Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
California says your dog can't have his balls
abbaba
Member Posts: 1,143
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi
California Democrats are trying to pass a law that would require you to spay/neuter your dog unless you pay a 500$ fee.
Facism in action folks.
California Democrats are trying to pass a law that would require you to spay/neuter your dog unless you pay a 500$ fee.
Facism in action folks.
Comments
Why does your dog need his balls? Mine doesn't have his and he is perfectly fine. You shouldn't be breeding dogs since millions are killed in shelters every year. Until every dog in a shelter finds a home, no one should be breeding dogs.
It costs about $ 40 to spaid or neuter a dog or cat. Did you pull that $500 figure out of your arse?
Yes, you SHOULD do that. But that's like saying, yeah you should brush your teeth. But I don't see any legislation saying you need to.
Damn government wants our money.
The volunteer approach has been tried and failed. There was a huge spay and neuter campaign and avertising blitz for years. Veterinarians and animal shelters often sponsor low cost spay and neuter programs to combat the overpopulation problem. No surprise though that it hasn't worked, because people are still assholes and insist on owning specific breeds and thus keep breeders and pet stores that sell dogs and cats in business.
It's about time the government regulated domestic breeding of dogs and cats. It's barbaric to kill 9 million animals in shelters every year. How can an advanced enlightened society possibly justify that behavior when the population of domestic animals is entirely within our control?
the less dogs the better.
extra dogs can be sent over to Vietnam, Cambodja and Laos.
This is none of the government's damn business.
I guess animal rights come before people's rights to their own property nowadays.
Same reason government creates laws to preserve and manage wild animal populations. This is simply the flip side of the same philosophy. Instead of protecting limited numbers of wild animals, the government is preventing overpopulation and unnecessary killing of domestic animals.
You pretty much summed up how you feel about animals. They are just property to you, like a sofa or TV.
Same reason government creates laws to preserve and manage wild animal populations. This is simply the flip side of the same philosophy. Instead of protecting limited numbers of wild animals, the government is preventing overpopulation and unneccesary killing of domestic animals.
You pretty much summed up how you feel about animals. They are just property to you, like a sofa or TV.
Ummm..except people don't own wild animals. And this law isn't being passed out of any sort of high minded animals rights ideal, its being passed because they don't want to pay for it anymore.Pets are considered property under the law, and the United States has a long history of freedom of property. What is your pet to you?
Don't tell me I don't love my dog; just the opposite. I don't want the government to tell me what I HAVE to do with him.
Speaking of animal rights, do you really condone the mutilation of an animal's (that you supposedly love so much) genatlia? Really, this is so hypocritical
We are all "owners" aka caretakers of wildlife, as the dominant species of this planet.
Regardless of the initial motivations to pass this bill, the result is a positive one. I think saving taxpayer money is a good thing also. Why should non pet owners foot the bill for irresponsible pet owners and breeders?
My dog is my property, my pet, and my friend. Pets, regardless of being property under the law, are protected from abuse and can be forcibly removed from negligent and abusive pet owners. In other words, they have the right to a reasonable life which supercede any humans individual property rights.
The so called mutilation of an animal as you call it, by spaying and neutering, is the necessary result of irresponsible humans who instead of adopting animals from shelters, continue to purchase pets from breeders and pet stores which continue to overpopulate the market. Spaying and neutering by a veterinarian is the humane alternative to killing millions of healthy animals unnecessarily in shelters every year.
Reminds me of this, In China
www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2006/2006-11-13-02.asp
I maintain the point that the government should butt out, because the above could happen here.
How about this one, Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry trying to force middle school girls to have to take an HPV vaccine with uncertain safety testing. Would you call that fascism at it's best? I would. And fascism that actually effects human beings, not dogs!
Yeah and I like to drive fast.
I am the most responsible fast driver on the road. I never get into accidents and have great reflexes and acute senses.
But we have laws mandating maximum speeds because many people are irresponsible fast drivers. Sucks for me.
Welcome to human society.
And I don't live in Texas, but it looks like you're wrong.
“Finally, parents need to know that they have the final decision about whether or not their daughter is vaccinated. I am a strong believer in protecting parental rights, which is why this executive order allows them to opt out.”
www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/PressRelease.2007-02-05.4721Samurai: I think that's a false analogy. There is a pretty big difference between driving irresponsibly and owning a dog.
My dogs need their balls.
Now with 57.3% more flames!
I can't get my head around the stupidy of your post (no offense to you, you're probably perfectly intelligent... But your post... Isn't...)
The US government kills 9 million dogs in shelters every year, because they can't find homes for them...
And yet your suggesting they'd go into the homes of those people that actually have a dog and are keeping it out of a shelter... Just to kill it...
What are you on?!
Oh, and btw. You are wrong about the Rick Perry thing too. You got that from his site, a nice piece of propaganda on his part and one that the locals here have called him out for.
He wanted to force middle school girls to have to take the vaccination through executive order. He later backed down and put the word "voluntary" into the mix. But we knew exactly what he was doing. He slightly backs away only to try to get what he wants later on along with the documented money donations that Merck gives him in the meantime.
The people of Texas yelled about this enough that a bill was put on his desk from Texas Congressmen telling him to back off and that he can't do this. Did he sign the bill? NOPE! It sat there until the midnight deadline which in essence makes it law in Texas. But did he sign it to admit his mistake? No he didn't! Because to him it is no mistake to force the shot to be given and take that decision out of the hands of parents.
This, to me, if a far more dangerous ideology than cutting off dogs balls. This is just one of the things that is going on that I hope opens American's eyes eventually to the crap that both of these major parties is feeding us.
It's also a matter of it being a vaccine for an STD. Some parents may not want their child to have this because they feel it will give them a message of acceptance towards promiscuity. Personally, I don't agree with that, but I do agree with giving the parents the right to choose. If the vaccine were safe I would have it given to my child. I know that kids will do things sometimes no matter how well they were raised. But some parents would rather not take the risk of sending a message of acceptance towards premarital sex, and I respect that.
HPV has been tested with very few side effect very few and help stop cirvical(sp) cancer one of the many deadly cancers out there its a std preventative true. but the biggest reason there is a push for women right now to get it is the fact it can stop curvical cancer. if you get a chance listen to loveline and listen to dr. drew hes big on trying to get the word out about the hpv shot.
this whole thing could have been avoided if they would just said its for stopping curvical cancer in women. instead of it help stave off stad and cancer. damn religious people freak if it might put sex in there kids minds. and also if you think that way then you didnt do a good job raising your kids. cause if you did a good job raising your kids then you know they would be doing the right thing.