Adam's space

This Fall I am being a part of the 40 Days for Life campaign, and I encourage all of you to be a part of it as well.  This is a national campaign in over 170 cities across 45 states to pray for an end to abortion in our country.  Many locations have a campaign going; visit http://www.40daysforlife.com/location.cfm to see if your location is one of them.  I will be praying as a part of the Madison, WI campaign.  Their local web site for this event is http://www.40daysforlife.com/madison, and they also have a dedicated blog at http://40daysforlifemadison.blogspot.com.  Abortion has claimed more lives in the United States then the holocaust, and every day, on average, a similar number of abortions are performed as that of the number of lives lost in the Iraq War over the last five years.  This is an epidemic that needs to end, and we hope that you may be able to join us for this life-saving vent.

"DALLAS - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Omaba side-stepped a pointed query about abortion on Saturday by “mega-pastor” Rick Warren during a televised forum.

 

"Asked at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”"

This kind of proof doesn't come from any data about aborted life, but in the fact that life has been saved from within the womb.  In the last couple of weeks there have been a couple of news stories which involved surgery on fetuses that have not been born yet.  Although I cannot reference what shows they were on or what the surgeries were for (frankly, I don't remember), and don't have links to provide for further evidence, I do remember hearing about successful surgeries on fetuses that were either from within the womb, or temporarily taken from the womb, and then returned to be born weeks later.

The first was for a baby in which it was first removed from the womb (though still attached to the umbilical cord), had surgery performed, and then returned to the womb.  Six-seven weeks later, the baby was born for good, healthy and matured.  The second instance was performed from within the womb (not needing to perform a C-Section) and using small tools that could be inserted through the mother's stomach and uterus to work on one of the twins that the mother was carrying.

Though I have no links to these two surgeries, I have found news articles about previous surgeries similar to this dating back all the way to 1990.  Ironically, 1990 is when my sister was born, so these babies would now be 17 or 18 years old at the moment.  The first story is featured here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5D91731F932A05756C0A966958260.  What is significant is this is the first surgery in seven tries that was successful.  Another significant moment is what one of the lead surgeons said about this surgery: "It also makes it clear that the fetus is a patient."

Think about that statement.  A patient is a person in which a doctor looks over to determine or treat the health of a person.  To label a fetus as a patient provides one of the most damning arguments against the pro-abortion activists and proves that a fetus is a living, growing person, and not just a dead mass of cells.  It also refutes Barack Obama's support of infanticide, or the allowing of a fetus to be left alone and to die if it survives an abortion.

This link, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2D8163BF934A25751C0A962958260, is from 1994 and describes another fetus saved from a new kind of needle surgery.  It also makes mention of a surgery in Britain in which this new method was used to unclog a fetus's heart valve.  Wow!  Amazing what good technology can be used for these days.

These cases should be at the forefront of pro-life movements, in my opinion.  Whenever a baby is discovered to have problems while still in the womb so many doctors are quick to say "Abort" and end the pain and suffering on the mother, but doesn't take into account the life that the fetus possesses.  With these examples, it proves that doctors can perform life-saving surgeries on these fetuses that will save their life and allow for the pregnancy to continue and provide longer maturation before birth.  Praises be with these doctors who don't look to abortion as the first or only solution to the problem, and do everything they can to save the lives of these most vulnerable children.

The following opinions will be referencing the article at http://www.pinke.biz/news/231/Registrar-Who-Won-t-Serve-Gays-Because-of-Religious-Beliefs-has-Illegitimate-Child/.  Please read first in order to know what I'll be talking about below.

Sometimes reading an article for what's its suppose to be about provides some shocking information inside.  Take the "news" article above.  A London civil servant has been given the right to refuse to perform civil partnerships for gay couples because of her strong Christian beliefs, in which she believes that marriage and sex should only be between a man and a woman, and the sex should wait until after marriage.  Seems to be a non-issue, except for the fact that this woman has a son out of wedlock.  This could potentially damage the court trial she won to refuse to perform these partnerships, but if you read on you later realize that the author of the article is getting way over his head and starts to make cynical remarks that are uncalled for.

