# Should this animal be euthanized?



## Neltharion (Nov 17, 2011)

I saw this posted for $500 on another site. I e-mailed an inquiry just out of curiousity with questions regarding the turtle's(turtles'?) mobility, eating habits, and coordination. I was told that the turtle swims, walks around, and eats just fine. I don't believe this turtle could actually swim and catch fish the way a normal one could. I'm also guessing that two separate sets of brain waves cause the turtle to move around in what appears to be 'spastic' type motions. 

Personally, I would be leaning towards euthanizing the animal. I tend to believe that it will have a somewhat diminished quality of life, and I personally would not want to capitalize on it. I know the flipside of that is if the animal can exist, feed, and otherwise perform daily functions painfree; then an argument could be made that there really isn't any harm in allowing it to live. I just found the pic to be very disturbing and really felt sorry for the animal. 

Thoughts?


----------



## cherylim (Nov 17, 2011)

If they're real they look healthy! Would you kill all conjoined twins?

Cute


----------



## The Adjustor (Nov 17, 2011)

I saw that ad a well. 

I don't see any reason it should be put down unless it is extremely uncoordinated or obviously has a poor quality of life. It would probably have special needs and would require more attention, but there are always people out there willing to provide that kind of care.


----------



## Neltharion (Nov 17, 2011)

cherylim said:


> Would you kill all conjoined twins?



Not necessarily. The two questions I ask myself: Are they suffering? How diminished is their quality of life? If they are suffering, then I would say they should be euthanized. If their quality of life is severely diminished relative to what a 'normal' specimen would have, then I would say 'yes' then too.

I guess that raises another question for the breeders out there. If you had such a specimen and decided to let it live, would you feel comfortable selling it at a premium not knowing whether any special needs it might have were being met?


----------



## dmarcus (Nov 17, 2011)

I see nothing that says it should be put down. If its healthy and if the owner is willing to put the time into caring for it then let it live.


----------



## bikerchicspain (Nov 17, 2011)

They look healthy enough, unfortunately conjoined reptiles don't usually live long anyway.


----------



## Jacqui (Nov 17, 2011)

It may not catch a fish, but then how many that size either or able too or are even feed live fish? Often one head is the dominate on for both eating and motion. That could be the case here.


----------



## ascott (Nov 17, 2011)

I say go little turtles go! !!!!!! The good Lord made ya to be exactly as you are...so swim swim swim.....


----------



## zesty_17 (Nov 17, 2011)

i would not euthanize them.


----------



## nikki0601 (Nov 17, 2011)

Unfortunately these animals are often times bred this way purposely for the money, just as 2 headeds are, and other morphs, sold for substantial amounts.. And there is a market for it, I've seen this turtle on faunaclassifieds, going for 3800, its crazy.. I personally would not want to own this type of morph, even if I had all the money in the world.. This turtle does not need to put down, justs needs lots of extra TLC, he needs a special setup for his mobilization, he needs special feedings daily, etc... regardless he wont live very long.. Hopefully someone will him/them the best quality of life possible


----------



## Neltharion (Nov 17, 2011)

Jacqui said:



> It may not catch a fish, but then how many that size either or able too or are even feed live fish? Often one head is the dominate on for both eating and motion. That could be the case here.



Well, obviously one that small wouldn't be successful at chasing down fish. I was thinking more in terms of when it got larger (if it survives that long). 

Also, everything that I've read on bicephaly has indicated that the independent heads of these animals struggle for control of the body.

Just one example that I had found, "Just watching them feed, often fighting over which head will swallow the prey, shows that feeding takes a good deal of time . . . .They also have a great deal of difficulty deciding which direction to go, and if they had to respond to an attack quickly they would just not be capable of it." 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0318_0319_twoheadsnake.html

Depending on its degree of coordination and ability to move and feed, I might be tempted to raise it myself. I don't think I would be willing to sell such an animal at a premium not knowing whether any special needs would be met. These types of animals often end up on display to the public, and care is oftentimes not what it should be.


----------



## cemmons12 (Nov 17, 2011)

Live and let live!


