When do People take precedent over saving Animals (pets)?

[weiser]

Many believe the Disaster in NO didn't justify leaving pets behind, but it's happened.


In your opinion, when would you justify leaving pets behind to die to save people?

[warrior1]

1. I wouldn't leave

without my dog. It's a personal choice.

[pecwae]

10. Me neither.

I have four; they are my children. I would just as soon die with them as live with the knowledge I left them behind to die alone, starving and wondering when I was coming back for them.

[calico1]

11. Ditto. n/t

[Redstone]

2. Whenever it was necessary.

I like animals as much as the next guy, but people come first.

Redstone

[Bucky]

42. Agreed, except for one thing

You obviously don't "like animals as much as the next guy" when the next guy is someone who can't see that rescuing humans takes priority.

[tk2kewl]

70. Anyone who would save their dog before their neighbor

deserves to drown with their dog IMO

[REP]

3. It's Not "Either/Or" - We Can Save Both

Saving animals doesn't mean letting people go without help. Helping people doesn't mean neglecting animals. I'm getting tired of binary thinking - aren't you?

[Redstone]

6. The original poster asked "if you HAD to choose." That does happen.

Redstone

[REP]

7. Not In My World

Maybe in yours. I live in a world without false dilemmas.

[Redstone]

18. Nice fantasy. I'm sure a lot of people in New Orleans had that same

smug fantasy, until reality intruded. Hope things continue to go well for you in your world.

Redstone

[REP]

20. "Smug Fantasy"?

I have means and I am a unemcumbered by children. It's not a fantasy, but thanks so much for playing. For people without any means, I can see where it would be a real poser.

[dusty64]

25. Exactly.

My pets ARE my children and I can think of NO circumstance where I would put my life in front of theirs. It would be the other way around period, my partner and I would get our kids out of harms way and then ourselves.

[pitohui]

29. i'm getting tired of ppl who have never been tested spouting off

we get it, you've never had to make a difficult choice

must be nice but you have nothing to say to those of us who live in the real world

[REP]

31. Ooooo A Psychic!

While you're reading my mind, give me the Lotto numbers.

We get it, you like thinking you know things you don't. But thanks for playing!

[pitohui]

50. i would never give you any lotto numbers

i don't have to be psychic to see you don't have a heart when you are judging ppl in a situation where YOU have never been tested, your own words condemn you

[bryant69]

4. A false dichotomy

If it literally came down to a choice between saving a person and saving a pet, well you save the person. I have no respect for anybody who answers that question any differently.

That said, this is, in 99% of the cases a false dichotomy. The real answer is you do what it takes to save both. In most cases, my guess is that that is possible. The real question usually ends up being "Well I've saved this person, now do I want to spend the time (money/gas) saving that pet?"

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Hissyspit]

30. There you go... Most of the time, it is a false choice, an excuse

insensitivity to animals, laziness, etc. A true, you-must-choose-one-over-the-other situation almost never occurs. Bryant69 has it right.

Buy some freaking pet carriers and have them at the ready!

[sando]

36. Please

Do animals a favor then and never own any, and please tell me you don't have children. The real question is if I can't save my children do I leave them to their fate if you want to put it in human terms as many pet owners consider their pets their children. And my answer is if I can't save my pets then I don't save myself at their expense. I die with them. And that is the problem facing America today, people do not have that sense of what it means to go down with the ship. They do not have the capacity to do anything but worry about ME ME ME. And that is the difference between the leaders today and the leaders during the Depression and WWII it's a completely different mentaility.

Studies have been done correlating the treatment of animals to the way we treat other human beings. In other words how we treat animals is pretty much the way we will treat each other.

[kwolf68]

40. ...

Studies have been done correlating the treatment of animals to the way we treat other human beings. In other words how we treat animals is pretty much the way we will treat each other.

BINGO!!!! DING DING DING....We have a winner.

This is a fact and studies from the finest universities in american have proven it.

I stand with those who refuse to "CHOOSE". My animals go with me. If I take responsibility in caring for them, then that's what I will damn well do and leaving them behind so I can grab my fuckign I-Pod aint what Im talking about (I realize this isn't about pets versus IPods).