For one, the son she had out of wedlock is now 27 years old.  Don't you think in those 27 years she could have a change of heart?  You can't undo what happened in the past, but in the period of time following she could have become a convert to the Church, confessed her sin of sex outside of marriage, and become so deeply religious that she no longer finds what she did acceptable, and wants to live by this principle.  However, the author takes the "once a sinner, always a sinner" approach.  True, we are all sinners, but we can choose to change lifestyles that prevent committing certain kinds of sins, and this could be the case with this registrar.

The author goes on to say, "So Ladele is so firmly Christian that she can’t possibly marry same-sex couples, but not so religious as to remain chaste until married.  Presumably God will forgive the sin of extramarital sex but not the 'sin' of joining two people together in a loving relationship."  Again, this is 27 years ago that she had her son, and she could have easily confessed her sin and been forgiven.  But to marry a gay couple while currently knowing that this is not God's will and against her Christian belief would be a sin, and allowing the couple to sin as well by promoting their gay union.  I don't care if this gay couple has a loving relationship; people have loving relationships with ice cream, but that doesn't mean that it is right and acceptable.

The author writes as if this civil servant is still committing the same sins as she did 27 years ago, without giving her the benefit of the doubt that she has cleaned up her act, changed her opinions and/or religious beliefs, and cares about doing the right thing today.  To be so blind in this "report" is what creates a very public opinion that newspapers, print media, and many "news" blogs have very biased opinions for one side of the story inside of a bi-partisan viewpoint.  To completely leave out the possibility of anything else except for what she did a quarter century ago is short-sighted and a poor attempt to get a shallow viewpoint across.

I was watching the MLB Home Run Derby Monday night and witnessed one of the greatest moments in sports this year.  Yes, up there with the Giants beating the Patriots in the Super Bowl, better then Fresno State winning the College World Series, and a more intriguing story then Davidson in the NCAA tournament.  Josh Hamilton of the Texas Ranger hit 28 home runs in the first round of the derby, and if it wasn't for an even greater backstory, that would have been a remarkable story all by itself.

What's truly remarkable is where Josh Hamilton came from.  He was the #1 pick in the draft the year he was drafted.  Scouts considered him one of the best players they had ever seen.  Though a pitcher in high school, he was drafted as an outfielder with a sweet stroke who was an all-around gem.  However, soon after his professional career started things started to unravel for him.  He started hanging out with friends at tattoo parlors, getting drunk and getting high on a regular basis.  Cocaine and heroin were just a couple of the drugs he started to use.  He blew his $4 million signing bonus on those drugs, along with tattoos and alcohol.  He was soon out of baseball and kicked out of his home, his wife not wanting him around their family.  Reading a story about him in Sports Illustrated, he lived with his Grandmother for a time, even some night crawling into bed with her because he was afraid of the demons that would show up in his dreams while he slept.

Fast forward three years.  Yes, three years.  In that time he did not practice baseball, exercise, or lift weights to keep his power.  He was out of everything for that time.  Finally clean, he started to try and make his comeback.  He signed on with the Reds, and spent a short period of time in their farm system.  He was monitored everywhere he went, in case he would go back to the wrong crowd.  The Rangers eventually traded for him, and hired a man to basically be his best friend.  When not with the team, Josh was with this guy all the time to make sure he kept clean.  After ballgames he went straight home to his family.  If on the road, he went straight to his hotel room.  If he did go out for dinner, he never sat with his teammates, who would typically drink beers while at dinner.  And he absolutely hated all the tattoos that he'd got, because most of them were put on while he was on something.  Josh wants nothing to do with that lifestyle anymore, and wanted to stay away from it as much as possible.

Fast forward to Monday night.  With 8 outs he had 15 homeruns.  The next highest total was 7, so he had already dominated the competition.  However, he went on to hit 13 more home runs in a row before making the next out.  He didn't need to bat during the second round to advance to the finals, but he did anyway, hitting another four home runs while only taking five outs.  And he did it with his old 71-year-old American Legion coach pitching to him.  It was emotional; I teared up.  In the end, however, after the HR totals are put back to zero before the final round, he lost out to Justin Morneau, 5-3.  But, I believe everyone who witnessed believes Hamilton is the real winner, not just in a show argued useless because all you do is hit a ball as far as you can, but in the games of addiction and life.

