Should Our Pets Be Defined As Property?
Many of us are pet owners, and dearly love our dogs, cats, horses, turtles, etc. Some of us, myself included, even go to such extremes as to anthropomorphize these prescious creatures, bestowing love and care on them as if they were our own children. The Torah says that animals, should eat before their owners, and give them great status. (not a Torah scholar, but I would not be surprised if this referred to work animals.)
Nevertheless, currently in most states, domesticated animals, such as dogs and cats are defined as property. As such, any injury or harm done to them by another will receive a fine, or punishment as if a property item were damaged. Lately, with so many cruel and senseless attacks on animals, those who are loved, honored and cherished by men and women, I propose that our beloved pets be defined as 'quasi property.'
Here is a recent case from Spain in which a man was barred from visiting his dog in a divorce case.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid
=2006-06-02T174610Z_01_L02789037_RTRUKOC_0_US-SPAIN-DOG.xml&src=rss
Here is what this would ultimately mean. If someone was cruel to your dog or cat, the punishment would be heightened, and a stricter standard would be imposed. Personally, if someone were to injure my beloved Astro, who passed away, I would want that person to receive a harsh punishment. I guess it is because animals, like children, but even to a lesser degree, are completely defenseless, and have no means by which to defend themselves more often than not.
Once, while taking Astro for a walk, someone sprayed water on him. He was running, acting like a typical pet, and the person, I believed used an inappropriate means of force to respond to him. My knee jerk reaction would have been to respond in kind, but since the law is such in California, where pets are defined as property, such force would have been defined as unreasonable, and I could have been punished.
So here is the question of the day: Should our beloved pets be legally defined as something more than our property? If so, what, if anything should be the punishment for wanton cruelty or attack upon them?
A note: I will be out of town for the weekend, attending a music festival, hearing some beautiful music composed by a dear friend.
For the record, today, June 7th., has been a glorious day...One of the very best days I have had in 3 years, where everything seems to have fallen together: work, home, family...
Thank you for your minds.
Nevertheless, currently in most states, domesticated animals, such as dogs and cats are defined as property. As such, any injury or harm done to them by another will receive a fine, or punishment as if a property item were damaged. Lately, with so many cruel and senseless attacks on animals, those who are loved, honored and cherished by men and women, I propose that our beloved pets be defined as 'quasi property.'
Here is a recent case from Spain in which a man was barred from visiting his dog in a divorce case.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid
=2006-06-02T174610Z_01_L02789037_RTRUKOC_0_US-SPAIN-DOG.xml&src=rss
Here is what this would ultimately mean. If someone was cruel to your dog or cat, the punishment would be heightened, and a stricter standard would be imposed. Personally, if someone were to injure my beloved Astro, who passed away, I would want that person to receive a harsh punishment. I guess it is because animals, like children, but even to a lesser degree, are completely defenseless, and have no means by which to defend themselves more often than not.
Once, while taking Astro for a walk, someone sprayed water on him. He was running, acting like a typical pet, and the person, I believed used an inappropriate means of force to respond to him. My knee jerk reaction would have been to respond in kind, but since the law is such in California, where pets are defined as property, such force would have been defined as unreasonable, and I could have been punished.
So here is the question of the day: Should our beloved pets be legally defined as something more than our property? If so, what, if anything should be the punishment for wanton cruelty or attack upon them?
A note: I will be out of town for the weekend, attending a music festival, hearing some beautiful music composed by a dear friend.
For the record, today, June 7th., has been a glorious day...One of the very best days I have had in 3 years, where everything seems to have fallen together: work, home, family...
Thank you for your minds.
25 Comments:
animals are not people are you done cleansing the world of human haters?
animals have no brains to think they live the moment
the torah law is that animals are property that is if someone kills your pet he pays how much its worth on the market as if this someone wouldve shattered your window
Yes, i believe pets should be defined as property... And there should be tougher laws to protect animals from cruelty... Maybe if the person that treated the animal cruel was subjected to the same form of treatment for punishment... Then maybe some acts of cruelty against any animal would cease.
