First, read this:
This really upset me.
Still dazed after being anaesthetised for three hours, a pedigree pet is hauled upright to show off its new tattoo.
The controversial “body enhancement” was carried out on Mickey – a rare Canadian Hairless breed also known as a Sphynx cat.
His female owner was said to be delighted with the Tutankhamun design inked on to his chest at a tattoo parlour.
She said: “I wanted something new and different for the times we live in.”
But horrified animal rights campaigners last night slammed the sick fad in
as barbaric – and fear it could catch on among wealthy pet owners in the West. Moscow
An RSPCA spokesman said: “We are totally against using animals for purely cosmetic reasons just on the owner’s whim. Clearly the animal has no say in the matter.
“We do not believe in using pets as fashion accessories. It shows no respect for the animal whatsoever. So far we have only heard about this practice happening overseas – and we hope it doesn’t spread.”
Human beings can consent to getting a tattoo. They can officially say, "Yes, I want this permanent piece of art on my body for the rest of my life." They can say, "It's worth the pain and discomfort because this is something I want to use to express myself."
Animals can't consent to this. What right does this person have to do this to their pet?
Lets not forget that the cat is very rare, and on top of that had to be knocked out in order to get the tattoo. Putting animals under can be risky, and the owner put the cat's life at risk because they wanted to put a permanent decoration on it.
This is really messed up!!!