Originally Posted By: dweste
Originally Posted By: MDinana
There certainly are valid points on both sides of the issue.


Perhaps I perceive a failure of communications.
It seems to me the issue raised is whether we treat animals as companions with an inherent entitlement to as good a life as circumstances permit, or with the minimal consideration required to have them available for use as discardable tools without any inherent right to be treated well.

I did not sense any argument that animals should be treated better than humans who we put in harm's way, only that animals sent in harm's way be treated respectfully - perhaps especially because unlike humans it is not likely such animals have any realistic choice about their duty.

Callous use of animals is no more defensible than callous use of humans. Unnecessary sacrifice of animals is to be avoided just as is unnecessary sacrifice of humans.

If it comes down to a choice between necessary sacrifice of an animal or of a human, then there is no difference of opinion. The point in both cases is to make sure there is no reasonable alternative to such sacrifice and that sacrifice is really necessary.

Probably. I'm actually glad the dogs are getting some body armor. Though I wonder how well they tolerate the heat with the extra insulation and weight.

However, if we're talking about a working animal (horse, dog, etc), does it have the same entitlements as a companion, ie a pet? I'd hazard a guess of no. If Fido doesn't want to play fetch, no big deal. If Cujo decides he just doesn't feel like sniffing packages at Logan international and a bomb slips by...

I agree that there should be respect for the animals, and to not make life any more difficult than necessary. Certainly when they've lived out a productive life doing their job they shouldn't just be put down. But at the end of the day they, like soldiers or cops, have a job to do.