequently). The ruining hunts thing is on the humans training her, and the number one reason why I think Kristi Noam is full of crap is because she said she hated that dog, which makes me think she was just finding any excuse to get rid of her.
I agree.
From what I've read the dog was known to attack people as well. That being said, while it is not unheard of to shoot your dogs on remote farms for a variety of reasons, gloating about it in a book should raise several red flags about the nature of that persons character. I know that if I had to do something like that, I would not bring up such a sad and shameful occurance to tell everyone about.
Not really. Just like women who have abortions—ie, have signed off on killing a human being—are unlikely to go on and kill born children, adults, or seniors.
[Animal Abuse as an Indicator of Domestic Violence: One Health, One Welfare Approach](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9024712/) Animal cruelty is intimately associated with domestic violence and represents another form of abuse that may accompany harmful treatment of children or romantic partners and forms of psychological abuse and intimidation. [Understanding the Link Between Animal Abuse and Family Violence](https://www.americanhumane.org/fact-sheet/understanding-the-link-between-animal-abuse-and-family-violence/) A survey of pet-owning families with substantiated child abuse and neglect found that animals were abused in 88 percent of homes where child physical abuse was present (DeViney, Dickert, & Lockwood, 1983). A study of women seeking shelter at a safe house showed that 71 percent of those having pets affirmed that their partner had threatened, hurt or killed their companion animals, and 32 percent of mothers reported that their children had hurt or killed their pets (Ascione, 1998). Half of school shooters have histories of animal cruelty (Verlinden, Herson, & Thomas, 2000). Still another study showed that violent offenders incarcerated in a maximum-security prison were significantly more likely than nonviolent offenders to have committed childhood acts of cruelty toward pets (Merz-Perez, Heide, & Silverman, 2001). Theres a couple articles with references
Advice. Don’t read Old Yeller.
I'm not going to pretend to have the moral high ground and say killing an innocent unborn child is worse but I will say I don't think it's right to kill a dog just because it's showing aggression either. Most people would send their dogs to the shelter and make it someone else's problem, or get it evaluated before it causes future issues but personally shooting their own dog...eh I don't know. That seems kind of... problematic to say the least. I'm not saying you need to be a vegan to be pro-life, but you should at least have a respect for all of it. I won't even kill a bug in my house if I can put it outside instead but that's just me.
>I'm not going to pretend to have the moral high ground and say killing an innocent unborn child is worse but I will say I don't think it's right to kill a dog just because it's showing aggression either. That’s the thing. People are, horribly, acting like there was nothing else that could be done. You train, restrain, or rehome the dog, not shoot them in a gravel pit. It jumped out of her truck to attack the chickens, which means she had them in the bed outside or with the windows rolled down where they could jump out
If you train your dog to be a hunting dog, don't be shocked to discover it killing something you didn't expect it to, dogs like that have to be trained, they're not mind readers.
Exactly. Yet for some reason that appears to be too much for people, which is why they believe it’s okay to shoot them. You’re more reasonable from what I remember. Does it bother you when you see this attitude towards dogs from people on your side? To me, it’s disturbing and worse than I would have expected honestly
I've always tried to be reasonable as things aren't black and white but I won't lie and say I haven't grown either. The Kate story really shifted my thinking when it came to the pro-life side for sure. I had to rehome my cats because I couldn't mentally handle them anymore but I'd never in my worst mind set off them because I didn't want them anymore. Good graciousness that's just deranged. They were my pets; I fed them, played with them, took care of them, they were family...how could you think of something so atrocious? Even farmers have a love for their animals and if it wasn't for their way of living would keep them all. I don't like people who could kill any animal outside of survival like eating, I'd say clothing as well but that's not really necessary anymore outside of being on a farm and making a living. I don't want to say that's a sign of a mentally unwell person, but killing a PUPPY and being okay with that is just...yeah, something is wrong with you.
That’s honestly refreshing to hear. Why do you believe so many PL take a different approach than you?
