Has animal cruelty lost its meaning?

Question

I watch animal cops on tv and I see them take cats away from people that they will only put to sleep. At least they were alive before, but they are just removing them to kill them.

People get arrested on this show for leaving their dogs outside with not much food, however, dogs and cats live for only about 2 years in the wild on their own and usually die of disease, starvation, and injury. Moreover, the people on the show eat hamburgers. The slaughterhouses don't get in trouble for killing animals and neither do religious organizations that still sacrifice animals (Jewish).

A lot of the people on the show can't afford to take care of their pets and get arrested, fined, and perhaps lose their jobs. Yet, these people have multiple children that will probably suffer more than the animals as a result of the legal jam up. Is it worth punishing the children for a dog or cat?

For every animal that receives donations, they could have been sent to staving people instead. Is this right?

Answer 1

Although I agree that if they are treating their children badly also because of neglect this is bad, but that doesn't mean that the pet should suffer.

yes animals in the wild die of natural causes, but these are pets. You should only buy a pet if you can afford to look after it. It's better that an animal be put to sleep and be in peace than experience severe neglect and cruelty.

Answer 2

Personally, I would rather focus on helping animals rather than sending money to starving people who may or may not get the money sent, due to bureaucratic need or incompetence.

If you feel so strongly about this you can volunteer at a no-kill animal shelter, a wildlife rehabilitation center or at a soup kitchen. You can also choose to become a vegetarian. The one thing you can't do is solve all the problems of the world at once.  you should connect with people who care about these problems as much as you do.

Answer 3

Nope that's not right its wrong wrong wrong !