"It is exactly the same principle."
Wrongly applied. Logic is like a hammer: you can use it to drive a nail, or to smash your thumb.
I don't see how OlLine Rebel's point is wrongly applied.
Anytime someone suggests, "All the money we spend on X, where X is any luxury you may name, should, morally, be spent on the sick/children/elderly/minorities" automatically implies a reduction to absurdity. At least to me.
You said in post #10 that, "If there are children in the world not receiving medical care, how can one justify spending huge sums on animals?"
I believe later you went on to (rightfully) clarify that if one donates to charity in some form or another, then that's a separate issue. So, are you now saying that there could be a justification for spending huge sums on animals, as long as charity comes first?
If not, then how can you justify owning a computer, which probably cost a "huge sum", when "there are children in the world not receiving medical care"?