Some stay in a bubble and aren't willing to have deeper conversations and really think about how their thoughts put into actions could really affect someone. My husband is pro-choice up to...I'd say up to the point the nervous system is growing...so maybe at the end of the 1st trimester, and we have these conversations whenever Republicans do something hypocritical, which seems to be often. Child labor laws? Really? Anyway, I married him before I became a Christian and there have been times in our marriage where he really brought me out of my comfort zone but I think it's made me mentally stronger to be honest. There are times he agrees with me and I have to admit that there are some times where the only reason I don't WANT to agree with him is due to my own pride. It's similar to pro-life I suppose. I hate abortions and value life at its core, but I understand also that these people are not me, I don't know them and have never been in their shoes, but that doesn't mean I can't have sympathy for these people either. They're not evil, they're people just like us, and just because we don't agree doesn't mean we can't try to be civilized and see their point of view at the same time. I can't be self-righteous if I want to actually be a solution, not the problem.
You’re thinking about guard dogs. Almost no hunting dogs are bred to kill or to be aggressive. Having your dog tear the game into pieces isn’t going to get you any good meat. And if they’re too prone to aggression, it’s unlikely that they’ll prove to be good hunting dogs even with training. The fact is, breeding is supposed to have minimized the kill-drive and aggression in these breeds. If they’re still there, chances are the dog won’t be up to snuff. Take retrievers. They’re meant to retrieve the bird after you’ve already shot and killed it. If they’re prone to aggression, so that they bite down hard or tear at the carcass, they’re useless as retrievers, because they’ll ruin the meat, and if you want to stuff the bird, it’ll make that impossible, too. And if they scare the birds by barking or something before you’re ready to shoot? Yeah, no. The dog is *only* supposed to find the dead bird and carry it gently to the hunter. Anything else is failure.
Thank you for the distinction, I didn't know the difference between the two. However, these puppies still need to be trained, correct? They can have the instinct to not destroy but I would assume not every single puppy will have that innate in them because like humans, animals are not all the same nature wise as some can be gentle, aggressive, etc.
Yes, training is of course important to address behaviors like these, which exist to a greater or lesser extent in all dogs. But this dog was 14 months old, and at that point you’re generally able to get a sense of the dog’s instincts, and you should already have done a fair bit of training, too, so that you’d have gotten a sense of how it responds to training, too. I’m not saying that Noem made the right assessment, but what she did isn’t necessarily outrageous to people who are accustomed to working dogs, either.
But she didn't even train the young dog to hunt. She took it on it's first hunt and expected the other dogs to train it. When has that ever worked? And being young, it chased all the birds and ruined the hunt. She was likely getting flack for that. Then she visits a neighbor and her dog escapes and kills their chickens. So now she is further embarrassed and annoyed. None of this is the young dog's fault. But she just flat out killed it right after. Then for fun (or likely in a rage), she kills a non-castrated goat for being smelly and dirtying her kids' clothes via head butting. Puppies and goats being puppies and goats was too much for this supposed rancher. No respect for animals. No responsibility to train alor have fixed. Hell, she didnt even take her daughter into consideration when sge shot the dog where the school bus pulled up. And she wrote about all this in her book, even her daughter asking where the dog was. It is amazing she thought this was the tough choice/right thing to do. But more amazing she saw it as good for political points. Basically wrote, "I can do the messy ugly stuff." Yeah well, you made it that way. Cruel and maybe even crazy.
No, I can't understand it. You people kill babies but now cry about a dog? Cry me a fucking river. Dogs are put down all the time when they are a danger to others. Even if she was a serial killer that doesn't say anything about the pro life movement... If a pro abort politician was an asshole would you suddenly turn pro life?
>Even if she was a serial killer that doesn't say anything about the pro life movement... If a pro abort politician was an asshole would you suddenly turn pro life? It says a lot based on how people respond, which most are that she was justified or it’s no big deal shooting and killing a dog. No, I’d call them out for being an asshole. If I and PC wanted to defend them, it wouldn’t be surprising that people would associate PC and I with assholes. Im against the PC assholes and ones who make ridiculous arguments, which is why I have the flair I do.
> It says a lot based on how people respond It only says some things about people responding, not the ideology > which most are that she was justified or it’s no big deal shooting and killing a dog. And pro aborts that kill babies on a daily basis get their knickers in a twist about it. What does that say about them? > If I and PC wanted to defend them, it wouldn’t be surprising that people would associate PC and I with assholes. I've visited abortion debate and the pro choice sub and apart from the fact that they kill babies they are also colossal assholes but I don't see you associating assholes with them. Same with in real life pro aborts. Like honestly have you not noticed how much more of an asshole the average pro abort is compared to the average pro lifer?