Living creatures go first...then we get other "essentials".

[bryant69]

59. Thank you for your opinion

You didn't even read my post, so screw you.

It's not a choice between saving myself and saving my dog - if that were the choice I'd have to think about it - but might very well do as you suggest and sacrifice myself to be with my dog.

If it is a choice between saving another human being (the word another in this case, indicates that it is someone who is not me. You see how that works?) and saving a dog, than I think you have to choose the Human being.

At any rate, you should be glad to know that I don't have any children- but I do have a dog. One which I take very good care of.

In conclusion, go to hell.

Bryant

[sando]

65. And you didn't read mine

I never said I or my pets would take space away from another human being. I said I would stay with them period. So you can as you so politely told me go to hell as well.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

61. I'm sorry you have no respect for me, because that's what I would do

If it as MY pet, who is literally a member of MY family, literally my furbaby, I would save her over a total stranger. IF I had a "Sophie's Choice" I Had to make. A human's life isn't inherently more important than an animal's, imo. A better and fairer question would be: If you Had to choose, would you save a family member or a stranger?

Again, I am sorry you can't understand where those of us who say this come from. We have feelings for these animals, the same feelings many people have for their children, sisters, parents, etc.

[bryant69]

66. I understand that you are a juvenile and unfit to make such a decision

Letting a human die to save an animal is an act of narcissistic selfishness.

Again, let me say, before you start accusing me of not loving animals, the question itself is largely bullshit. In almost all cases you can save both, and someone who chooses to sacrifice animals, in many cases, is doing so out of selfishness or laziness. In both cases, that's crap.

But in the exceedingly rare situation where you had to choose between the two - humans should come first.

[AirmensMom]

5. If my cats can't go, I won't go.

But I have a car and a credit card and could get out if I had to. It must be terribly hard when you don't have choices -- especially if you have to keep your children safe.

[applegrove]

8. When you feel you don't have a choice. People over pets. Always.

But if you have a chance - then pets too.

[ComerPerro]

60. Agreed. 100%

[Lorien]

68. So you'd rescue Rove over Rover?

There are some people on this earth who aren't worth the life of a HAMSTER; a few members of Bushco come to mind...and yes, I'd chose my own loyal pets over my Freeper neighbor; he's been nothing but nasty from day one.

[Deep13]

9. Anytime a choice is necessary.

People have strong feelings for their pets. This is a holdover from neolithic times when humans first developed a symbiotic relationship with canines. This continued into the agricultural age. The reason was simple. We needed animals for survival. Frankly, I think people make a mistake when they personify animals and allow themselves to think of them as family members. That survival instict becomes a dysfunctional suicide instict in some situations. Whenever the choice is the dog on one hand and your own family on the other, well...what choice is there, really?

People may say otherwise and pretent it is somehow principle, but in fact they just don't want to admit that they would never sacrifice themselves for a dog.

[Debau2005]

12. Not going without my dog

My elderly dog has been throw a lot with me and has been there when I needed something to hug. He has moved with me from rural Bama to the big city, has been threw job changes, and now threw a devastating breakup. I am not leaving with out him.

It would be my personal choice and I would not knowingly put anyone else in harm's way to make that choice.

[Burma Jones]

13. Both - you never know whether you'll have to eat the dogs...n/t

[mikeytherat]

38. OK, I'm a pet person, but I did laugh at that!

mikey_the_rat

[txaslftist]

74. Heh.

[cynatnite]

14. It's a no-brainer for me

people first.

If a building was on fire and I was sent in to rescue someone and their pet, but could only take one...it would be the person.

I can understand how people view their pets as a part of their family. The attachment and love cannot be denied, but no matter how it's sliced people are more important and should be given precidence.

In the case of Katrina and Rita, if the people refuse to leave without their pets, I say it is their choice to remain behind, but still put their lives at risk.

[WildClarySage]

15. The question is, how many people are going to stay behind and die

because their pets could not evacuate with them?

