Okra Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 An article from NPR about cloning dogs... http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/09/30/428927516/cloning-your-dog-for-a-mere-100-000 There are so many things about this article that I find highly disturbing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kewb Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 That is an incredibly disturbing article. I understand wanting to always have that special dog. But these people appear incredibly selfish. Granted it is a snapshot into why they did it but their logic of there will always be strays because irresponsible owners and we are not that so cloning is okay. Just no. I seriously doubt those surrogate dogs go on to loving families. I don't even have all the words I want to explain how outrageous I find their behavior. And the lab cloning the dogs, why? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 As soon as they said they thought about putting the original dog down because he wasn't what they expected, it all made sense. It's a dog as a product. In this case, an alive product. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okra Posted September 30, 2015 Author Share Posted September 30, 2015 This quote was just so weird to me also: "The couple trusted the dog so much they let him babysit their grandson in the backyard all by himself." ​Um….I love dogs, but no. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 This quote was just so weird to me also: "The couple trusted the dog so much they let him babysit their grandson in the backyard all by himself." ​Um….I love dogs, but no. It might depend on how old the grandson is. Some people seem to think a seven year old in the backyard needs supervision. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okra Posted September 30, 2015 Author Share Posted September 30, 2015 If a kid is old enough to play by himself, that's fine. The quote specifically said, "They let the dog babysit……." If a kid needs a babysitter, then that babysitter should be human. Specifically, the grandparents thought the kid needed a babysitter. They could have said, "The dog and our grandson had such a close bond…….." But, they didn't. They said they let the dog babysit. Weird choice of words in my opinion. Really, the whole article was just strange to me. He was ready to euthanize the dog when he first realized that the dog was a mutt. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 $100,000??? Did we cure world hunger while I was in the shower?? Putting on my judgey pants but we will be accountable in the afterlife for how we used our resources. $100,000 on a dog when there are actual hurting, starving people is insane and, IMO, sinful. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 It's morally wrong and cruel to house dogs in a laboratory and force them to undergo unneeded surgery. And they wouldn't confirm or deny that surrogates and donors eventually end up in homes? That's pretty telling. Shame on them. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbel Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 $100,000??? Did we cure world hunger while I was in the shower?? Putting on my judgey pants but we will be accountable in the afterlife for how we used our resources. $100,000 on a dog when there are actual hurting, starving people is insane and, IMO, sinful. I agree with you. On the other hand... :-) - they don't sound like people who are concerned with the afterlife. - for all we know, they donate buckets of money to charities, much more than the $100,000 on the car and $100,000 on the dog. - I sure hope I am not held accountable for every dollar I spent in my life on something not absolutely necessary rather than donating it to cure world hunger. Certainly I've never spent $100,000 one single stupid item, and perhaps the stupid unnecessary purchases I make over a lifetime won't ever add up to that. But, I'm pretty sure there are things I buy that are not needed and the money could have been used by others in better ways. That said, this article made me sick. Disturbing on many levels indeed. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I would never do this, or prioritize money this way. But I don't find it particularly disturbing. It's a whacked niche market activity that could only appeal to people with more money than sense, but the same can be said of purebred dog breeding. I don't think the ethics of it are any different than the ethics of other industrial use of animals, including food. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 A fool and their money are soon parted... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 $100,000??? Did we cure world hunger while I was in the shower?? Putting on my judgey pants but we will be accountable in the afterlife for how we used our resources. $100,000 on a dog when there are actual hurting, starving people is insane and, IMO, sinful. Oh, I love this one. I am going to quote you on that shower thing. Likely like like like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne in CA Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I wonder if the grandson would rather have a sickly cloned dog or the $100,000 for college or a new house, or anything really. Some people are not animal people. What if the grandson doesn't care about animals that much? I think it is selfish that the surrogate dogs probably have a very poor life. I do think it is there money, and I have spent so much time in the hospitality industry that I just can't judge how people spend money. Once I was at a wedding where the bride's parents paid $14,000 for a huge castle cake with real gold in the frosting, which no one ate but people had their pictures taken in the courtyard of the castle cake. It was like bizzaro world. I could be mad about someone else wasting that kind of money, or I could simply realize that most of the $14,000 went to the cake baker and decorator and she had a big infusion of cash into her life for the year and it was probably a masterpiece that she used to sell other cakes for many years to come. People would know if she could make a castle cake that size she could do anything. It probably made her career, if she didn't have to go on Xanax for the rest of her life from the stress involved in making that cake. So, I think the people who worked in the lab are using the 100k better than the dingbats who spent it on the dog, and they are advancing science even if it is for selfish reasons and there is no immediate helpful fruit from the efforts yet, at some point they may be able to do magic that really helps humanity from what is learned here. I hope. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.