Holy cow, after another hiatus I'm back to post a few more opinions of happenings in the news over the last couple weeks.

"Animal rights group turns its fire on celebrity meat-eaters"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/animal-rights-group-turns-its-fire-on-celebrity-meateaters-856591.html

This article from June 29 discusses the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' (PETA) new campaign to turn against popular celebrities and call them out for the fact that they eat meat.  The celebrity called out in this report is everyone's favorite celebrity ditse, Jessica Simpson.  At some point in the past she wore a shirt that said, "Real Girls East Meat," in which some people think it is a jab against her boyfriend Tony Romo's last girlfriend, Carrie Underwood, who is vegetarian.  While wearing a shirt like this may be a little childish, so are the actions PETA has taken against this.  They have doctored a photo of her wearing a shirt that says "Only Stupid Girls Eat," and have listed "five reasons only stupid girls eat meat."

I find it hard to take anything PETA does seriously.  They are the group in which one of it's members changed their name to KentuckyFriedCruelty.com and also has committed some of the haneous crimes in which it tries to stop, like killing dogs and dumping them in dumpsters because "sometimes euthenasia is the kindest option." (More can be found here and here.)  Sick!  And the worst part, they take in about $29-$30 million a year, and are tax exempt.

By the way, I had steak tonight... delicious!

"Paul Myers is a Professor of Crap"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers

I know Wikipedia articleas aren't always of highest integrity, but what I've read here is very similar to what I've heard on the news and radio, so I trust this information is accurate.  Some time ago a college student at Central Florida went to a Catholic mass, stole a consecrated host from communion, and held it hostage for a week.  He finally returned it sometime later.  I am not sure what the disciplinary action was out of it, but it apparently got the attention of Paul Myers, an Associate Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota - Morris.  He's also an aetheist, and apparently a Christian hater.  He has made a public request on this personal blog for some to "score" him a consecrated host, and he will video tape himself desicrating it on video and post it to the Internet.  In Catholicism a consecrated host is the body of Jesus Christ.  And because Jesus died for our sins and opened the gates of Heaven, the consecrated host is pretty much the holiest thing in the universe.  Though there are some things that are considered deeply holy, there's really nothing else that comes remotely close.

Let's examine this from an outside viewpoint.  Had he asked someone to score him a Koran, the Islamic holy book, there would have been a huge controversey.  When the anti-Muslim comics ran some time ago death threats were made and buildings were actually blown up.  I'm not very knowledable about Judiasm, but if he were to threaten to desicrate it's holiest item, he would be called a Nazi, it would be a hate crime, and his name would be plastered everywhere.  However, because he is doing something against the Catholic religion, it's gets close to no press, and the first time I heard about it was last Friday on Catholic radio.  It is unsure whether U of M-M will leverage any discipline, but so far he is not being discourgaed about doing this except from the Catholic League, which also seems to get little press in the news.

I know some people seem to get kicks about being the rebel.  I know some people seem to get kicks about destroying an item that many people feel strongly about.  But Paul Myers is just stupid.  He is suppose to be a very smart person, but very much has a child's personality, in which he thinks, "Let's do something that I know a lot of people, organizations, and an entire religion will find dispictable and have our fun with it!"  I'd expect that from an 8 year old without a conscience, not a married father of three who is suppose to be a role model for his kids and students.  To e-mail him click here, and to e-mail his boss, President Robert Bruininks, click here.  Let them know that this shouldn't go unpunished, and to grow up.

"Not everyone in Hollywood likes Barack Obama"
http://www.observer.com/2008/style/one-more-reason-hollywood-support-obama

There is hope!  Though I think, honestly, Barack Obama is a very talented person, a real leader and a person who I believe will stand by his talk about what he'll do if he become's President, I disagree with a lot of his talk, which I have written about earlier.  Apparently, there is one person in Hollywood who also disagrees with his talk, and went on Fox News to discuss it.  Though the site linked above is obviously pro-Obama and makes satirical comments, the video is worth a watch.

This will be a short blog night.  Many of you may have heard that in the last couple days (don't know if it was Sunday night or Monday) George Carlin the comedian has died.  I was about to write about him tonight and how he wasn't all that great of a person after watching a spot about him on ABC's World News.  Then I saw this article.  It doesn't make him out to be a saint, and still proves he was a questionable (at best) character, but he actually had some good points.