[eleonora]

16. If you can save them, save them

"In your opinion, when would you justify leaving pets behind to die to save people?"

When the lives of people are in danger and there's no space for an animal...

[grrl62]

17. my pets are people

they are equal in my world. if anything, i hold animals in a higher regard than people. i have never experienced hatred and cruelty from non-humans.

[pimpbot]

23. So, if you were saving people from a burning building...

and found a person unconcious lying on the floor, and next to him/her their pet, you'd save the pet first?

[Debau2005]

32. I am not sure we are all on the same page...

When it comes to saving people or pets, then I would SAVE the person first and hopefully be able to take the pet along. I don't think there are many people that would leave the person on the floor to die, if they had to chose between the person or a pet.

But when it comes to ME leaving without my own pet, I would not. It would be my PERSONAL choice to stay and care for MY dog.

[LostinVA]

64. I would choose my pet over a stranger

Because the pet is my family member. I would feel awful about it, because it's a life gone, but my family would have to come first.

[KittyWampus]

19. #1. I wouldn't leave my pets behind. If I HAD to leave without them

I'd probably kill them to make sure they didn't suffer.

[txindy]

21. This will degenerate into a flamefest.

[AbbessHeloise]

22. Depends on the person

I would never leave without my pets. According to the Bible believers (and I'm not one of them) people are put on earth to have dominion over the animals, which in my book means caring for them. I just personally would not leave my pets behind - we can both die. But if there were other people around and I had to make a choice, it would depend on the person. There are several people who aren't worth even half what my pets are.

[weiser]

28. I'm shocked by your response...

if there were other people around, whatever the "color", "race" or "type", I feel they should be placed above your pet.


Will you truly allow a person to die to save your pet.


And what "people" are these you wouldn't mind killing????:wow:

[Maru Kitteh]

45. I can't answer for the other poster but if you make me choose between my

pets and

my ex-husband
Bush
Condi
Rummy
P. Wolfowitz
Cheney
my ex FIL
Tom DeLay
any clinic bomber
One woman named Marylin
Jerry Falwell
my ex BIL
Randall Terry
An ex-family member that beat his kids
An ex-neighbor that beat his kids
Rush Limbaugh
David Duke
any member of the Westboro "baptist church"
any Klan member

or any other purveyor of hate, violence, greed or death.........

MY PETS ARE GOING TO WIN EVERY DAMN TIME

[AbbessHeloise]

63. To name a few

Bush
Cheney
Condi
Rumsfeld
DeLay
Ken Starr
The Enron "Boys"
My ex-husband
The BTK Killer who murdered my cousin
My ex-mother-in-law
My husband's two kids and his ex-wife
There are probably a few others but it would take a while to name them.
My pets are rescued before them - no question about it.

[LostinVA]

67. You don't understand: it's saving a family member over a stranger

THAT is the fair question. It's not an "animal" versus "human" thing. It's family over non-member, which is... errr.... human. Now, saving your pet or your mom, or your mom or your sister.... that's where it would be awful...

[Lorien]

72. Rove, Cheney, the wife and child beater who was my neighbor...

it's nice that you have such adoration for such "humans", and it's sad that you can't fathom compassion for other species. This is flamebait used as nothing more than a way for you to attempt to display your moral superiority to others on a public forum-and it's been done by others many, many times before.

[weiser]

24. When do People take precedent over saving Animals (pets)?

I don't believe my question was answered...

applegrove said, "when we feel we don't have a choice".. when is that??

WildClarySage said, "question is, how many people are going to stay behind and die".... that's probably a better measure.

Did leaving pets behind in New Orleans save human lives??

Could we truly have been able to save both?? It seems that many equate human=animal, i.e. both should be treated equally. I'd personally never kick out a person from a rescue boat to same a dog, would you??

[justiceischeap]

33. Your question is loaded

Do you need to kick a person out of a boat to save a dog or cat? No, you don't. The animal can very well sit on your lap. FEMA has provisions for rescuing animals, they just didn't follow them. Could you not have animal rescue teams working in tandem with human rescue teams to get the animals out? Yes you could. There never needs to be an and or question when it comes to this matter.

