Pets Thrown to Their Death

[JFox1]

In Puerto Rico, animal control officers, following a no pet policy, seized dozens of dogs and cats from housing divisions and threw them over a bridge, killing them, witnesses said. :tear:

http://news.aol.com/story/ar/_a/pet...s/20071012195009990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

 

[The Scribe]

Jesus wouldn't approve.

 

[just-want-peace]

Can't help but compare this with abortion; the innocents are bearing the brunt of the actions.

 

[tinytim]

It's bad, but not as bad as abortion...

Animals are not made in the image of God.

 

[tinytim]

From John Piper...

One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society​

Pondering One-Issue Politics and Cruelty To Animals
Investigating dog life in Minnesota has solidified my decision to vote against those who endorse the right to abortion. So then what is my response to the charge of being a one-issue voter?
No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office-on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor-that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office.
It's the same with marriage. No one quality makes a good wife or husband, but some qualities would make a person unacceptable. For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking people would. Drinking coffee would not, but drinking whiskey would. Kissing dogs wouldn't, but kissing the mailman would. And so on. Being a single-issue fiancé does not mean that only one issue matters. It means that some issues may matter enough to break off the relationship.
So it is with politics. You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It's simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him-except that child-killing is more serious than those.
When we bought our dog at the Humane Society, I picked up a brochure on the laws of Minnesota concerning animals. Statute 343.2, subdivision 1 says, "No person shall . . . unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal." Subdivision 7 says, "No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal." The penalty: "A person who fails to comply with any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor."
Now this set me to pondering the rights of the unborn. An eight-week-old human fetus has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger-grasping, and genetic humanity, but under our present laws is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment, which says that "no state shall deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law." Well, I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as persons, it seems that they could at least qualify as animals, say a dog, or at least a cat. Could we not at least charge abortion clinics with cruelty to animals under Statute 343.2, subdivision 7? Why is it legal to "maim, mutilate and kill" a pain-sensitive unborn human being but not an animal?
These reflections have confirmed my conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil-even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.
* * * This article is from A Godward Life, Book I: Savoring the Supremacy of God in All of Life by John Piper (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 1997), pp. 279-280. Used with permission.

 

[The Scribe]

It's bad, but not as bad as abortion...

Animals are not made in the image of God.

How did this start an abortion debate?

It's not as bad a murdering an unborn child, but it's cold-blooded murder nonetheless. If we are unmerciful to any of God's creation He will Judge us for our actions.

 

[Joe]

Proverbs 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

 

[Sopranette]

Disregard for human life starts with a disregard for animal life. That has been proven time and again. For example, medical experts in Sweden have now allowed the way for patients to ask for euthanasia. Just how that consent is established is unclear. That is frightening!

love,

Sopranette

 

[FBCPastorsWife]

Disregard for human life starts with a disregard for animal life. That has been proven time and again.

With this being proven, would it be safe to say that if you look in the past of murderers...you would have probably seen some animal abuse going on?

If so...Nashville is in serious trouble! We have had several cases in Nashville neighborhoods this year where animals have set on fire. It's absolutely heartbreaking!

Our little Taco (chihuahua) was adopted from the local animal shelter. It had come from a drug dealer's home where she had been shot and stabbed. Their reason for hurting her..."We just wanted to see what she would do." Heartless human beings! :BangHead:

 

[Gold Dragon]

With this being proven, would it be safe to say that if you look in the past of murderers...you would have probably seen some animal abuse going on?

While not always the case, animal abuse is scientifically linked to violent crimes and often used in profilling murder suspects.

Childhood Cruelty toward Animals among Criminals and Noncriminals
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-2] Human Relations, Vol. 38, No. 12, 1113-1129 (1985)
[/SIZE][/FONT] Stephen R. Kellert Yale University
Alan R. FelthousThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston

This paper examines the relationship between childhood cruelty toward animals and aggressive behavior among criminals and noncriminals in adulthood.

Data were derived from personal interviews with 152 criminals and noncriminals in Kansas and Connecticut. A standardized, closed, and open-ended interview, requiring approximately 1-2 hours to complete, was administered to all subjects. Aggressiveness was defined by behavioral criteria rather than by reason for incarceration.

Childhood cruelty toward animals occurred to a significantly greater degree among aggressive criminals than among nonaggressive criminals or noncriminals. Additionally, the occurrence of more than 40 cases of extreme animal crielty facilitated the development of a preliminary classification of nine distinct motivations for animal cruelty. Finally, family violence, particularly paternal abuse and alcoholism, were significantly more common among aggressive criminals with a history of childhood cruelty toward animals.