----------



## l0velesly (Nov 17, 2011)

nikki0601 said:


> Unfortunately these animals are often times bred this way purposely for the money, just as 2 headeds are, and other morphs, sold for substantial amounts.. And there is a market for it, I've seen this turtle on faunaclassifieds, going for 3800, its crazy.. I personally would not want to own this type of morph, even if I had all the money in the world.. This turtle does not need to put down, justs needs lots of extra TLC, he needs a special setup for his mobilization, he needs special feedings daily, etc... regardless he wont live very long.. Hopefully someone will him/them the best quality of life possible



I very much agree with you.

Euthanization should only be used on animals that have very limited movement or other "serious" physical conditions.


----------



## dmmj (Nov 17, 2011)

For me anyways It would depend on quality of life issue. I imagine it would be quite confused.


----------



## african cake queen (Nov 17, 2011)

bikerchicspain said:


> They look healthy enough, unfortunately conjoined reptiles don't usually live long anyway.



this is true. i agree.


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Nov 18, 2011)

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkKWApOAG2g[/video]

Should Abby and Betty? I say give all a chance.


----------



## WallieTheTortoise (Nov 19, 2011)

Terry Allan Hall said:


> Video Link: youtube
> 
> Should Abby and Betty? I say give all a chance.



Link isn't working...


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Nov 19, 2011)

WallieTheTortoise said:


> Terry Allan Hall said:
> 
> 
> > Video Link: youtube
> ...



It isn't in the post above yours? I can see it fine.

Might you have some filter blocking YouTube videos?


----------



## SailingMystic (Nov 19, 2011)

I use to rescue sea turtles and was amazed by some of their handicaps -- and how they adapted. This little one seems fine. It will adapt one way or another and would surprise you. It all depends on if it's free in the wild too. It could be more of a bottom dweller when it comes to food.


----------



## Neltharion (Nov 20, 2011)

Terry Allan Hall said:


> Should Abby and Betty? I say give all a chance.



Comparing human teenagers to a hatchling turtle is apples and oranges. The fact is that with humans the legal aspect comes in to play, where with other animals it isn't a factor. Once these twins were born, it would have been illegal to euthanize them.

Also, in the human equation is the fact that a prenatal diagnosis of conjoined twins can be discovered as early as 6 to 7 weeks, at which point many of these pregnancies are terminated. Not to make this an abortion debate, but from a certain perspective, many human conjoined twins are euthanized in the sense that the 'lives' are terminated prior to birth. Although I couldn't terminate the life of human conjoined twins already born, I probably would terminate the pregnancy of conjoined twinsif I knew they would not be able to be separated with surgery.

The fact is that nature has a way of naturally dealing with these types of deformities in the wild. The lack of mobility makes these animals easy prey or unable to hunt. In those species where the parents care for the offspring, many of them (rodents for example) will kill and/or eat those young that are deformed. In other cases, animals in the cervidae family (deer, antelope, gazelle), if the young are unable to stand and walk upon birth due to deformity, they're left to die (usually by falling prey).


----------



## Mgridgaway (Nov 20, 2011)

If they're not in immense pain than I think they deserve a shot at life. We offer the same dignity to humans with physical disabilities... I don't see why we can't extend that to animals as well.


----------



## Raymo2477 (Nov 21, 2011)

A pet store near me, Capt. Nemo's, in Norristown, Pa, has a two headed slider. I t is a freakshow style attraction for them and kids line up to see it. It always looks sad to me 

That being said it eats and is growing so I would always say let it live and the one in the ad. 

I think selling a oddity like this is wrong and the breeder should just try to get it to a suitable long term home...I'm sure a zoo or nature center would love an animal like this and be able to properly care for it.


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Nov 21, 2011)

Neltharion said:


> Terry Allan Hall said:
> 
> 
> > Should Abby and Betty? I say give all a chance.
> ...



We're mostly in agreement, other than equating a human life as being more valuable than another being's life. 

All life is equally precious.


----------



## dmmj (Nov 21, 2011)

well I am all for quality of life being the deciding factor, but I can't compare a human's right to choose over an animal's.


----------



## TylerStewart (Nov 21, 2011)

Do we really think that there's a breeder out there that has a trick up their sleeve to produce two headed turtles? Are they _really_ breeding specifically for this? Answer is, no they're not. It's something that happens occasionally when something is produced by the millions like red ear sliders are. There's not a pond full of two headed adults somewhere in Louisiana cranking out two headed babies. It's not done intentionally. That's not to say that a breeder isn't going to jump on the opportunity to capitalize on it, though. If any of you hatched something like this that you knew was worth potentially thousands of dollars, would you automatically put it down? I doubt it. Even people that think it should be put down would probably slip it out the back door for someone else to resell publicly. 



