Animals Take Head of Food Chain

When I began thinking about this week’s column, I was seriously considering a different topic. However, I read two articles that stirred me up.

Cats and dogs have been a part of my life since I was five years old. My first kitten was my best friend, and lived for almost 16 years. Throughout my 40 plus years, I have had an assortment of pets. No one has greater affection for animals than I.

I understand that many people’s lives are empty and they find companionship in their pets and I understand that animals love unconditionally. There has been research to support the benefits of pet ownership. Just petting a dog can bring a person’s blood pressure down. But that isn’t the point. An animal, regardless of its value and function, is still an animal. Their lives have value, but they should not be valued over that of a human life.

On the front page of a Sunday Amarillo newspaper, was an item under the “Check This Out” heading. This particular column dealt with a couple that had more money than sense. They had paid a research team to find a way to clone their 14-year-old dog.

Regardless of where you stand on the subject of cloning, spending $3.7 million to clone a dog is ludicrous. A dog, no matter how precious it may seem, is still just a dog. It cannot replace the value of a human life.

That $3.7 million bequest could have been used to do research for a cure of any number of human diseases. It could have gone a long way to bring relief to suffering.

Under the same heading, another artic le described the efforts off the coast of Massachusetts, to save a 50-ton whale from certain death due to an infection. I am sure this is a beautiful animal and haw sad that its life might be cut short. Who knows how many of these whales are left in the world? They might be, or could soon be, on the endangered species list. But consider how much money is being spent on this project already having involved five attempts.

And who knows how many more will be necessary before the whale might be saved.

When the day comes, and frankly, I think it could already be here, than an animal’s life has more value, more worth, than that of a human, then we all need to reassess our priorities

That $3.7 million I wrote of earlier is a lot of money. It could do an immense amount of good benefiting humanity, both ill and healthy. Food banks, homeless shelters, basic needs for the elderly, fans, heaters; the list could go on and on. I’m sure each of us must know at least one person who is so burdened by a lack of basic needs that just a small investment could improve their quality of life.

How many hungry families in Massachusetts could have benefited by a weeks worth of groceries provided by the funds used to attempt to save the whale?

How many children with juvenile diabetes went without insulin because their parents couldn’t afford if?

My intent is not to retract all funds that are available to help suffering animals, but rather to help us put these projects, and others like them, into perspective. Animals were put on this plant for us to have dominion over.

Human life seems to have little if any value these days. But I feel human life does have value and worth. For me it comes back to the topic of abortion. This ultimate form of child abuse takes the lives of more than a million babies each year. A million babies.

Abortions are performed on girls and women because they can’t afford to keep their child. How many could be saved by the funds spent on these two projects? If a child’s life could be saved with a $1,000, that $3.7 million bequest to clone a dog could potentially save 3,700 babies. One of those children might be the scientist who discovers a cure for AIDS, or Alzheimer’s or juvenile diabetes, or … well, you think of a disease.

The bottom line is this … if funds are available to save an animal’s life, then there should be matching funds to save the life of a human. Anything less is not acceptable.

Copyright, Debby Willett, All Rights, 2009-2010