While considering moving to a little lighter subject, someone sent the most precious story to our Email Box. It's the story of a little fawn delivered Caesarean section from it's mother who was killed by a car. The story and some very precious pictures appear below...
After reading this very precious story, you may also be interesting in the comments because they tell the actual outcome of the baby fawn and also go in an interesting direction.
After reading this very precious story, you may also be interesting in the comments because they tell the actual outcome of the baby fawn and also go in an interesting direction.
This tiny deer was delivered by Caesarean section at a wildlife hospital after his mother was killed by a car. Little Rupert, who is so small he can fit in an adultʼs hand, was born after vets failed in their battle to save his mother.
At just six inches tall and weighing just over a pound, he is now in an incubator in the intensive care unit at Tiggywinkles Wildlife Hospital in Buckinghamshire. He has only recently opened his eyes. Les Stocker, founder of Tiggywinkles, said: ʽRupertʼs mother had very severe injuries. We brought him out and got him breathing and then he went into an incubator on oxygen. He is now being fed by a tube.ʼ
Tucked up: Rupert in an incubator.
Rupert pulls a striking pose for the camera Staff are optimistic Rupert, now five days old, will make a full recovery. ʽ"Deer are very, very tricky but this one has spirit. Heʼs an extremely feisty little guy and quite pushy," Mr Stocker said.
Asleep: Rupert takes 40 winks.
If you want to continue reading, the comments went off into some interesting subjects. Aside from just a few comments about Rupert and Animals getting killed on the road, there is also some discussion on Abortion and how often Animals are valued above people and then the discussion went into whether or not Animals have a spirit or soul and will they go to heaven when they die. Also, what distinguishes People from Animals? As you can see the discussion got interesting, so please do feel free to read on.
29 comments:
From the story line, it sounds like Rupert is from England..a fallow deer, perhaps? Cute little guy (what fawn isn't?), sounds like he is getting the best of care.
Yeh, I just thought this way way too precious to not share.
Ya know, I got kind of a soft spot for helpless animals..as do these
folks taking care of rupert "“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man"
-Mahatma Gahdhi
Interesting that you would use the way a nation treats animals as a test. How about the way they treat the most vulnerable and helpless of people, such as the Elderly and also Children.
There is a contradiction in the thinking of a lot of Liberals. They have a large amount of concern for Animals, but not for the Human Unborn. Probably the most Helpless Creature of all is the Baby in the Womb, just as this baby deer is Premature and Surviving in an Incubator, so also Premature Babies can Survive outside the womb, yet many such babies are Aborted.
I guess maybe I shouldn't have made this "Lighter Subject" post into something political, yet your comment seemed to lead me right into the Animal Cruelty/Pro-Abortion Contradiction.
Why is this Baby Deer more Precious than a Premature/Unborn Human Baby?
So much for lighter subject, huh?
I don't know..I'm not sure it is.
We can choose by law to force a woman to bear a child, by law force her to raise it, but we cannot force
love or even common decency ..
We can also choose, by law, to force a gang member who has shot someone to go to jail, or a parent to not kill a child that has already been born. These examples of Government force are not looked down on.
There is no reason at all why a woman should have to be "Forced to Raise a Child". It annoys me greatly, that our culture pushes the idea that there are only two options; Abortion and Raising the Child. There is absolutely nothing at all wrong with the option of Adoption. There is a long waiting list of Parents wishing to Adopt.
Yes, it is true that we can not force Love or Common Decency, yet the Attitudes within any given Society will Encourage either Common Decency, or Lack of Respect for Life.
One interesting thing that I noted in the Article that you just left a link for is that though the girl was severely abused, "The family's two dogs were in good health and had recent trips to the Veterinarian." This confirms what I'm saying about a contradiction that some people have in valuing the health and well being of Animals above that of People.
Another thing that a lot of people do not realize is that Since Abortion was legalized, the Rate of Child Abuse has gone up, not down. Apparently, when the example of a society is to not value life, even those who chose to give birth, whether than abort, do not value the lives and health of the children they chose to bare.
