Wacky Wednesday--Pets Should Not Be For Sale

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

~Terminology matters. Pets exist for our pleasure and entertainment, but animal companions are friends who need our care. Owners are totalitarian monarchs, but animal guardians are benevolent caregivers.
~Just as we don’t believe in slavery, we shouldn’t think of pets as property or of ourselves as owners.
~Owners can destroy a thing, but this clearly isn’t true of pets
~If you were a domestic animal, would you prefer to be thought of as a companion or as a piece of property?
~The property mindset is what leads people to mistreat animals. Mistreating animals is a precursor for mistreating people. If we want to raise the stature of people and protect them better, we would do so by also raising the stature of pets.
~Pets are part of the family, just ask any child and most adults.
~You don’t sell children, why would you sell pets?
~The way we treat animals says a lot about our culture, especially since they are so vulnerable and dependant upon us.
~The best way to discourage puppy mills and kitten factories is to eliminate the profit motive.
~South Lake Tahoe and West Hollywood have already done this. El Paso and Austin are considering it.

Links:
San Francisco considers pet sale ban (LA Times)