Replies

I think this is a very important subject and am happy that you have brought it to our attention.

Why aren't squirrels pets?

They're cute little furry things. They're not large, noisy and smelly like dogs. They are not the cold blooded killers of baby birds, cute little lizards and pretty much all creatures smaller than they, like cats are.

Some people shoot, skin, cook and eat squirrels. I know that some of you who live in the land of no guns will find this hard to believe, but it's true.

People think all cats and dogs should be neutered to keep the population down, but eating some of them would accomplish the same thing and I think in the long run be more humane.

Think about it. Would you prefer a life of no sex, ever, if it came with the guarantee of always being provided food and shelter? Why do you think your best friend would prefer it?

And humans are animals. Why aren't we neutering them in places where they have more babies than the environment they live in can support. For that matter, why don't we package and eat them?

We hear all the time of places where it is so sad that millions are starving. Isn't the solution obvious?

Would you let your child starve if there was a tasty neighbor handy? What about old people who are just sort of waiting to die? Why aren't they fair game, so to speak.

And why abort all these babies? Why not let them be born, then shipped to India, mixed with a little curry and served with rice? Is it really more humane to kill them in the womb?

If so, why? A new baby would not be an inconvenience or hardship to a woman if it disappeared from her life as soon as it was born. She was just going to kill it and flush it down the toilet anyway.

Do you think the starving children in India, or elsewhere, would care what their Spam or Livermush was made of?

But some of you would say, "People are more special. It would be monstrous, horrible, barbaric and inhumane to eat them." If that's true, then would it not be more humane to save the starving children by feeding them your pets?

Why isn't there a federal law proclaiming this? Isn't human life sacred? Would you let a child starve to death, in front of your eyes, to save your pet, or would you slice and dice the little furry animal and thus save a human life?

And if you knew that two million people were going to starve to death within the next couple months, would it not be more humane to keep one million of them alive by using the other one million as food?

Maybe we could keep starving children as pets instead of our little furry friends. Wouldn't that be more humane? No? You think it better that they starve?

Well, I find this issue to be very confusing but am happy to learn that my government has found another good way to spend tax money by creating another law.