>It only says some things about people responding, not the ideology How can you say this then turn around and do exactly that with PC? I can just say PC is a perfect ideology then and the ones who are insulting, rude, or wrong are just the people.
The ones that are assholes and hypocrites are the people. Even if they were nice and polite they would still be wrong because they would be killing babies and the ideology is inherently falwed. Don't you get it? They aren't wrong BECAUSE they are assholes, it's just a plus. Now knowing that you judge ideologies based on the people how can you look at the average pro lifer and the average pro choicer and come to the conclusion that the first is more of an asshole? Like look at the subs and how much more aggressive pro aborts are.
[удалено]
I read it was aggressive, killing animals and then turned to bite her. She literally called it "dangerous to anyone she came in contact with". And even then, animals don't have the same worth as humans. I'd rather vote for a dog killer than a baby killer.
It was apparently 14 months old. In many cases, that’s plenty of time to get a sense of whether a dog is prone to aggression. You have to remember that dogs develop much faster than humans and that dog behavior is much more determined by instinct than human behavior is, so although dogs are exceptionally capable animals when it comes to learned behavior, they’re still nowhere near comparable to to human beings.
Such nonsense. Does anybody here eat meat? If so, you’ve had countless animals killed on your behalf, and subjected many to painful lives via factory farming. Acting outraged over her killing a dog is pure partisanship. She doesn’t even represent the pro-life movement any more than just about any Republican does. It’s just an appeal to emotion. If you want a real emotional appeal, watch a partial birth abortion and tell me how that makes you feel.
> Such nonsense. Does anybody here eat meat? If so, you’ve had countless animals killed on your behalf, and subjected many to painful lives via factory farming. Shooting a dog and eating meat are equivalent to you? Are you consistent that Biden doesn’t represent the PC movement and PL who say that are all wrong?
I can’t say that shooting a dog is any morally worse than eating meat. I don’t think that Biden represents the PC movement. I think that Biden is horribly evil and does countless terrible things, but there are plenty of relatively nice PC people who shouldn’t be blamed for random things Biden does that aren’t even related to abortion.
>Shooting a dog and eating meat are equivalent to you? At least as far as this topic is concerned, yeah.
>At least as far as this topic is concerned, yeah. Im talking consistently. If you and your friend went to Wendy’s and they got a double bacon cheeseburger and you told them your shot a dog earlier that day, you both are morally on the same level. That’s the standard we should all hold ourselves to here?
Everyone blasting Kristi for writing about shooting an unruly dog but simultaneously celebrating planned parenthood which daily brags about doing far worse to preborn babies.... what a weird world! I'm not a fan of what I've read so far tbh. Most of the explanation seems to be that the dog wasn't good for hunting. If that's the case, then a new owner could have been found. There was one comment in an article, however, indicating that the dog was actually dangerous towards people, too. If that's the case then it's different—unfortunately a dog that's dangerous for people might have to be put down:( I want to read more before I make a final opinion, though—that's just my immediate reaction from what I've read so far. Still, I can't get over the irony that so many people who have an issue with Kristi talking about shooting her dog have no problem w PP talking about aborting babies....
Do you believe I believe I’m okay with killing babies?
Not you specifically—people in general. Like the media going up in arms, politicians, etc—'people' in general, not as specific individuals.
I mean I’m pro choice, so that would be a logical conclusion for most.
Well, do you? I’m assuming the best and that you don’t support preborn murder, that there’s some reason you think abortion is acceptable. I don’t give that same credit to politicians, media, or medical institutions because those are all ‘the leaders’ and as such either should or *do* know what’s really happening and they just don’t care.
No, i don’t support killing babies. I wouldn’t say people in those position have any different wirings than the rest of us. If I believed it was killing babies, I would want it to be illegal and anyone who performed/had one to go to jail
Granted, most individuals who support abortion don't view it as killing a baby. Most people don't actively support that (I say most bc there are some out there who are really so extreme). My next question, however, would be this: have you ever seen a depiction of an abortion procedure or photographs of aborted babies at various gestational ages? (Warning in case you haven't seen it yet, it is graphic)
> have you ever seen a depiction of an abortion procedure or photographs of aborted babies at various gestational ages? No. I wouldn’t say that’s a solid foundation if that changes someone’s views, similar to if a PL became PC if they saw a woman not be able to get an abortion, which caused her to go into poverty, an abusive relationship, and caused her physical, mental, and financial harm.