Terry Allan Hall said:


> We're mostly in agreement, other than equating a human life as being more valuable than another being's life.
> 
> All life is equally precious.



False..... This is silly. Of course a human life is more valuable than an animal life, from any angle you want to look at it. What's sad is that this idea keeps popping up that an animal life is more or equally as important as a human one.


----------



## EricIvins (Nov 21, 2011)

nikki0601 said:


> Unfortunately these animals are often times bred this way purposely for the money, just as 2 headeds are, and other morphs, sold for substantial amounts.. And there is a market for it, I've seen this turtle on faunaclassifieds, going for 3800, its crazy.. I personally would not want to own this type of morph, even if I had all the money in the world.. This turtle does not need to put down, justs needs lots of extra TLC, he needs a special setup for his mobilization, he needs special feedings daily, etc... regardless he wont live very long.. Hopefully someone will him/them the best quality of life possible



That's not true at all.........

These mutations pop up in many Turtle Farms because of the number of animals produced.......Nobody is purposely breeding twins or any of these mutations because of the simple fact that they don't need to.......The Farms do all the work needed........

Another FYI - There are more Siamese Twin Turtless that are mature than you would think........I know of one collector that has over 10 that he raised from hatchlings.......


----------



## dmmj (Nov 21, 2011)

regarding breeding I do know of a online site that purposely breeds (or tries to at least) one eye RES and then tries to sell them for like 1000. I honestly don't know how successful they are in selling them. The blindness is some sort of genetic thing with this particular RES.


----------



## Neltharion (Nov 21, 2011)

dmmj said:


> regarding breeding I do know of a online site that purposely breeds (or tries to at least) one eye RES and then tries to sell them for like 1000. I honestly don't know how successful they are in selling them. The blindness is some sort of genetic thing with this particular RES.



I noticed that too. The same site also sells two headed RES for $3800 and two headed yellow bellied for $1700. 

Then there is another site selling two faced sliders, two headed sliders, two headed yellow bellied, and shell-less sliders, from $800 on up to $1400.

Seeing this on sale, was a bit disturbing.


----------



## Yvonne G (Nov 21, 2011)

Now, see...In my opinion, THAT one doesn't have much of a chance at life. Seems to me one of them (probably the weaker one) will probably drown because the stronger one will be up breathing.


----------



## Neltharion (Nov 21, 2011)

TylerStewart said:


> That's not to say that a breeder isn't going to jump on the opportunity to capitalize on it, though. If any of you hatched something like this that you knew was worth potentially thousands of dollars, would you automatically put it down? I doubt it. Even people that think it should be put down would probably slip it out the back door for someone else to resell publicly.



That simply is not true. The dollar is not the bottom line for everyone that breeds. The fact is that most of us that breed on a very small scale are lucky to break even, and are likely losing money. I would not be breeding if money was the main motivating factor. 

Before tortoises, I was keeping and breeding pythons and constrictors. Part of my interest in bicephaly is that I had a siamese jungle carpet python hatch. A friend of mine is a local store owner, he offered me a fairly substantial amount. He was going to put it on display in his store. I don't know how much of the snake's erratic movement was because both heads were trying to control the body, or if was also in part to stargazing. The snake's heads were frequently pointed upward. In my mind, the humane thing to do was to cull the snake. I would imagine that there would be others that would do the same thing.


----------



## TylerStewart (Nov 22, 2011)

Neltharion said:


> That simply is not true. The dollar is not the bottom line for everyone that breeds.



Which is why I said "I doubt it" instead of "no" and "probably" shortly after. Being into breeding for the fun of it (which I think everyone that breeds in this forum is) doesn't mean that someone isn't going to jump at the opportunity to make money. Some people would put down an animal. Most people wouldn't, and haven't in the past. I think a huge majority of the deformed baby turtles and torts don't live beyond a month, and those that do mostly end up in the market. I'm not saying I'm all for it, I'm just saying what I think is fact. I've had random baby tortoises hatch without eyes. Not sure what I would have done with them, they never lived beyond a month. I think the last thing I would have done is put them up for sale like I was proud of it. 

