Politics, News & Issues >
People in the News
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould Michael Vick be banned from owning dogs?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| No | 19% | 19 votes | Total: 100 votes | |
| Yes | 81% | 81 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to Favorites"Michael Vick executed the dog by wetting the dog down with water and electrocuting the animal," would have been just some of the testimony that would have been used against the disgraced former football star had he (Vick) fought the charges against him. Instead Vick plead guilty and is now serving a 23-month sentence in a U.S. Penitentiary.
The emotions are heated in this high profile case and it's understandable but I hate to break this to people on the other side of the isle on this debate but pets are legally considered property and this includes dogs. Upon saying that though this does not excuse Vick or anyone else for treating an animal in such a terrible fashion. Even in terms of property you still must maintain and take care of it. For example, you cannot just decide to paint your house a bright lime green and let your grass grow 3 feet tall and expect no one to take notice and the same applies to your pets; you are not allowed to treat them anyway you see fit.
Now, before Vick reported to prison he had gone in and completed some PETA classes and by all accounts learned a lot in terms of what animals feel and think and whatnot. For you extreme animal lovers this should count for something although I, personally, question the sincerity of Vick's gestures.
Also, many on the other side of the debate try to put these dogs on the same pedestal as people. Get a freaking clue. One-writer states, "These animal cruelty cases should be taken as seriously as rape cases." Seriously? Let's not go overboard. I highly doubt anyone would feel this way if their mother or wife or sister was brutally raped and if so, you are obviously not close to your family. Another writes, "that is like taking your kids and giving them to something that will kill them." Now, I love animals and believe in treating them humanely but for people who go overboard like this need a quick reality check as to what is truly cruel and un-nerving and animal abuse takes a backseat to such human rights abuse such as rape or murder. If someone is a child molester or something of the kind then I am not willing to give the perpetrator another chance as to be around children. Children are people and as much as some might not like to hear this...people are more important than animals.
In ending, Vick made some terrible choices and is now paying the price for those choices but I believe in this case he should be given a second chance in life and this includes being able to own an animal again under a certain parameter of guidelines. He will have served his time and now has the burden of proof of proving to us that he is not the same Michael Vick and owning and loving a new pet is a step to prove that, if he should so desire.
Learn more about this author, Matthew Soo.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
I do believe that Michael Vick, along with other offenders against animals, should be prevented from owning animals and continuing to commit abuses to animals. I see animals much like children in their helplessness. A grown man will always have the advantage over an animal or child: strength, size and, though it may not appear so, intelligence. When a helpless being is endangered the law steps out in defense of the creature, whether it is a human or animal. When child predators are sentenced they serve long terms and are then on a list of sexual predators. These criminals are also very heavily watched around children and are often not allowed to be within a certain distance of schools, daycares, pools, etc.
Just as one would not put a child in a room with a child abuser, one should also not give animal abusers the right to own an animal. To allow either of these things to happen shows blatant negligence to the innocent. The government may think it has better things to do than 'bother with animal laws' but animals are just as much a part of this country as we are. The government makes sure to develope laws that are specifically made to protect those who are at the greatest risk of being subject to harm (handicapped, children, mentally challenged, etc). I believe animals also fit in this category. Dogs are naturally innocent and deserve to be treated kindly, as does any other animal.
Those that go to such lengths to abuse animals should never be allowed to own an animal again. This isn't a case of a simple mistake, such as forgetting to feed your dog or accidentally keeping him out in the cold. This is planned and practiced animal abuse. One does not force dogs to fight and kill each other, and think they are doing nothing wrong. To do this for entertainment shows a complete neglect for life, especially for the life of the innocent creatures he 'adopted.' I see no reason that he would adopt an animal for the sake of making it a part of his family, to love it, to care for it. If someone so sickly treats animals like that for fun and they see nothing wrong in it, they will never see anything wrong in that. He has no other need for a dog other than to abuse it. The law should step in and prevent this from happening to another dog, before he gets another dog and learns to be more secretive. Dogs are adopted to be loved and cared for. Period.
Learn more about this author, Jordan M.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