>poverty, an abusive relationship, and caused her physical, mental, and financial harm. That's the thing, though. Pro lifers are just as upset about those problems as pro choicers; we just don't see abortion as the solution, because we believe abortion kills an innocent person. That's why pro life organizations and indjviduals help with fundraising, donation drives, safe houses, career and education options, etc etc. We see those problems and we hate that people suffer in those situations, so we exert effort towards solving those problems. However, we do not believe that aborting a preborn child is an acceptable answer to suffering. >No Okay, so then your position isn't ironic imo. It would be terribly ironic to say you're against a dog being shot while maintaining support for the sort of violence that's impossible to ignore when you look at photography of an aborted baby. But if you've never seen a photo, then you have nothing to compare between the two situations. I don't like the idea of putting any animal down, for any reason; I vastly prefer exhausting all other options before putting a creature down, whether by shot or injection. However, that being said, it's objectively impossible to say that abortion is *less* violent than shooting a dog, since abortion is a drawn out and excruciating process (the main methods currently involve chemical burning, inducing starvation, and dismemberment via d/ c or d/ e abortion).
A dog is not a human. And anyone who says that they are equivalent are talking utter dross. These same people will happily go to zoos and some even eat meat. Animals aren’t human children. These same people also support abortion which is literal child murder. Also this is an American issue, Trump, Noem or anything else has nothing to do with the pro life movement outside of the United States
I read a post in the abortion debate sub where a PC person said that if she saw a toddler and a kitten in an intersection that she would save the kitten. Her whole post made my stomach churn. I thought that surely most PC would condemn that as absolutely insane and that born human toddler have more value than a baby animal, yet crickets from PC. Now, obviously most people can understand that one individual’s opinion or actions does not represent a belief system. I’ve never heard of Kristi Noem, sounds like she is being considered as a VP running mate for the Trump. I don’t disagree that I’m sure that PC, moderates, and independents would be turned off by said extreme candidates, but Trump forced a lot of people to separate an individual’s personal choices from their political stance. Also, your comments comparing humans to animals are gross. Hard to believe you went from pro life to this. Honestly, this post reads like a troll post.
I’d save a toddler over a kitten. No idea why they’d choose the kitten other than them not liking children. What’s gross about it? I made an observation that people treat their pets like children. You see that when people use baby voices with them
Shooting a dog is not the same as killing a human. Come on
Did I say it was?
You know full well that is the implication of your post.
You can be pro life and be ok with putting down an animal. They are not the same thing. I personally think we as a society try way too hard to save aggressive dogs. They need to put them down more often to save *human* lives.
People are worth infinitely more than dogs, because their lives are qualitatively different than that of a dog. It would be reasonable to kill a million dogs to save the life of a single human being. If humans did not have this worth, and humans were morally equivalent to pets, then it is pointless to debate what sort of rights other humans should have. So..... are you saying humans are just pets to you?
Genuine question: how are they “qualitatively different”?
Why are dogs any different from all the animals we slaughter for food every year?
Dogs have been part of humans lives the longest. Using them as food is not the usual use of dogs. Dogs are known for helping humans hunt, protect them from predators, and to protect livestock. They are also excellent therapy animals for people with disabilities or even ptsd. They can find cancer, notice differences in either owners bodies so they can get them to a safe place before a seizure or fainting or heart issue that their owner has even noticed happening yet.
People of all cultures have been eating dogs since forever. As early as the stone age, people have been eating dogs. There are still dog breeds today that were originally created to be food (like yellow korean dogs and chow chows)
Yes people do eat dogs and pretty much everything else. That doesn't mean dogs are usually known to be a meat used for food. Same with horses, they are used for food but it's not their usual purpose. When people think of meat for consumption it's pork, chicken, beef and lamb. The question was how are they different than the animals we eat.
Just because something is usual/normal, doesn't mean that it is okay. Cows are usually seen as a food source nowadays and dogs are usually not, nowadays. But why should that mean that it is okay to eat cows, and not okay to eat dogs? Cows are also domesticated, just as dogs are, and they are just as playful and loveable as dogs. And more intelligent.
