Why is it that it is perfectly fine for organizations whose purpose is to raise awareness about animal abuse to use both still photos and live-action footage of starved and severely wounded animals - horses, dogs, cats, monkeys - for the 'shock value', in an attempt to further their cause..........but if a pro-life organization tried that, they'd be sued into oblivion?
I kind of know the answer to that question already, but every time I see the television ad for the Humane Society that shows footage of dogs and cats who have obviously been horribly mistreated, I wish I had the available funds to try just one 30-second ad in favor of human life using actual photos of the end result of abortion.
And yes, Eli was adopted from an animal shelter. Chuck is a rescue too, his original owner having discovered an allergy to birds which made it impossible for Chuck to live with her any more.
No comments:
Post a Comment