would not introduce pet ownership to Capstonia because it would increase the number of pets suffering in the world, it is cruel, and it is morally wrong. PETA said: “Their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to. Because domesticated animals retain many of their basic instincts and drives but are not able to survive on their own in the wild, dogs, cats, or birds, whose strongest desire is to be free, must be confined to a house, yard, or cage for their own safety . . . Even in "good" homes, cats must relieve themselves in dirty litterboxes and often have their digits removed by "declawing," and dogs often have to drink water that has sat around for days, are hurried along on their walks, and are yelled at to get off the furniture or be quiet.” This is important because it is unethical and it is a violation of animal rights.…show more content… They were forced to adapt, and now, when they have adapted and lost their “wild” senses, we kick them out, is it ethical? Is this right? Is this what you call humane? My answer is no. Why would I, as a president cause such pain to animals? Albert Einstein once said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing” This is unethical, we take away some cats’ claws so they don’t scratch up our sofa, and then we dump them in the wild while they have lost their precious survival tool, if you think this is right, then should I cut off both of your hands and release you into the