Whatever happened to adoption? Back when I was a youngster, teenage pregnancies were rarer;
the girl would disappear for awhile, then return..baby given up for adoption. Orphanages were on the way out. And I know many people who were adopted. Nowdays,
we see foreign babies adopted..in
my larger family there are two Haitians, a Korean and a Vietnamese. I agree, adoption seems a better moral choice: many couples are on waiting lists and there seems an abundant supply of teenage pregnancies...why is it not done more often?
The rate of child abuse has skyrocketed. Inversely, the rate of abortions has declined
http://feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=10765
and
here
..so one could posit an inverse correlation, if any?
This is exactly my point. It has gotten to the point in which Adoption is looked down on and that anyone who could "Give Up" their child to adoption must not have any love in their heart; As if Abortion is the more loving thing to do?! That's obsurd!
We have to be careful to say "Place for", whether than "Give Up for" Adoption, in order to stress the fact that it is a Responsible and Loving thing to do, not an act of Selfish Abandoning or lack of Affection for the Child. Such an opinion makes no sense to me at all.
It used to be that Abortion was the option looked down on. Now, believe it or not, Adoption is looked down on way more than it should be.
Now the babies that should have been available for Adoption have all been Aborted, or those who do not believe in Abortion, feel strangely obligated to keep the baby. It's so odd. How did we get so screwed up?!
The Child Abuse Rates also went up when Abortion became legal. Like usual, I don't have my hands on the statistics as quickly as you do, but trust me, they exist and it will only be a matter of time before I'll have them for you.
The links I provided simply showed data: child abuse UP, abortion DOWN. So, I chased around the net and find pundits linking the two either way we please. I don't think the two are related. As for
"or those who do not believe in Abortion, feel strangely obligated to keep the baby", I was discussing that with someone a few weeks back: about a generation or two back, a single teenage mother
was a shameful outcast..now we are more supportive, there is welfare, etc. IMHO, it is the frisky young males that should be the shameful outcasts, but I'm an old grump!
Sometimes it is the girls parents, mostly the mothers (Grandmother of the baby) that want the girl to keep the baby. In this case, it is the selfish desires and wants of the Grandmother, whether than the young teenager, that is the focus and the girl is made to feel like someone who has no love and compassion for the baby if she considers Adoption instead.
Sometimes it is the father of the baby, or even a close friend of the girl who thinks it would be fun to have a baby around, though she will not be the one who has to raise it.
Just as girls sometimes feel pressured by loved ones to have Abortions, so also sometimes they feel pressured by loved ones to keep the child, whether than Place for Adoption. There are all kinds of outside pressures. Everyone seems to have their opinions about what the girl should do. It's supposed to be the girl's free choice, but too often it is someone else's choice and the girl suffers for it.
Well said.
As to the "frisky young males", yes, it seems that the girls have carried the burden of blame for far too long. It takes two to tangle and quite often the men put pressure on the girls to give in to the sex. The entire burden is placed on the girls to keep things in line and men are left off the hook because we think that "Men are just that way. They just can't help it."
Here is an interesting change, though, that you may or may not be aware of. When I was reading the Volunteer Manual with information in it as to how to counsel the girls, they kept talking about how some of these girls were going to be quite upset and distraught. In response to the question "How are you going to feel if this pregnancy test comes out positive?" we can get answers like scared, afraid, confused, angry or ashamed. One answer that I get way more often that you would expect, though, is excited.
This answer is not even mentioned in the manual and I'm sure was not nearly as common when the single teenage mother was considered a shameful outcast. I get the feeling that a lot of these girls are pregnant because they want to be and they are a long ways from the suicidal ones that you have mentioned. They are deliberately getting pregnant and than taking advantage of the Welfare System.
In response to "Well Said", Thank you.
I've always been somewhat bothered by the number of roadkills we see on a daily basis and I believe it's because people drive way too fast, not even coming close to the posted speed limits. Now I've driven tens of thousands of miles in my adult life and only killed one squirrel and that was because they can't decide which way to go in the middle of the road and turn back at the last minute. Doesn't make me better I guess but people need to slow down! Nice story and nice break from politics.
Hi Z,
Thanks for returning us to the "Nice Break from Politics". Actually, if you read the above comments, you will realize that BB and I did sort of return to politics, yet your comment is a nice breather and a return to the actual subject of this post.