I'd be surprised if the "eyeless" thing was something that could be produced by breeding two eyeless adults (assuming you could even get two eyeless water turtles to find each other and breed).... They probably claim it is (not sure why you would), but look who we're dealing with LOL.


----------



## mytwotortys (Dec 4, 2011)

TylerStewart said:


> Do we really think that there's a breeder out there that has a trick up their sleeve to produce two headed turtles? Are they really breeding specifically for this? Answer is, no they're not. It's something that happens occasionally when something is produced by the millions like red ear sliders are. There's not a pond full of two headed adults somewhere in Louisiana cranking out two headed babies. It's not done intentionally. That's not to say that a breeder isn't going to jump on the opportunity to capitalize on it, though. If any of you hatched something like this that you knew was worth potentially thousands of dollars, would you automatically put it down? I doubt it. Even people that think it should be put down would probably slip it out the back door for someone else to resell publicly.
> 
> False..... This is silly. Of course a human life is more valuable than an animal life, from any angle you want to look at it. What's sad is that this idea keeps popping up that an animal life is more or equally as important as a human one.



WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! ALL LIFE IS PRECIOUS!!!!!!!!! HUMANS ARE ANIMALS TOO, WE EVOLVED FROM APES, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS WE HAVE MORE DEVELOPED BRAINS!!!!!!!!!!! IF YOU THINK THAT ANIMAL LIVES ARE LESS VALUABLE THAN HUMAN LIVES WHEN COMPARED, THEN GET THE **** OUT OF MY VIEW BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU DON'T KNOW VALUE WHEN YOU SEE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Yvonne G (Dec 4, 2011)

Do you swat a fly? step on a cockroach? spray ants?


----------



## mytwotortys (Dec 4, 2011)

If it's not in pain, let it live, that's my motto. Why should it die if it's perfectly healthy apart from extra head? You wouldn't kill a conjoined human, so why kill this? It's sad that people think humans are of more value than animals, if there were no animals on the planet, would we have meat for our diet? Milk for our children? We all run out of natural human milk at some point, then what do we do? Would we have wool for our sweaters? Fleece is alright, but what if we run out? When global warming becomes a major major problem, we may have to use animals for energy reasons. Excretement, belches, running power and transport are jobs that few humans would want to do. Animals help us more than you think. We take them for granted. We sell them for money to live, we do that with crops too, but what provides us with the fertiliser to grow them? Animals. We would be extinct without animals. There are some people who clearly don't appreciate them at all. Let the turtle live. It may one day save our lives.



emysemys said:


> Do you swat a fly? step on a cockroach? spray ants?



I thought you were nice, emysemys. Clearly not. And, FYI, I don't swat flies, I open windows to let them out. I don't get cockroaches, I live in England, but if I did, I would get it in a glass and set it free. I don't like ants, but I don't kill them. I love all living things, and always try my hardest not to kill them, even if they are insects, don't underestimate a 12 year old.


----------



## Talka (Dec 5, 2011)

On a cosmic scale, all life is equally precious, since there's so little life (that we know of) in this entire Universe.
However, as far as society is concerned, there is a scale of which animals are more important than others. Bugs rank last, I kill any bug I see inside my house.
Reptiles I consider important. Birds and fish get a pass, unless they're dinner.
Plants... plants I consider almost as important as pets. Having studied some biology, I really appreciate their complexity. I would never toss out a living plant. That's as bad to me as kicking a puppy.

There used to be an old Asian religion, I believe in China over 2,000 years ago, that believed that all life was equally precious, to the point that killing even tiny ants, or the leaves on a plant, was a sin. From what I hear, the religion's leaders starved to death to avoid harming nature.
So um... that religion didn't last very long!

As for the topic, if the turtle(s) can get by just fine in a habitat, I say let 'em live. If I sold a conjoined tort, I'd sell it for double! It *is* two torts, after all!


----------



## jackrat (Dec 5, 2011)

I'm currently working on an eight legged redfoot project. I plan on calling them "spider reds".


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Dec 5, 2011)

TylerStewart said:


> We're mostly in agreement, other than equating a human life as being more valuable than another being's life.
> 
> All life is equally precious.



False..... This is silly. Of course a human life is more valuable than an animal life, from any angle you want to look at it. What's sad is that this idea keeps popping up that an animal life is more or equally as important as a human one. 
[/quote]

May I, with all due respect, point out that you speak from a Judeo-Christian's "conceit/perspective"...not everyone shares that "disability", though. 

