Florida Woman Charged with 2 Felonies for Allowing Cats to Starve.

Well when it comes to animal cruelty, I don't do it, don't think its right and certainly don't like it to happen, however, at the same time I consider pets to be property, and as such, property does not and cannot have rights."

Well there are laws which are meant to defend the defenseless whether they may be domestic animals, children, spouses, the institutionalized, etc. A difference between living property and non-living property is the ability to suffer and feel pain and anguish. What you are essentially defending Ian is the "right" to abuse a sentient being simply because that being may not be human.

One need not be a card-carrying member of PETA or the ASPCA to find the intentional withholding of food and/or water a deplorable act worthy of punishment. (And especially to the point of starvation and death no less.)

BTW, she did not "allow" them to starve. She actually did the starving.

If it makes you feel any better I highly doubt this piece of filth will be convicted of either felony.

Also, it's worth noting the NWO views us as animals. (Perhaps microbes.) To find this woman's behavior acceptable because the victims were non-human animals but then denounce false-flag terror, the poisoning of the masses with fluoride, mercury, chemtrails, GMO food, prescription drugs, FEMA camps, forced innoculations, plans for killing off 80% of the population and so on is hypocritical.

Wasn't a man arrested in Florida for feeding homeless people?

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/87330

Oh, the hypocrisy...

This person should not have allowed her cats to starve like this.

...and people should not be jailed for feeding hungry human beings.

The government has no business enforcing "animal rights."

Ron Paul's Convention Speech

Of course animal lovers will demand laws for common decency in treating animals. So now we have these laws. Law enforcement has a duty to uphold the law, so no blame there.

If the constitution is upheld, this woman should have a fighting chance. Proving animal cruelty beyond a reasonable doubt should not be easy for the hyper aggressive state. I'd be interested to see if our benevolent state can manage to fully respect a persons basic rights in an animal cruelty case. It's an ironic situtation. I don't trust the state AT ALL.

From what little I garner from the article (and it is limited and possibly one sided) this lady has done a horrid thing. Camping trips and staying at boyfriends certainly is not even close to an excuse for this kind of neglect.

That said... I am surprised how many here are gung ho for calling down the governmental morality bat on her head.

No, I am not saying it is okay to abuse or torture animals. I think there are better remedies like the apartment owner taking action for damages. If it happened on someones private property (but was known) then deal with it socially (ei I'll not deal with one of such character). For those of faith I would think there would be faith that God would deal justice accordingly in the end.. for karma.. or whatever flavor one has.

Yes, this is the kind of distasteful thing I think that can arise with liberty. I do not believe it is right to call down the state on her any more than I think it is right to call down the state on someone doing crack. At this time I believe an ideology consistent with liberty precludes government intervention (outside issues of property rights damages).

I'm sure many may disagree and I am VERY willing to here other views/sides or be corrected if my logic has not been consistent.

allow Doctors to get away with killing babies ? Why am I not surprised? They have commercials with save the whale ,save the animals and other crap !! I could care less about peoples opinions on Abortion. It's murder in plain english! Think about it! What if your mother aborted you? You wouldn't be here to enjoy this site or anything in life. I think anyone who gets an abortion and KILLS her own child in her own womb should suffer the same penalty as this woman did with her cats, only the one who KILLS her baby in her own womb deserves worse punishment and they WILL at some point in their life. If not here then the life after.

Where was she for the month while the cats starved? It makes me sick to think about how those animals must have spent their last few days or weeks.

And to top it off; she's a teacher! If you can't feed your damn cats, how are you gonna be responsible for those kids?

...otherwise you'd know that they aren't your property, you are theirs. ;-)

But in all seriousness, you are correct to call pets 'property'. But I personally have issue with this - the notion seems far too simplistic, as it leaves no room for qualitative examination. For instance, a garden hose is property just as a cat is property, yet there is no qualitative similarities between them. Because of this, there is no reason to believe they must both be treated the same or must be endowed with the same status of 'rightlessness'. After recognizing this, one can further seek qualitative differences and similarities between the cat and one's self. Clearly the cat does not have the same intellectual capacity, nor the ability to reason as humans do. Yet the cat also clearly has the same capacity to feel physical pain and discomfort just as humans do. So it is not a garden hose and it is not a human, but it is more human than it is garden hose. Therefore I am behooved to believe that some basic right MUST then be established. We can assume a basic right of the cat is to live free from forced physical pain - for it is a qualitative similarity - and therefore a right - we as humans share with the property.

You also said:
"I suppose my stance on this issue is similar to my stance on drug use. I don't do it. I don't think its right and don't advocate it for others but its a persons choice what they do with their body."

I don't think this is something you can easily draw similarities to. The issue with drug use is that it is ultimately a victimless crime. Animal abuse on the other hand, CLEARLY involves a victim: the animal. So these are two different things.