Hoosierdood
Grandmaster
THIS!
That's just ridiculous. You're making statements of motive you have no idea about. Seriously? Because I don't give a ****? How could you possibly know what I give a **** about? And no, it's not like saying I love MY kid, but if other kids die, no biggie. That's utterly absurd. You need a lot more bank to cash checks that big.
You should seek to understand other people's viewpoint before you assume their motives. This is exactly what the ideologically possessed anti-gun zealot's do. This is the attitude that allows people to say that NRA members have the blood of shooting victims on their hands. They believe all kinds of evil things about gun owners, because they can't or won't understand gun owners worldview, and so they attribute their own moral standards to them, and then the moral conclusion they draw from that is that gun owners must be evil.
Now let's be clear so that no panties are twisted, I'm not saying you're just like anti-gun zealots. It's just an example of how things go awry when applying one's own personal, moral reasoning, to everyone else. I'm saying you can't assume that because someone disagrees with you about the morality of an outcome, that the moral conclusion has to point to some immoral thinking on their part. Maybe it's not a moral absolute as much as you think it is. It's not YOUR perspective that I'm following. It is my own.
I don't believe euthanasia is immoral in all circumstances. I don't know the circumstances under which those dogs in the photo were euthanized. It may have been the most humane outcome wrought as a consequence of irresponsible people. Which is sad. And in which case, the sad thing is that irresponsible people caused it to come to that point where euthanasia is the most human achievable outcome.