Many faiths realize that we humans are no more or less valuable to the actual world than any other living being.



emysemys said:


> Do you swat a fly? step on a cockroach? spray ants?



No, I allow/encourage geckos and toads to eat their natural prey.



Talka said:


> On a cosmic scale, all life is equally precious, since there's so little life (that we know of) in this entire Universe.
> However, as far as society is concerned, there is a scale of which animals are more important than others. Bugs rank last, I kill any bug I see inside my house.
> Reptiles I consider important. Birds and fish get a pass, unless they're dinner.
> Plants... plants I consider almost as important as pets. Having studied some biology, I really appreciate their complexity. I would never toss out a living plant. That's as bad to me as kicking a puppy.
> ...



Actually, there are quite a few Buddhists to this day, and many believe in harming nothig animate.


----------



## jaizei (Dec 5, 2011)

Talka said:


> On a cosmic scale, all life is equally precious, since there's so little life (that we know of) in this entire Universe.
> However, as far as society is concerned, there is a scale of which animals are more important than others. Bugs rank last, I kill any bug I see inside my house.
> Reptiles I consider important. Birds and fish get a pass, unless they're dinner.
> Plants... plants I consider almost as important as pets. Having studied some biology, I really appreciate their complexity. I would never toss out a living plant. That's as bad to me as kicking a puppy.
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism


----------



## Neltharion (Dec 5, 2011)

mytwotortys said:


> If it's not in pain, let it live, that's my motto. Why should it die if it's perfectly healthy apart from extra head? You wouldn't kill a conjoined human, so why kill this? It's sad that people think humans are of more value than animals, if there were no animals on the planet, would we have meat for our diet? Milk for our children?



The question becomes, is it in pain or otherwise suffering a diminished quality of life. And from the statement, "Why should it die if it's perfectly healthy. . . ." is the entire point. If you've observed a two headed animal and the erratic, spastic movements that it makes while both heads struggle for control; is that healthy? Is it really pain free? Is it suffering from a diminished quality of life?

As for the human argument. Again, its not legal to kill a conjoined human. But the reality of it is that conjoined twins can be determined in prenatal care. Pregnancies of conjoined twins are oftentimes terminated. Part of the reason why a country as populated as the U.S., sees such a low incidence of conjoined twins relative to less populated countries that show higher rates (usually because abortion isn't legal in those countries and/or the medical technology just isn't advanced enough there). The fact is that as humans, we do make the choice to terminate the lives of conjoined human twins. A choice is made to not give birth to them.

It seems oftentimes that many people do not temper the value that they place on all life with the quality of life itself.

Its for that very reason that I have a No Heroic Measures clause in my living will. I've seen brain damaged people kept alive on feeding tubes and respirators that would otherwise die if disconnected. Their family members would rather keep them alive in that state rather than let them pass, because they value life but fail to temper that with quality of life. Honestly, I'm not sure my family members would make the choice to remove me from artificial life support in those types of situations, so I made the choice for myself.


----------



## TylerStewart (Dec 6, 2011)

Terry Allan Hall said:


> May I, with all due respect, point out that you speak from a Judeo-Christian's "conceit/perspective"...not everyone shares that "disability", though.
> 
> Many faiths realize that we humans are no more or less valuable to the actual world than any other living being.



Not sure why this has anything to do with religion, but any person on earth and every government on earth is going to react differently to a person being shot and an ant being stepped on. I'm sorry you'd rather save the ant; that's your choice, but that doesn't make it okay.


----------



## EricIvins (Dec 6, 2011)

dmmj said:


> regarding breeding I do know of a online site that purposely breeds (or tries to at least) one eye RES and then tries to sell them for like 1000. I honestly don't know how successful they are in selling them. The blindness is some sort of genetic thing with this particular RES.



Way off topic, but they don't breed anything.........I know where those animals come from, and there is no one specifically pairing them up to produce eyeless hatchlings........

Bottom line, don't believe everything you read........If there is one thing that company can do, its mass marketing, not Turtle breeding.......


