What Price For Kitty?

"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...

Phil P. wrote:
snip
Does a millionaire who spends $50,000 on veterinary care love his
cat more than a grocery clerk who can old spend $500? Do you see
the utter
stupidity of your question?

I don't think it's a stupid question - merely a hypothetical one.



Its an assine hypothetical question because it implies a set dollar amount
on how much our pets are worth to us and how much money a person is willing
and/or able to spend to save their pet's life.


We
all have limits -


"We"? Don't include me in your "we". Therein lies one of the reasons why
the question is assine. Some of us don't set a limit on how much we'll
spend to save our cat's life.




I don't know why equating love with spending money entered the
equation.

Why? Because the question implies that a person who is willing and/or able
to spend more than another person is willing to spend to save his pet's
life, loves and/or values his pet more than a person who is not willing
and/or able to spend as much.

That's why I posed the question: "Does a millionaire who spends $50,000 on
veterinary care love his cat more than a grocery clerk who can old spend
$500?" Do you *now* see the utter stupidity and pointlessness of the
question?


Phil

On 2005-02-15, Mary penned:

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...

Thinking about it now, if I eventually am in this sort of situation,
I do not want my family going broke trying to keep me alive for a few
more days or months when there's no hope of a true recovery.

It won't be your choice, unless you make very careful preparations.


True, but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion, and I'll make sure my
family members are very clear on my opinion.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

On 2005-02-15, -L. penned:

The following link details state-by-state, the applicable laws.

http://www.api4animals.org/47.htm


Thanks for sharing this link. Colorado's section disturbs me. It says:

Exemptions: Farming, rodeos, veterinary care.

Does that mean that farmers can overwork, underfeed, etc. their farm animals
without any sort of legal repercussion? I hope not.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

I don't know, if standards were set for people to have cats, ie financial
criteria and others, then perhaps the number of irresponsible owners would
go down in number, and there would not be as many strays and orphans, and
un-altered strays. Now I am not saying that only "poor" people are
irresponsible, but I do know alot of people who get free kittens out of the
newspaper and don't alter them because they can't "afford" it. However, with
that said, it would take additional criteria as well.
"Glarb" wrote in message news:AOdQd.77730

Then take a wild guess as to how many pets would be without homes if
financial criteria for owning them were established. Do you have any idea
how many pets would have to be put down?

"Glarb" wrote in message news:W2fQd.75166
You think so? It's an old joke, but it really is easier to have a kid than
to get a pet sometimes. I got my cat from a shelter, and they really did
the 20 questions thing on me to make sure I was fit. They don't do that
with children.


Only if you are having a biological child - ever try to look into adoption
or fostering... after the calsses comes the homestudy - that is aobut 500
questions each time they visit your house... People can get "free" kittens
out of the newspaper with no problem...

On 2005-02-15, Mary penned:

I just take what I have and pay the bills and divvy the rest up among the
nieces and nephews, cats, and other loved ones. Some little treats for me,
and I am happy.

To answer the real question you are asking: I have to keep my distance most
times--and I mean consciously withdraw--when I see animals in need. There is
only so much I can do, and I know it. It is not because I want to use my
money for other things, it is because I have to be sure I can pay my bills.
It is the same with my sisters' children: my impulse is to give them
everything. They are good kids--they need things and they do not expect
anything.

(Warning: I was a philosophy minor, so I find these sorts of nuances
fascinating)

Sure, I think that's what we all have to do if we want to stay sane. I
do remember a class discussion at some point ... Pretty much everyone
agrees that if your own kid is in trouble, you'll do whatever you can to
save them. But what if it's your cousin's kid; would you spend your
money on them? Is it right to buy a piano when that money could save a
poverty-stricken child in asia?

It's pretty interesting to think about how our minds work. Why is my kid any
more deserving than another person's kid? Wouldn't I do more good for cats in
general if, instead of spending $15,000 on medical bills for one cat, I
distributed that to shelters around the region? But most of us will choose to
pay for our own pets rather than the "greater good." That might be because we
strongly believe in our duty as pet owners, but I suspect it's mostly an
emotional issue. We love our own pets and we can't bear to part with them.