You didn't even ask the question how many people died because animals weren't saved? When you have a bond with an animal, there is no choosing, it's like asking someone, when do you decide to leave your child behind?

I just got back from NOLA, I was there doing animal rescues. The way some people disregarded their animals says quite a bit about those people and the human race in general. Some tied their dogs to banisters on the first floor giving them no means of escape so they drowned needlessly.

Lastly, when people were finally allowed in to NOLA to rescue animals, after the fact, the red tape and bs that you had to go through to get the job done is amazing, however I can tell you that there was no one we didn't encounter that worked for the government, National Guard, Police, what have you that didn't come to us asking that we go to a location to rescue an animal. Many felt guilt about having to leave these helpless beings behind. We even had a FEMA director in St. Bernard Parish offer anything we needed because we rescued his mother's cat.

[REP]

35. Bless You For Your Work

(or whatever metaphor for high, reverant praise you prefer)

Great post, too!

[buddysmellgood]

26. In any and all cases in which I had to choose between people and animals.

[pitohui]

27. use yr common sense, ppl come first, don't throw around blame

nothing would have gone better in the superdome if gang members had been allowed to bring their pets, including pit bulls, along

i've been in a situation where i had no option but to leave some of my pets, it's a terrible feeling, but to stay home & die would be irresponsible to self & family, you can live w. guilt, you can't live if you're dead, my story had a happy ending, my pets did well, but i learned from this, don't judge

the ppl who leave pets behind are doing the best they can for their family, as are the ppl who find a way to bring their pets along

ppl who stay in harm's way because of a pet, endangering themselves & rescue personnel, are not as holy & moral as some would have you believe, cnn carried a story where a mentally ill women forced her children & mother to stay behind because they couldn't take their pets, the woman's mother died in the attic where they had to hide from floodwaters, a horrible horrible story

moral choices are not always cheap & easy, if they were, they wouldn't be difficult choices

[weiser]

34. Thanks for your response...

....but common sense doesn't seem to reign supreme.....


It's all a question of preparedness. If FEMA were better prepared and organized, allowing volunteers and utilizing a maximum number of federal troops, pets could have been saved in New Orleans.... There's even the problem of the Red Cross refusing to accommodate animals.


FEMA know they could save enough people, hence animals were off their list from the start.


I cannot think of an occasion where an animal should be saved instead of the person...! (I'm sure some will beg to prove me wrong)

[pitohui]

53. preparedness cost money

in a time of war good luck arguing that nat'l guard troops are best employed saving pets

reality is that even ppl weren't being saved, like the young girl who had her throat cut in the convention center

we have limited resources & FEMA was never in a position to save "enough" ppl whatever that means -- if yr family member was killed, you'd prob. argue w. current ideas abt saving "enough"

we are still counting our dead and it is projected that we will still be counting our dead for another six weeks

whatever may be the case in cuba, where i can't visit & see for myself if stories are true, OUR country is not rich enough to save all the ppl, much less all the pets

god knows i wish it were otherwise, we all do, but it ain't

[Maru Kitteh]

37. If the nation of CUBA can manage to evacuate the animals and pets

along with it's people, why can't we?

I think what you saw in NO is that many people are willing to die rather than be leave behind their family members to certain death, human or not. I couldn't and would not leave any of my family to die. When I took my cats and dog in that was a contract, like having a child is a contract. I am responsible for providing for them until they are capable of starting their own careers and moving out so they can support themselves. When Buddy the cat can get a job in banquet management and Ginger the dog becomes a traffic cop I won't have to worry about being responsible for them any more.

[kwolf68]

39. I save my children first, my wife, then my pets, then myself.

I would risk my life for my pets. It's what you do for those you love. I believe "Dominion" over the Earth means something far different than the vile trash that parades itself today.

I wish the religious quacks really believed "God" put us in charge of his creation to look after it, protect it....They may not believe it, but that is what I will do.