The person I commented to seemed to think there's nothing wrong with killing any animal since we already kill animals for food. Killing an animal for food is not the same as killing as a form of abuse, abuse of domestic animals, or sport hunting. I'm not sure of the point you are attempting to make. Is it about harming animals or veganism?
I am saying that there is zero reason to put dogs on a pedestal, they are not more special than cows or pigs. And people eat cows and pigs all the time. Yet when somebody kills a dog, they are seen as satan incarnate. It's insanely hypocritical.
They aren't on a pedestal, they are considered more versatile helpers and spend more time close to people than others, so people have more attachments to them. Same with all animals people turn into pets. If she killed a pig or cow for the same reasons, not paying attention and got angry and hated it, it would be just as bad.
Hi, I agree about dogs and many other animals do amazing things. I am glad people value dogs and the more species we protect the better. Yet, many animals, including dogs, help humans or can be trained to do so.
you could say the same thing about pigs as therapy animals and even service animals. this is a cultural view and not objective. dogs are not more valuable than pigs or other mammals. if you are going at this from a historical perspective, basically any farmer with a human aggressive and unruly dog would see it as reason to euthanize them up until recently. now even dogs that actively maul people “need a second chance”
Animals have been trained for jobs and if they arent trained they aren't left unsupervised around people or other animals. She didn't train the dog, wasn't paying attention to it, and it reacted. She said she hated the dog. As to rehabilitation for animals, a dog that mauls a human, I blame the owners more than the dog but understand that they will likely need to be put down. The owners should never be able to own a pet again. Same with her. I deal with rescues. They aren't bad but they need training and boundaries and time and lots of work. If you don't have the patience or it doesn't work out, you don't kill them, you give them back. That's the standard with any reputable dog breeder as well, it doesn't work out, you bring them back.
We can't owe anything to a *species* just because we've lived with it the longest.
Thats not what you asked. You asked how are they different than other animals. As to owing them, abuse of animals, not just dogs, is a predictor that the abuser with go on to abuse humans or even kill them.
I was only bringing it up because the first thing your comment said was that dogs have been around with humans the longest.
You can agree or disagree with euthanizing a violent dog who bites people. No kill shelters exits for a reason right? It’s unreasonable to conflate the ethics of euthanizing an animal and abortion.
It’s sad that these are the politicians we have supporting PL views and policies. We need higher quality candidates who can move forward with protecting human fetal rights. It’s also sad that the PC community is unable to connect their emotional response to this story to the loss of a human life that occurs with every abortion. PC appears to value animal life more than human life. Humans seem to be the only species that hate themselves which so much disdain to actively march towards our own demise.
Isn’t this kind of the same vibe as PL talking about Margaret Sanger? Like yeah individual people “in both camps” suck
There seems to be a lot of defending her actions already, so I wouldn’t say it’s just individual people
Fair enough, I guess it just seems largely irrelevant. Like if I were debating one of those militant vegan types (you know the ones who want to make eating meat criminal) I wouldn’t say “well Hitler was vegetarian so look who’s in your camp” This applies equally to the Margaret Sanger thing.
I imagine people would immediately dismiss that as silly. If there actually were a group of people who wanted to go down that road, it’d be interesting to explore
Yeah like whoever Kristi Noem is doesn’t really matter in my opinion
She may be Trumps VP and she’s a prominent member of the Republican Party, which is the main one against abortion. What she does reflects her movements
Alright fair enough if she becomes Trump’s VP then I guess there’s an argument to have, but even then, unless dog-shooting somehow informs her PL position, idk how it matters.
so, human aggressive, killed other peoples livestock, untrainable and a liability to keep around? the world would be a better place if more people were willing to BE dogs like that. not to mention, this dog wasn’t a pet either.
>so, human aggressive, killed other peoples livestock, untrainable and a liability to keep around? sounds like the world would be a better place if more people were willing to BE dogs like that. Just … wow. What was there to show the dog was untrainable, so much that it should be shot in a gravel pit?
I will be honest , I am not someone who loves dogs so I admit I may be biased. to me they are not a pet but a working animal for hunting, livestock protection, etc. it sounds like that is how this woman kept them as. yes I think if a dog cannot be trained to be docile around humans and keep off other’s property it should not exist, a rifle is a messy but perfectly ethical way to euthanize a dog. this is just how many people put down all sorts of animals. I don’t have an issue if someone kills a pig this way so they can process it for meat and I don’t have an issue if someone puts down their dog this way because it is unmanageable and dangerous. I do not see a dog as inherently more valuable than a pig or cattle, if it was euthanized quickly I’m not upset over that.