----------



## TylerStewart (Dec 6, 2011)

mytwotortys said:


> It's sad that people think humans are of more value than animals, if there were no animals on the planet, would we have meat for our diet? Milk for our children? We all run out of natural human milk at some point, then what do we do? Would we have wool for our sweaters? Fleece is alright, but what if we run out? When global warming becomes a major major problem, we may have to use animals for energy reasons. Excretement, belches, running power and transport are jobs that few humans would want to do. Animals help us more than you think. We take them for granted. We sell them for money to live, we do that with crops too, but what provides us with the fertiliser to grow them? Animals. We would be extinct without animals. There are some people who clearly don't appreciate them at all. Let the turtle live. It may one day save our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Sorry, I didn't know that I had suggested that we should kill all animals just because a human life is more valuable. My mistake, apparently. 

We aren't back on the global warming thing again, are we? Really? We hit 22 degrees at my house last night, the second lowest low in Las Vegas in my lifetime that I can remember, besides last year when we hit 18. It's gonna take a few years of not freezing my butt off in record low temps to convince me to rethink the global warming thing. At first I thought you were just crazy, but then you said you were 12, so it all made sense. 

For the record, Yvonne, I think you're a nice person, even though you squish bugs.


----------



## Talka (Dec 6, 2011)

Terry Allan Hall said:


> Actually, there are quite a few Buddhists to this day, and many believe in harming nothig animate.


Jaizei found it! Jainism! 



TylerStewart said:


> mytwotortys said:
> 
> 
> > It's sad that people think humans are of more value than animals, if there were no animals on the planet, would we have meat for our diet? Milk for our children? We all run out of natural human milk at some point, then what do we do? Would we have wool for our sweaters? Fleece is alright, but what if we run out? When global warming becomes a major major problem, we may have to use animals for energy reasons. Excretement, belches, running power and transport are jobs that few humans would want to do. Animals help us more than you think. We take them for granted. We sell them for money to live, we do that with crops too, but what provides us with the fertiliser to grow them? Animals. We would be extinct without animals. There are some people who clearly don't appreciate them at all. Let the turtle live. It may one day save our lives.
> ...





Haha, every forum has a nutter. Glad to know I spotted this one early 
Note to self: science is useless with this one


----------



## Linzbragg (Dec 6, 2011)

In this wild this turtle(s) might die quickly bc it can't feed itself or get away from predators quick enough, but if a dedicated owner took some extra time, they'd do great I bet!

And did I not mention that this thread turned into my last semester ethics class...LOL


----------



## tyler0912 (Dec 6, 2011)

mytwotortys said:


> If it's not in pain, let it live, that's my motto. Why should it die if it's perfectly healthy apart from extra head? You wouldn't kill a conjoined human, so why kill this? It's sad that people think humans are of more value than animals, if there were no animals on the planet, would we have meat for our diet? Milk for our children? We all run out of natural human milk at some point, then what do we do? Would we have wool for our sweaters? Fleece is alright, but what if we run out? When global warming becomes a major major problem, we may have to use animals for energy reasons. Excretement, belches, running power and transport are jobs that few humans would want to do. Animals help us more than you think. We take them for granted. We sell them for money to live, we do that with crops too, but what provides us with the fertiliser to grow them? Animals. We would be extinct without animals. There are some people who clearly don't appreciate them at all. Let the turtle live. It may one day save our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Im' 13...I hit flies down.....I step on ants.....wait there too small for me to see....question was asked ''should this be euthanized?'' this is asking for oppinions and if you guys can't handle oppinions i suggest you leave the forum because your going to be getting a whole lot of oppinions here! 
Yvonee is a nice woman and devoted her life to tortoises....do you think that she thinks less of these animals because they cant speak....have thumbs...HUH?! 
Think about it before you go showing yourself up!


----------



## dmmj (Dec 7, 2011)

EricIvins said:


> dmmj said:
> 
> 
> > regarding breeding I do know of a online site that purposely breeds (or tries to at least) one eye RES and then tries to sell them for like 1000. I honestly don't know how successful they are in selling them. The blindness is some sort of genetic thing with this particular RES.
> ...


I did not read it anywhere but the company's website. How truthful they were being I cannot say, but they stated they were producing a limited number of babies with the same trait as the father, and they were offering them at a huge marked up price.