Most people wouldn't sacrifice themselves, and certainly wouldn't sacrifice a
loved one, to save a group of people they don't know. We simply value those
we know more than those we don't.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

On 2005-02-15, Glarb penned:
"-L." wrote in message
At least we have safeguards in place for kids, though.

You think so? It's an old joke, but it really is easier to have a kid than
to get a pet sometimes. I got my cat from a shelter, and they really did
the 20 questions thing on me to make sure I was fit. They don't do that
with children.

It's true that there's no form you have to fill out before you're
allowed to bear and keep a child (and I think that's a good thing,
because I would be afraid of racial/economic/morals prejudice), but
there are certainly channels to report child abuse, and you could get
away with doing a lot of stuff to animals that would instantly be
considered child abuse if the victim were human.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

"Angela St.Aubin" wrote in message
.. .

I think saying people with financial issues shouldn't have pets is plain
ridiculous, partly because most people with extreme issues dont go and get
pets after the fact, they have and love them, and then for whatever
reason,
become poor, disabled, etc, etc.

That is a different case - and a sad one, but I believe it isn't "most"
people that end up like this. I think it is the other way around. "Most"
people want them cause they can't shut their kids up until they get one, or
cats are cute, or they are soft, or someone gives them one as a gift, or a
number of other reasons - but the owners don't stop to think of the
responsibility, nor the cost ( other than the cat food, litter and pan)
throughout the cats life.


Also, all this talk of sick pets or pets that cost too much being put down
as if its a common and only option. Most people i know in these situations
would give the pets away to others, or to a shelter or organization , not
just euthanasia them without looking at other options.

It is common, very common.... And giving them to a shelter, that only has
room for 40 cats, and already has 80 healthy orphaned kittens is NO other
option. That sick cat is not going to have a chance at the shelter. The only
reason a person would do this is so they can save a few more bucks by not
having them put down themselves.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:43:48 GMT, "Glarb"
wrote:

I've been thinking about this. I have spent huge sums of money on the
cat I
have had for the past seven or eight years. But I have money, and I
don't
think about it. But if I didn't have money -- let's say living from
paycheck to paycheck -- and the vet came in and said, "$850 for labwork
and
surgery." Forgive me, but I would probably have to draw the line there
and
have the poor thing put to rest. I know this makes me a bad person, but
come on y'all, what is your true limit on such matters?


You all are not gonna like this. And I did hesitate, after all the
very REAL help you've given me. AND this is NOT meant to be a
'flame'!

But I feel it necessary to point out what a HUGE population of poor
and indigent there is in America. There are MILLIONS of elderly and
disabled living on $700 - $800 per month, TOTAL. That's BEFORE the
rent/utilities are paid! (Next we purchase cat food and litter! LOL)

They have NO jobs, NO credit cards, NO homes to mortgage. Perhaps NO
family.

Most do not have cars. Even their food 'choices' (like they 'have' a
choice???) would probably appall you. Or the list of things they
routinely, on an every day basis, do without. Like meds, soap,
diabetes accessories, nightclothes, coats, bedding, etc.

Are these folks (me), not supposed to have the companionship of
pets???


Sorry to say, if a person can't provide at least basic veterinary care and
reasonable nutrition and environmental enrichment, then yes, the person
should not have pets.

This is not just about you (any third person), its also about the health and
welfare of another living, feeling and thinking individual.

Phil

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2005-02-15, -L. penned:

The following link details state-by-state, the applicable laws.

http://www.api4animals.org/47.htm


Thanks for sharing this link. Colorado's section disturbs me. It
says:

Exemptions: Farming, rodeos, veterinary care.

Does that mean that farmers can overwork, underfeed, etc. their farm
animals
without any sort of legal repercussion? I hope not.

What it ususally means is that the enforcement isn't there - that they
can bascially do whatever the heck they want and the cops don't persue
it. Farms are regulated by the Humane Farming Act though. Rodeos are
more of a problem. And what the heck is up with the vet exemption?

-L.