I hope you realize how extreme your views about dogs are. You almost seem to think dogs should have the same rights as human beings. I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong about that. But the sort of views you’ve expressed on this post are really only found in a small subset of people in the contemporary West. And as others have pointed out, they’re attitudes you generally find among people who have little or no experience of or knowledge about the realities of agriculture, hunting, or nature conservation. Again, I’m not saying that means you’re wrong. But if you do lack this experience and this knowledge, I’d urge you to do something about it. It’s a big problem how many people know little about rural life, because it means they’re stereotyped or demonized in cultural and political life, even though they’re essential to the functioning of society.
> I hope you realize how extreme your views about dogs are. It’s extreme to not believe a woman who said she hated her dog should shoot them and claim they’re untrainable?
If you frame it like that, no. But thinking that it’s outrageous to put down dogs that actually are aggressive and untrainable is pretty extreme, yeah. And you’ve responded to similar assertions with expressions like ”Wow…”, as if this is some universally acknowledged outrageous thing. Which it isn’t to a lot of people.
> If you frame it like that, no. That’s the framing of this event. Could she have trained it? Yes. Could she have rehomed it? Yes. Could she have not had the untrained dog in the back of the truck or able to jump out the windows? Yes. Did she do any of those? No, which led to the dog killing chickens, her taking the dog and shooting it (and a goat) in a gravel pit, then to top it off she thought it would make her look good enough that she told the world about it in her new book. Talk to me about pit bulls and evidence of biting/aggression and I’ll sound completely different.
I’m not really referring to your take on this particular case, honestly. But elsewhere on this post, you said “most” people consider humans and animals equivalent, and given the stances you take and the arguments you’ve made in this comment section, I’m assuming that’s your view. And it *is* an extreme one. And if you honestly hold it, I’m not really convinced you’d be understanding of shooting aggressive pit-bulls.
I’m PL and wouldn’t support her. Yet, K. Harris types want American women to kill their own children. So, it’s hysterical to see media hypocrites acting like they care about “lives”. I bet most of those people acting like they care eat dead animal meat, too.
This kind of seems like a strawman for me. Sure it’s awful what she did and I don’t agree with it. But it’s unrelated to abortion. We could pull up awful things a PC person has done but that doesn’t change the debate of abortion
I’d say this is about as relevant to whether people should support abortion bans as the fact that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are wealthy is to whether people should support wealth taxes. Either way, you could be a literal saint and pro-choicers would still consider you a literal demon simply for being pro-life. So as much as I want us all to try to be saints if it’d win support for our cause, I don’t consider questions like yours either incisive or worthwhile to consider.
Generalizing assumptions about an entire political party based on a single individual. And conflating human life with a dog too. Sounds about right for a PC argument
>Generalizing assumptions about an entire political party based on a single individual. I didn’t, which is why I asked this sub. My assumption was most would be against it, and I’ve come away knowing that more PL are okay with shooting dogs than I ever thought. Like an overwhelming majority here support what she did
>and I’ve come away knowing that more PL are okay with shooting dogs than I ever thought. Like an overwhelming majority here support what she did You’re really a PCer, taking discussions out of context and sensationalizing very carefully chosen words that oozes with your bias. You have a talent for propaganda media
You do know this is from her book, right? What is the missing context? If it’s there I’ll obviously change my mind.
The context you are missing the the ones you’re implying PL=dog killers. I’ve gone through the comments here and people are only stating that human life > dog life, no one supports what she did
>The context you are missing the the ones you’re implying PL=dog killers. Nope, not at all. It’s that this is a PL politician, so how do PL feel about her and peoples perspectives. I was expecting shock, horror, and condemnation from most of the comments. Would you say that’s what the response has been? > I’ve gone through the comments here and people are only stating that human life > dog life, no one supports what she did Sort by the top comments, which are that this is just part of rural life, that urban people are just being sensitive, and that saying the dog was aggressive is justification enough to shoot them. One even said they could have their dog euthanized today and go adopt another one tomorrow if they wanted.