----------



## Neal (Dec 7, 2011)

mytwotortys said:


> WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! ALL LIFE IS PRECIOUS!!!!!!!!! HUMANS ARE ANIMALS TOO, WE EVOLVED FROM APES, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS WE HAVE MORE DEVELOPED BRAINS!!!!!!!!!!! IF YOU THINK THAT ANIMAL LIVES ARE LESS VALUABLE THAN HUMAN LIVES WHEN COMPARED, THEN GET THE **** OUT OF MY VIEW BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU DON'T KNOW VALUE WHEN YOU SEE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



This is all a matter of opinion, and not everyone shares your views. If you are going to taunt and tell someone like me that I don't know value when I see it, well, I'm going to put myself in 'your view' if you get my drift...so here are my thoughts:

Value isn't so black in white, as in, you either value something or you don't. It's subjective, and as such it's a little more complex than that. I don't think anyone here has implied that animals are without value, just that a human life is more valuable than an animals. 

I'm also of that mindset, but, do I treat animals like trash and hope they all disappear? Of course not, I think animals do have a lot of value and I have a great respect for all living things...I just think in terms of societal improvements and betterment's, humans have a lot more to provide than an animals do, and that's what I personally am most concerned about. As much as I hope my daughter grows up with a healthy interaction with the animal kingdom, I am primarily concerned with things like the state of the economy and the society as a whole that she grows up in...of which animals may play an insignificant role in my opinion.


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Dec 7, 2011)

TylerStewart said:


> Terry Allan Hall said:
> 
> 
> > May I, with all due respect, point out that you speak from a Judeo-Christian's "conceit/perspective"...not everyone shares that "disability", though.
> ...



The point you missed is that neither is really OK...Yes, I understand that your Judeo/Christian outlook, trained into you from birth (in all probability) leads you to believe that humans are of greater value than other forms of life...

You've been raised to believe that you're right, and it's hard for most people raised in those mindsets to outgrow them, obviously. Still, ALL life is of EQUAL value, and any other outlook is simply conceit, nothing more.


I was raised to understand that we're ALL part of the Earth, thus I do not kill bugs for convenience and never kill anything unless I will eat it (deer, etc.), and we who follow The Old Teachings respect and venerate even the creatures we do eat. 

Taking ANY life is a very serious matter, one to be approached w/ a great deal of respectful thought.


Talka said:


> Terry Allan Hall said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, there are quite a few Buddhists to this day, and many believe in harming nothig animate.
> ...



Jainism and Buddhism both share/teach veneration for ALL life, as do some other faiths.


----------



## Neal (Dec 7, 2011)

Terry Allan Hall said:


> You've been raised to believe that you're right, and it's hard for most people raised in those mindsets to outgrow them, obviously. Still, ALL life is of EQUAL value, and any other outlook is simply conceit, nothing more.



Holy condescending....lol....who are you to say that mindset is wrong as you've implied? 

I don't agree with your statement that ALL life is created equal...does that make me right and you wrong...no way, it's not about being right or wrong, just different views on life based on the circumstances of how we were taught.


----------



## TylerStewart (Dec 7, 2011)

Terry Allan Hall said:


> The point you missed is that neither is really OK...Yes, I understand that your Judeo/Christian outlook, trained into you from birth (in all probability) leads you to believe that humans are of greater value than other forms of life...



Again, this has nothing to do with religion as much as you want to make it that way. Heaven forbid someone have a Christian outlook in a country that says "In God We Trust" on the back of the dollar bill. But you're right. I'll take down the fly paper in my dog run, and just ask the flies politely to leave my animals alone. I'll train my cat to carry random cockroaches across the street and urge them politely to invade the neighbor's house rather than mine, and instead of throwing a rock to get the pigeons off my roof, I'll climb up there and reason with them that the light pole across the street offers a better view. 

Really, it's sad that we're having this conversation. Nobody suggested that animals have no value.


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Dec 7, 2011)

Neal said:


> Terry Allan Hall said:
> 
> 
> > You've been raised to believe that you're right, and it's hard for most people raised in those mindsets to outgrow them, obviously. Still, ALL life is of EQUAL value, and any other outlook is simply conceit, nothing more.
> ...





TylerStewart said:


> Terry Allan Hall said:
> 
> 
> > The point you missed is that neither is really OK...Yes, I understand that your Judeo/Christian outlook, trained into you from birth (in all probability) leads you to believe that humans are of greater value than other forms of life...
> ...