Squirrels are totally nuts. They will run directly at your tires and when they do, there is absolutely nothing you can do to avoid hitting them. When we first moved to Northern California, I hit a squirrel once during the first year and than again about a year later and I was beginning to wonder if this was going to be a very frustrating annual event, but fortunately, I haven't hit one since.
When I was surfing the web a while back, I discovered that the baby deer in this post didn't make it. Here are a couple of links.
Premature Deer Dies
Sadness as Rubert the Baby Deer Dies
Poor Rupert, that is sad news. Especially so for those that tried hard to help out.
Yeh, it is too bad.
You know, BB, I'm torn now as to what to post about next. If I was to pick up on the conversation that was going on in the previous post, it would probably be something about Christian Apologetics or maybe even some discussion about the Jewish/Islamic conflict in light of their common roots.
If I was to go back further in my blog to my post entitled "Attack on Abstinence Education: Fact or Fallacy?", I could do a little more of a summary of the article that I left a link too, to show how the research in question was presented in a rather biased and even a little dishonest way, misrepresenting the evidence and all.
I guess you have requested a post about my dog. I could do that as well. Do you have a preference?
Lately, I've been getting bruised up a little in the political blog arena, what with the election coming up and most folk uptight.
So, I am trying to lay low on that topic. I understand the Samoyed to be part of the larger Spitz group originally from Siberia. And was quite intrigued to find the white furry canines are called Bjelkiers in the Nordic countries where they were relative latecomers:
"Bjelkier dogs became the breed of choice for a Norwegian explorer name Fridtjof Nansen, an important professor at the University of Norway, who was interested in exploring the Artic. He traveled there with a ship, built by him, on 5 occasions over a time period of 35 years. His thorough research indicated the Bjelkier would be the best type of dog for such purposes, and his findings influenced many great Arctic and Antarctic explorers of the late 19th century period. These explorers preferred Bjelkier dogs to Siberian Huskies or Greenland dogs because they had a much better and friendlier disposition." Being of
Norwegian descent myself, had I a white puppy, I think a good name would be Bjelkier (pronounced Bee-ell-key-ar) Sort of interesting, I went to one of those on-line translation pages and find that
Bjelkier means bar or beam. Hmm.
Hi BB,
Well your first sentence turned out to be the inspiration for my next post, but oddly, it wasn't so much about the puppy. Perhaps I'll do another either about the puppy or about the breed, I'm not sure which.
It's actually sort of been frustrating lately trying to write about the puppy. We feel confident that he will eventually be a good dog.
Once he gets a little older, we will be able to leave him in the yard unsupervised and that will really help. Quite apart from the fact that he likes to dig, right now he eats too many sticks, pine cones and chunks of bark and he pulls the grass out by the roots. I thought maybe my husband was being overly protective, yet we discovered that when ever he is in the yard too long, he gets diarrhea.
Since he chews so much, as puppies do, he is usually confined to the Kitchen and I feel bad for him being confined so much with all his energy and all. We have to take him on at least two long walks a day and also spend time playing with him in the yard. I know it will get better. He just has to get passed all this chewing and that just takes time.
Thanks for all the information that you provided. That was interesting. Thank you.
without getting too polittical, this story, including your comment that he did not survive, reminds me of that law about those babes born alive that Obama voted against. but it still fits with your theme that animals take priority over humans.
Hi Griper,
Thanks for dropping by. The post itself does not include the theme of Animals taking priority over Humans and I guess my original intent was not to be political, yet I've decided to allow the conversation in comment threads to drift off into related topics and the Animal verses Human life issue just seemed to fit, so I welcome whatever comments anyone might have on that subject, or anything else relating to the post itself.
I wonder if BB-Idaho will mind if I do to him what I've done to others in the past and move his comment to a different post for which his comment is more relevant. He left the following comment on "Blogging Fatigue/Sometimes God has Different Plans" and I have moved it here because the comment has to do with Animals. Here is the Comment...
BB-Idaho Said...
Dogs/Bible sent me searching. It seems that the Biblical generations had a rather low opinion of man's best friend. The problem arises perhaps from how the theologians define the canine soul. My rather limited understanding being that 'soul', along with very high intelligence, separates us from the rest of life.
