- Commentary: Walker’s budget calls for schools to stop reporting sexual assaults
- Wallace hopes for redevelopment expansion
- Teravainen makes instant impact on return to ‘Hawks
- Oregon mayor reacts to Exelon talk of closing nuclear plant
- GiGi’s benefit for Down syndrome, March 21
- What’s the future hold for Rose?
- ‘Hogs keep pace in tight Midwest
- Qatar continues to confound
- Meet John Doe: Keep public notices in print
- Commentary: Rauner’s minimum wage plan just more of the same from GOP
Response to letter about dog abortion
Regarding Mr. [Philip J.] Meyers’ cavalier attitude toward aborting a pregnant dog [May 8-14, 2013, issue], I doubt you would ever actually own a dog because opening the can of dog food would apparently inconvenience you. Assuming this isn’t a crank letter (as I find it just too mind-boggling), I’d like to give you some information. Spaying a dog costs just as much as an abortion. In your case, it sounds as if you would allow the dog to become repeatedly pregnant and just “take it to the vet” every time a pregnancy occurred, thus incurring multiple bills in the long run. As far as a pregnant dog being a problem during its gestation period, most people don’t even know their dogs are pregnant until they give birth. No vet will abort a long-term pregnancy and kill live pups. The only reasonable statement you made in your letter was how difficult it is to adopt out the pups. Finding loving, committed, responsible pet owners is a real issue.
Oh, and one more thing, women can make decisions about pregnancy … dogs can’t. Duh!
From the May 22-28, 2013, issue