Replies

If taking out a loan is what a compassionate heart told them to do, I would not call it foolishness. How much money differentiates compassion and foolishness anyway? Who defines that standard?

That is a good question. I’m all for spending your money for compassion toward other human beings. It’s just that when it is directed toward animals (especially when less expensive alternatives are available) that I question the decisions. Sure, it’s their right to spend their money any way they want, but as I said earlier, there is a reason they shoot horses. It is actually considered the “cost effective” compassionate route.

The big red flag in this one is that they had to borrow the money. I don’t see it as a wise decision, since they could borrow the money to help real and suffering human beings who are made in the image of God. But that is just my opinion.

And all we are doing here is sharing opinions. I’m not saying they should not be allowed to borrow money, take out a second mortgage, or cash in their entire savings to pay to have a stranger’s dog nursed back to health.

What I’m saying is that according to my sensibilities it is bad stewardship.

And opinions vary. :-)

It’s only 3 grand between two people, they can pay it off in about 6 months and may even get help from friends or family. The loan thing means nothing and really isn’t part of the story.

These people helped an animal in need, that to me is the story.

You have a right to your opinion but it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.