matrixrefugee (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
matrixrefugee) wrote2010-05-03 01:12 pm
matrixrefugee) wrote2010-05-03 01:12 pm
Entry tags:
Writer's Block: Pet central
[Error: unknown template qotd]
I'd go with the term "human companion". The term "guardian" carries the connotation of a legal guardian, ie. to a minor or a severely handicapped adult, and that's giving an animal a status that really doesn't fit. No matter how special an animal companion may be to a person who shares their life with them and regardless of how well-cared for that animal is, it's still an animal. No amount of love or care can change them into a human being, subject to the same rights and privileges as a human being.
Personally, I find the attempts to apply human rights to animals ludicrous at times. Would predatory animals be required to become vegetarians and be subject to prosecution for genocide against or murder of their prey?
I'd go with the term "human companion". The term "guardian" carries the connotation of a legal guardian, ie. to a minor or a severely handicapped adult, and that's giving an animal a status that really doesn't fit. No matter how special an animal companion may be to a person who shares their life with them and regardless of how well-cared for that animal is, it's still an animal. No amount of love or care can change them into a human being, subject to the same rights and privileges as a human being.
Personally, I find the attempts to apply human rights to animals ludicrous at times. Would predatory animals be required to become vegetarians and be subject to prosecution for genocide against or murder of their prey?