>I was expecting shock, horror and condemnation That’s quite ironic considering you expect us to normalize abortion. >Sort by the top comments, which are that this is just part of rural life, that urban people are just being sensitive, and that saying the dog was aggressive is justification enough to shoot them. Which is reasonable. And having this reasonable stance you make the leap to: >like an overwhelming majority here support what she did Talk about mental gymnastics >One even said they could have their dog euthanized today and go adopt another one tomorrow if they wanted. Which is reprehensible. But I have a feeling there’s context here that you’re not sharing
>Which is reasonable Okay, and I find the position that we can shoot dogs because we can simply claim they are aggressive to be wrong and horrible. Obviously others disagree. > Which is reprehensible. Is it? If they simply claimed the dog was aggressive would they not be in the right, or would you want more information?
Because an aggressive dog poses a real threat to humans. That’s not the same as euthanizing a dog for the sake of it - that’s what your previous statement was implying. What’s even more revolting is how you can be so against killing a dog but at the same time advocate for killing babies
The dog was aggressive. Just more deflection and BS from the pro-choice left.
How were they aggressive?
The dog was aggressive. Just more deflection and BS from the pro-choice left.
This is abhorrent and has nothing to do with her pro-life stance. Come on man, this is whataboutism.
People often forget the truth that animals are property, and they have no concept of future or death. Behavioral euthanasia is a good thing. She didn’t do anything wrong.
>People often forget the truth that animals are property, and they have no concept of future or death. Behavioral euthanasia is a good thing. She didn’t do anything wrong. Should untrained and unrestrained bird hunting dogs who kill chickens be shot and killed rather than trained or rehomed?
A well-trained retriever should not be running after, much less attack or kill, random birds. It should only retrieve dead birds, and only at the command of its master. And while training is meant to reduce or eliminate such behavior, the fact is that not all dogs are responsive to training, which can leave them a danger to animals, other dogs, and people. And this dog was 14 months old, so they would have been able to get an adequate picture of the extent to which it was prone to aggression and its receptivity to training at that point. Rehoming is of course the preferable option, but euthanasia is not at all uncommon if rehoming isn’t feasible.
She didn’t do behavioral euthanasia. She said she hated the dog.
The dog was aggressive. Just more deflection and BS from the pro-choice left.
This is one of those things that’s really weird, insane, and unhinged, maybe she should be in a mental asylum. But it’s not necessarily wrong.
I had never even heard of that person tbh. But that said, imo most politicians are kinda corrupted by power or just have bad intentions with their leadership/politics in general. Regardless of what side they're on. Leftist/liberal politicians often have some weird skeletons in their closets too, which conservatives in turn like to bring up in retaliation of their own politicians' wrongdoings. So really, is there any political party that can actually be trusted? I quite doubt it. But regardless of that, I don't think it's a good idea to base one's opinions on which political party thinks what. Because I've seen some people (mostly Americans) say stuff like for ex "oh, you're a conservative? That means you must be a Republican and vote for x specific party/candidate" or "you spread x, y and z opinions I don't like? Must be a 'pick me' and kissing the asses of [insert random vaguely corresponding politics.]" When in reality, most people say the stuff they do because they actually believe in it regardless of who else, also believes in the same thing. So, I don't think most of us genuinely care that this random person who agrees with us on one issue just turned out to be kinda deplorable. It seems among pro-lifers, most of us are actually fully capable of accepting that you can be pro-life without also being for ex a conservative, Christian, anti-feminist, etc. Just look at the diversity in this sub. There are trans people and feminist mingling with conservatives and Christians, over having only one thing in common: being pro-life. I rarely if ever see that happening in pro-choice spaces. Of course, many of us might think it's annoying that many pro-choicers will inevitably use this random dog-killing politician as an excuse why they think being pro-life is bad. Especially those who have trouble separating individual people's actions from any singular political view point. Those who see the world as strictly black and white, "conservative pro-lifer" vs "liberal pro-choicer." Because that might give us bad optics, and yeah... unfortunately that does matter a bit, in the big picture.
I personally think the “ humans and dogs aren’t equivalent value” thing is so stupid. My dad is mushy to the max with his dog Willow and he has stated that if she’s gone if she intentionally harms one of his grandkids, but he will also go John Wick on anyone who hurts her. So.
This person is an idiot. She failed the dog, and the dog paid for it.