Not long ago, there was a controversial issue which being debated about fiercely: the existence of death penalty. The reason why we argued about this topic so intensely and even made people who involved into this dilemma is the eagerness which we tried to find the balance between the right of the families of victims and criminals. We paid a lot of attention on human right of death penalty, however the attention on the euthanasia of stray dogs are quite little. There is one common place between the death penalty on criminals and the euthanasia on the stray dogs. That is, these two measures both rely on the end of other’s lives to solve the problem or reduce the enduring pain. If we think it more carefully, we will come up some thoughts that do we really have right to end any other lives? Don’t we have better solution? When we try to find the balance between human right and stray animal right, why don’t we focus the issue of the existence of euthanasia as much as death penalty? Animals and human should be treated equally on their rights, then the basic of the foundation of pursuing the balance between the animals and human can be assured.
Why do we have to raise attention on the right of the stray animals? One reason is because the problems which stray animals caused effect our lives widely and deeply. Another one is because we cause or effect this problem anytime and any where just because one of our thoughtless actions. Many people keep
You point out that "death penalty on crimals" bears an analogy to "euthanasia on stray dogs"--i.e., to end others' lives. Do you find similar argumentations when people talk about these two issues? Some evidence or discourse from various sources might help use better understand the real point behind the "stray dogs issue".
回覆刪除...Stray dogs cause problems, but the reason of causing this problem is ourselves. In this condition, how can we just want to kill dogs to solve problems? ...
回覆刪除Excerpt from your issue paper
Annie, your issue paper made me recall an old question that I have been turning over in my mind for three years. I don't have an answer to this question and I believe there are no set answers to this one question.
Here it goes,
Why do you call canids on the streets, regardless of their true biological identity, stray dogs of the city?
Why do you call canids in the forest, regardless of their true biological identity, predator of the forest?
What sets them apart in the first place?
There is an analog to this question:
Why a wanderer in a city is called "homeless?"
Why a wanderer in the mountains is called "traveler?"
We can discuss this question if you are interested.