We think of all our pets as family, spoil them rotton, lots of love and care. Not sure how I feel about labelling them as property, they seem so much more to me.
Besides they take up just as much of our time as if we had three kids!
Fines and punishment should be a lot higer than it is at present, most offenders just end up with fines with is no deterant.
soulsista - I think you have a wonderful perspective on the issue regarding animal rights.
YY - Pets are not people, and no one said they are. Do you know the definition of quasi-property? It is something in-between property and something else. For example, juvenile law is not criminal, but quasi-criminal which is why some of the rights that apply to individuals in criminal courts are also applicable to parents in juvenile courts. Sometimes, I think your understanding of the English language is a bit limited.
Although the Torah says that that if a piece of property is damaged, one is entitled to the value of that property, there is also a provision, which you, YY pointed out to me, stating that animals must be respected, and in some instances must eat before their masters. Does that make them human? No. Does that make them property? Not completely. Perhaps they are something inbetween, which is the question that I am asking.
As for these rude and crass remarks that one particular individual feels the need to continue posting, I am rejecting all of your comments. You do not respond to the posts, are always negative, and have a very bad attitude as well. I feel bad for your family, as I am sure they suffer being victimized by your tongue on a daily basis.
I don't belive in being cruel to animals but i don't consider spraying water on a dog cruel if he's on your lawn. Ever step in a pile of dog shit on your lawn when you don't even have a dog?
Dogs & cats are fine but in my opinion there are too many of both in my nieghborhood
Should be more than property since they're sentient beings. I think serious animal abusers ought at the least to be monitored - should't be allowed to keep pets.
But given the state of the world, this is unfortunately complete pie-in-the-sky - like we're about to spend money on that one when we don't even provide health care coverage for millions of humans, or intervene when hundreds of thousands of people are slaughtered in other parts of the world!
there is special torah laws of "tzaar baali chayim"
but when it comes to punishment its regarded as plain property actualy less sometimes, there is a law if a dog couldve escaped harm from a person but the dog didnt then the person is not liable at all
Didn't know how else to contact you... yeah, still around... in the middle of a land buying deal and it's killing me and every second of my free time
That is very interesting, YY. Thank you for the information.
Bohica, glad to see you are still around...I will keep my fingers crossed and wish you all the best in your land deal.
I don't really know much about the law, and I would have to defer to someone of your stature, but aren't there individual state criminal laws for cruelty towards animals? Unfortunately, most laws are only misdemeanors but, some states have felony provisions for heinous acts of cruelty towards animals.
I don't know if changing the status of animals from property would help protect them. Wouldn't it be better to amend existing laws, or even enforce the ones that are already on the books? I can't believe those words came from my fingertips..... And, I swore I would never be like them.
Some great comments.
It is true, that the reason, at least from my perspective, that the laws should be changed has to do with protection of animals subjected to wanton and unnecessary cruelty.
In my line of work, I have seen dogs and cats shot, knived, and pursued for no apparent reason. Some people enjoy preying upon helpless creatures, just for the mere pleasure of doing so...It makes them feel more powerful.
That being said, I think that the laws on spousal abuse should be tightened as well. Some men feel it is their right to hit and injure their wifes (and in some cases, I have seen women harm their husbands as well) because they cannot control their anger.
Property yes but most importantly,...
"For the record, today, June 7th., has been a glorious day...One of the very best days I have had in 3 years, where everything seems to have fallen together: work, home, family..."
I am thrilled it was a great day for you!! I would like to know more about that at some point too!!
Have a great weekend! K
I agree with you Barbara on the spouse abuse as well. I also feel that there should be tougher laws to punish spouses who lie on the other in abuse cases. I know most cases are totally legitimate. But i also know of females who lie on their husbands or mates just to be vindictive. They take out restraing orders and etc. And once it has been discovered in some other case that this spouse has been lieng. Say like in a child custody case... I feel they should be punished for lying in the other cases as well. When people hear of abuse they think of women.. But i know some men that are tortured by women who are selfish, cruel and just want to have their way...
With Blogger being so tempermental this week, I thought I left a comment.
So, I'll just shorten this and say that I'm glad June 7th was such a great day.