The animals in my care will be protected to the very best of my ability. My only complaint is I can't do more for the countless animals in great need I am not in control of. I donate money to the HSUS and each month I take cat litter and food to the local shelter, but that's a small penance compared to what these creatures really need.

[kwolf68]

41. People or Pets?

How about Dick Cheney or a dog?

Who do you save first?

Hehehe...

[Bucky]

44. Dick Cheney, obviously

How about Dick Cheney or a dog? Who do you save first?

For the same reasons I'd like to see bin Laden taken alive, I'd save Cheney. I want to live in hope that there will eventually be a trial before a civil jury and the full measure of justice meted out.

[mopaul]

46. dick cheney's fat ass could feed a lot of starving animals

[raccoon]

49. Yeah, but would it poison the animals? or give them rabies? nt

[seabeyond]

43. alaways. didnt read post. people vs animal, for me is the obvious

of always. always if i am asked, this little 10 yr old boy, or old man, or mother, or husband........ or this dog, i will always chose man

[rolleitreks]

47. Whenever. I don't get the whole "pet" thing. n/t

[Coventina]

48. Leave the "either/or" "black/white" "us vs. them" type of thinking

for the freepers.

Compassion and caring are not a zero sum game.

[seabeyond]

52. self deleted

[Rainbowreflect]

51. I think you are actually asking 2 very different questions.

If I had to make a choice to save a person or an animal I would save the person, with a few exceptions.
If I had to make the choice of evacuating without my dogs or staying with them & possibly dying, I would stay with my dogs.
I love them, they are my children. Would you ask someone to leave their children because they were too small to walk?

[ArkDem]

54. It would depend on whether the animal was one of the

'tasty' variety.

[Cats Against Frist]

55. Look, this question is fucking absurd and makes us look like fruitcakes

If someone chooses to stay behind and die for their own pet -- CRAZY, but fine. If someone subjects either a minor or a helpless person (elderly, disabled, etc.), to potential death to save a pet, then, if they don't die, they should be arrested for attempted murder. I don't care if the kid is screaming about the pet, or agrees to it, or whatever. A parent's responsibility is to their child before a damn dog or cat.

State resources should be used to rescue people FIRST. Private donations and the Humane Society, etc., should be allowed to form and run rescue operations independent of tax dollars.

I can't believe some of the shit that I read on here: GET A CLUE!!! PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL TO ANIMALS. The only people that I will even entertain listening to this horseshit from is a vegan who has never visited a zoo, wears all synthetic materials and refuses all medical care. Other than that, it's just crazy talk. People love their pets, but people also need to get a grip.

[MercutioATC]

58. Exactly!

If somebody chooses to stay behind because of their pets, that's their choice but the ONLY priority of rescue workers should be evacuating PEOPLE.

[ComerPerro]

56. Um, because they are people?

Shouldn't that be reason enough.

Believe me, I love animals and I am happy to see the work that is being done to rescue animals.

But, when it comes to a case of saving people or saving animals, I'm gonna default to people.

"Sorry, mam. We couldn't save your children. We didn't have enough room. But, we did bring your dog and cat back"

[newportdadde]

57. Are the people car salesmen, lawyers, or insurance adjusters?

If so I got to go with the pets. :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. "Are the people car salesmen, lawyers, or insurance adjusters?"

Lincoln was a lawyer....


What if someone had forsaken Lincoln to save Fido?

[2bfree]

71. I love my pets...............

But I would save another person over them any day, I can't even imagine any other way of thinking. If there was a small child sitting next to your cat and you could only bring one with you then who on earth would pick the cat?

[txaslftist]

73. Ummm every single time.

People are people, dogs is just dogs.

I love my dog, but if it's her or me, gotta go with me.

If it's her or my kid, gonna save my kid.

If it's her or my R/W neighbor, gonna save my neighbor.

If it's her or George Bush... I'll get back to you on that...

[triguy46]

75. When? Always. Get a grip. n/t

Its a tough world and in tough times, fluffy might just have to stay behind. I can't believe this is even being discussed.

[The Magistrate]

76. Locking

Flame-Bait.