- Facebook’s Instant Articles not a threat to media
- U of I expert: Rauner’s pension fix ‘unconstitutional’
- State Senate approves lesser penalties for marijuana possession
- State Roundup: Natural gas vehicle tax stalls in committee
- Raptors, Rangers FC announce June camp
- Student debt 101: dearth of data fuels common misperceptions
- ‘Millionaire tax’ clears House panel
- Memorial Day events at Midway’s LZ Peace Memorial
- Wallace calls for Rockford crime task force
- How we discovered the 3 revolutions of American pop
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