Glad I'm not YY's dog.
With all due respect, it bothers me when people write "the Torah says" and "the bible says." Books are the words of the people who wrote them. A BOOK doesn't SAY, the PEOPLE who wrote that book SAY (or SAID). Beware of reifying books; they are merely collections of symbols representing the thoughts of the people who wrote them; they can never stand alone because they don't write themselves. So -- we must think about the people who wrote those books. We must decide whether we want to live our lives according to the standards and values of the people (men) who wrote those books so many years ago. And many of us do.
If the men who wrote the Torah defined animals as property, fine; that was their prerogative. But I don't think their decision necessarily applies to our current circumstances. I would favor a definition of animals as under human custody rather than as humans' property, much like children. HOWEVER -- and this is a big however -- that would unfortunately mean that euthanasia is no longer an option. For those of us who've watched our four-legged loved ones suffer too long, not having the option to give them a gentle, loving death would be very difficult.
Glad I'm not YY's dog.
With all due respect, it bothers me when people write "the Torah says" and "the bible says." Books are the words of the people who wrote them. A BOOK doesn't SAY, the PEOPLE who wrote that book SAY (or SAID). Beware of reifying books; they are merely collections of symbols representing the thoughts of the people who wrote them; they can never stand alone because they don't write themselves. So -- we must think about the people who wrote those books. We must decide whether we want to live our lives according to the standards and values of the people (men) who wrote those books so many years ago. And many of us do.
If the men who wrote the Torah defined animals as property, fine; that was their prerogative. But I don't think their decision necessarily applies to our current circumstances. I would favor a definition of animals as under human custody rather than as humans' property, much like children. HOWEVER -- and this is a big however -- that would unfortunately mean that euthanasia is no longer an option. For those of us who've watched our four-legged loved ones suffer too long, not having the option to give them a gentle, loving death would be very difficult.
WW,
Yes...good point: I too am glad I am not YY's dog! Can you imagine how one would be treated?
Regarding the comments about the Torah and the Bible. Most very religious Jews, and YY would be included in this category, believe that the Torah contains God's word as it was given to Moses at Sinai. (therefore, it is not the word of any human being.) The Talmud is God's word as well, except in written form, and has been interpreted through-out the ages. (at least this is my understanding.)
And yes, having the ability to put our beloved pets to sleep to avoid them having to suffer is indeed a very humane act of love.
thnx barbara you put it almost right
What I meant to say, and I think that this is what YY meant when he said I was almost right, is that the Talmud is God's words in spoken form.
indeed ;)
my kitty is my baby.
pets are family.
i could never imagine giving an animla a home and not a name.
Thanks for sharing ~
Hum..
Im not sure about this one Barbara.
Not all pets are cats and dogs. Here in Florida, where people from Latin America bring all kind of animals from South and Central America and keep them as pets, I wouldnt tolerate a snake sneaking into my back yard. The snake would get hit hard!!! Poisonous or not.
On the other hand if an absent minded owner left their pet outside on a very cold night and it die, would we apply the same cruelty law?
Counselor?
T :-D
UH_OH.
Yer not suggesting that you had written language given to you from the year 3500 bc, are ya? Or, would that be 1500 bc, when from the middle east, written languages became more pronounced?
(we'll just skip over the fact that the Chinese and Indians were already building libraries for their people some thousand years prior)
Y'know I'm a lil different when it comes t'religions, but, here's something t'ponder. When, on the first day, GOD created light and darkness, and that was the first day, what exactly do you imagine that light was?
And, believe it or not, I can prove that GOD indeed is in Heaven and that Heaven is up.
Oh yeah, as fer the animals. Dang! I'm the most forgiving person I know....OK, maybe not the Most, but, big time, eh?......anyway. If I caught someone hurting m'dogs, they better be able t'get out'a the way fast, cause I will act first and think later.
As it is, I can't have cows or chickens cause I know I'll name them and everyone knows ya can't eat animals y'name.
If you can't love anything or anybody, ya can't have an animal, and fer that reason, I'm thinkin yy has no dog.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home