If I may respectfully remind you guys: This is a *debate* forum, where people (hopefully in a respectful manner) say what they honestly think...sorry you two don't like what I have to say.


----------



## Neal (Dec 7, 2011)

Terry Allan Hall said:


> If I may respectfully remind you guys: This is a *debate* forum, where people (hopefully in a respectful manner) say what they honestly think...sorry you two don't like what I have to say.



Come on now, how does patronizing someone's viewpoints contribute to a respectful meaningful debate?


----------



## Terry Allan Hall (Dec 7, 2011)

Neal said:


> Terry Allan Hall said:
> 
> 
> > You've been raised to believe that you're right, and it's hard for most people raised in those mindsets to outgrow them, obviously. Still, ALL life is of EQUAL value, and any other outlook is simply conceit, nothing more.
> ...





TylerStewart said:


> Terry Allan Hall said:
> 
> 
> > The point you missed is that neither is really OK...Yes, I understand that your Judeo/Christian outlook, trained into you from birth (in all probability) leads you to believe that humans are of greater value than other forms of life...
> ...



If I may respectfully remind you guys: This is a *debate* forum, where people (_hopefully in a respectful manner...mytwotortys just got a bit excited, I suspect_) say what they honestly think...and I'm sorry you two don't like what I have to say.






Neal said:


> Terry Allan Hall said:
> 
> 
> > If I may respectfully remind you guys: This is a *debate* forum, where people (hopefully in a respectful manner) say what they honestly think...sorry you two don't like what I have to say.
> ...



Why do you feel I was patronizing you?


----------



## Neal (Dec 7, 2011)

Take a look at your comment I quoted in post #49...


----------



## TylerStewart (Dec 7, 2011)

+1 Reputation point for Neal.


----------



## tyler0912 (Dec 7, 2011)

TylerStewart said:


> +1 Reputation point for Neal.



+2 Reputation point for Neal.


----------



## jackrat (Dec 7, 2011)

Terry Allan Hall said:


> Taking ANY life is a very serious matter, one to be approached w/ a great deal of respectful thought.


I agree 100%,Terry.


----------



## Mgridgaway (Dec 8, 2011)

TylerStewart said:


> Sorry, I didn't know that I had suggested that we should kill all animals just because a human life is more valuable. My mistake, apparently.
> 
> We aren't back on the global warming thing again, are we? Really? We hit 22 degrees at my house last night, the second lowest low in Las Vegas in my lifetime that I can remember, besides last year when we hit 18. It's gonna take a few years of not freezing my butt off in record low temps to convince me to rethink the global warming thing. At first I thought you were just crazy, but then you said you were 12, so it all made sense.



Not terribly interested in starting a debate on this, but I just wanted to clarify that the global warming moniker is a big muck up many people and news outlets have perpetuated for years. The big issue is global climate change. Yes, it starts with global warming, melting ice caps, poor polar bears, etc. But the end results are more dynamic weather in general, weather it be warmer or colder. Some of this has to do with the cooling of things like the gulf stream via melting ice caps (also salinity and sea levels), some have to deal with increased greenhouse gases.

There are only a few things I trust, but science is one of them. And when you have hundreds of intelligent scientists coming to the same conclusion, it may be something worth considering.

--

On the whole "human life is more precious" vs "all life is precious" issue: Of course we think human life is more precious. It's in our DNA and our social conscious to think so and we will continue to value our lives over other animals because it's in our best interest as a species. It doesn't mean I can't value other life. It just means that if I have to choose between my girlfriend or family member or whatever, or my dog... I'm sorry Wolfie, I'm going to choose the human every time.

But luckily, most of us won't have to face these dilemma. Most of us enjoy a lifestyle that allows us to appreciate animal life in addition to human life.


----------



## Shelly (Dec 24, 2011)

mytwotortys said:


> ALL LIFE IS PRECIOUS!!!!!!!!! HUMANS ARE ANIMALS TOO, WE EVOLVED FROM APES, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS WE HAVE MORE DEVELOPED BRAINS!!!!!!



Humans did not evolve from apes. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. And there are far more differences between humans and apes than a more developed brain. For instance, I am far less likely to fling my poop at visitors. But that's just me.


----------



## dmmj (Dec 24, 2011)

![/quote]
For instance, I am far less likely to fling my poop at visitors. But that's just me.
[/quote]
Speak for yourself.


----------

