My sister just told me she disagreed with our death management practices. Animals don't have souls, so go ahead and put them down, she said.
But my point wasn't that the animal needed a peaceful death experience, but that WE needed a nonviolent one. If the animal doesn't have a soul, then why worry about its pain? Animals die in pain all the time in the claws of their predators. But what about the effect of watching an animal die vs. killing it on our souls?
I agree that if your dog has rabies like Ol' Yeller, or is vomiting or excreting all over your house, then you have to put it down. Or if your horse has a broken leg and will never get up again, but will take months to die, then you have to put it down. But our rabbit wasn't a nuisance, so why should we have to commit an act of violence to put it out of its imagined misery? It would've caused us more pain than watching it die.
It's not easy to kill a pest, let alone a pet. What would St. Francis say? Swat that mouse, or move it out of the house, like St. Martin de Porres? While you hesitate, that mouse is growing fatter in your larder, BD . . .
In the Shadow of the Past
2 months ago
1 comment:
Dear Emily,
Not that it matters, but I agree entirely. Many of the dietary laws in the OT were a matter of humanity--there is no reason at all that "You shall not boil a kid in it's mother's milk" except our own humanity and the erosion of it that occurs with a certain callous attitude toward the world around us.
Hence, my agreement. Allow nature to take its course--from birth to natural death (except as you've noted.) What holds for humans, in my opinion does well as a set of guidelines for overall respect for life. (Not saying that it is all equal, simply saying, good guidelines.)
shalom,
Steven
Post a Comment