Did the old nomadic tribes place dogs just below the rest of the family? Perhaps my curiosity is out of line. The irrelevancy summed by the dismissive "Breed not a savage dog, nor permit a loose stairway." -The Talmud :)
Without actually reading your links; which didn't copy over right, but have been repeated below, and which I will definitely read later; yet for now, I'll say this...
Regarding the first of the links, pointing out low opinions of dogs by people earlier in history within an earlier culture is not really relevant to what God's actual attitude is towards animals.
As to the article entitled "Do all Dogs (and Cats) Go to Heaven?", soon after our dog died, my husband, Ray, purchased a book entitled "Cold Noses at the Pearly Gates", by Gary Kurtz. Ray read it. I haven't yet, but apparently it shows Biblical evidence that we will see our lost pets in heaven.
Here are the links from BB's comment that didn't copy right above...
Man's Best Friend - Actually entitled "Dogs: God's Worst Enemies?"; a post on the "Society and Animals Forum."
Soul - Actually eintitled "Do all dogs (and cats) go to Heaven?"; Posted on Charlotteobserver.com | Faith & Values.
This is another one that could be an entirely new post. You keep doing this BB.
You know, you really ought to get a blog. Every time that I start a new post because of some "Can of Worms" sort of comment that you make, it feels like I am doing a lot of the work for you, posting things that you actually could be posting yourself. I guess I don't mind that much, except that I'm having a real blogging struggle right now. There is quite a lot I could say and no time to say it and no time to visit Blogs. Oh well.
You may be correct..I read something and react from some inner interest, get off track..
open a 'can of worms'. I shall leave you alone for awhile and pester elsewhere. :)
You know BB,
I've been meaning to get back to this post to apologize to you for what I said in the above comment. Now I also need to apologize for taking so long to get back with my apology.
It's not actually your fault that I have less time to blog than I would like. It's not even your fault when you, as you once put it, "hit the ponder button". That's basically what happened. You hit the ponder button and I did not have time to ponder. When this happens, it frustrates me, but it's not anyone's fault, so I'm sorry if I made it seem like it is.
I didn't really mean that you should go away and I hope that you don't, cause I enjoy talking to you.
I was never clear on the subject of animals and souls. I guess there are some who might say that they do not have souls, yet I always thought that it was the spirit that they lacked, not the soul. The spirit is the part of us that was created for the purpose of communing with God. Our spirits dwell with God's Spirit when Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, comes into our hearts.
Man definitely has been given an intelligence that exceeds the rest of the Animal Kingdom. The real thing that sets us apart, though, is found in Genesis...
"26) And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 27) So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'"
We are the only animal that is made in God's Image and we are told to Subdue the Earth and Have Dominion Over it.
Since when do we value humans over animals? Do we have orphanages where the kids are killed after not being adopted after 30 days? Didn't think so. Was Michael Vick forcing babies to fight each other for money? No. Do we eat people? No.
Give me a break!
No animals don't have souls, just like Humans.
What separates us from animals is opposable thumbs...aside from our closest ancestors of course. They have thumbs too... along with 98% of our DNA, big brains, family structure, empathy, etc. Dolphins have language and can learn, just as other animals and they also feel empathy and compassion for their families.
We just happen to be a little smarter. Mainly because we became meat eaters and the protein was good brain food.
Toad,
I can tell already that you could become a little tiring if I was to let you get to me, I've already realized that you sort of seem to have a bone to pick with Religious people.
I don't always have an immediate answer every time a question is asked. Giving an answer that is complete takes time. All I can say in relation to what you just wrote above is that you need to read the comment section of my post entitled "Equations we Live By/Evolution v. Intelligent Design". I wrote it on May 12, if you want to find it in the archive.
The comment relating to us valuing humans over animals was mainly directed at Animal Activists that are concerned about cruelty to animals, yet also believe in Abortion on Demand even in the Last Trimester of Pregnancy.
And then there are Environmentalists that are more concerned about protecting plants and animals than with the lose of large numbers of jobs and a strain on the Economy.
Post a Comment