To be honest, I've never heard his work.  I saw on the World News spot that he first tried family friendly comedy in his early years, then moved onto impressions and impersonations.  It was the 1970s in which he became more of an "adult" comedian, making jokes in a very mature manner, questioning people's religious beliefs for his own paychecks, and becoming the comedian he is best known for.  One of the lines that they showed him speaking during the news went something along the lines of, "If God was so loving and caring, why is he allowing all this murder?  This doesn't sound like a very good resume for people to look at and say 'You're hired!'"  This wasn't a very good quote of what was actually said, and it sounded a lot funnier to the people that were in attendance judging by their laughter, but it's sad to see that someone had to lower their comedic standards just to "fit in" and finally make a living.  I'd rather get a 9-5 then to lower my standards and make fun of people's religion and swear all along the way just to get a paycheck.

Then I read the Esquire article linked above.  Though he still comes across as edgy ("The first thing they teach kids is that there's a God -- an invisible man in the sky who is watching what they do and who is displeased with some of it. There's no mystery why they start that with kids, because if you can get someone to believe that, you can add on anything you want."), he makes some valid points about literacy ("It's amazing to me that literacy isn't considered a right."), taxes in America ("There's nothing wrong with high taxes on high income."), and even appears to be against abortion ("If there's ever a golden age of mankind, it will not include men over two hundred pounds beating children who are less than one hundred pounds, and it will not include the deliberate killing of people in a formal setting.").  So I guess I learned something today: don't look towards one source for information about a person you've never followed before.  Though the first source provided roughly 75% accuracy of this man's thoughts and feelings, there's always a 25% somewhere that shows that he had some good points to make and was perhaps worthy to just listen to for a short bit.

Thanks to Steve for pointing out this article here at Vox Nova.

If you don't read it, I'll summarize: basically, a woman who has lung cancer wasn't going to be covered to take an advanced type of medicine that could slow it's growth or potentially help recede it because Oregon's health care system does not include advanced cancer treatments designed to prolong life as a covered policy.  However, if she wanted a doctor-assisted suicide, they'll gladly pay for part of the expense.  This is a very brief summary and does not include all of the story, so please click the link above to read the whole thing.

This is what's wrong with Government-sponsored health care.  Because it is not run by individual corporations in which it could provide varying types of policies and programs that could benefit different types of people better, there is only one "organization" that must try to create one policy for everyone, whether they are fat, thin, blue behind the ears, history of cancer, history of living to 120, etc.  Because there is no customization, there is no perfect policy, and this could lead to more deaths then more lives saved.

I've also heard of this potential with government health care: it could lead health care employees to provide certain drugs that may be against their belief system or moral values.  For example, Catholics are taught that using condoms, the pill, and other types of birth control are forms of abortion.  They may not necessarily terminate a pregnancy that has occurred (though some do), but it also prevents the potential of life from occurring, which is just as much of a sin as terminating.  Where's there's a disrespect for a life that has formed or a life that could have formed, that's abortion.  However, government these days is all about safe sex, preventing STDs, and preventing unwanted pregnancies.  In order to carry out this "service," they teach about the safe use of such material in school, and will no doubt provide this contraception at all pharmacies (which many already do) under their health care system.  This means if a teenager walks in on a morning after having sex, a condom broke, and wants the morning-after pill, a Catholic who became a pharmacy worker in the hopes to provide assistance to help people live longer and better would be forced to dispense a drug that would/could kill an innocent fetus, in direct opposition from their faith.  And the worst part about it, if they refuse to dispense this pill because it goes against their faith, this employee could be fired because they didn't dispense a drug that helps a person "practice safe sex and prevent unwanted pregnancies."  Though the 1st Amendment covers their right to follow a religion and can't prohibit the free exercise thereof, she would be fired for exercising her beliefs and doing whats right.  This isn't just for Catholics.  Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, anyone who believe abortion is morally wrong, it doesn't matter.

People may complain, "I can't get affordable health care where I work now," or "The premiums are outrageous right now, a universal health care would be cheaper."  Many would also complain that since they have no job, they don't have a chance for health care to begin with.  My answer: get the health care anyway, pay the prices, or get a job.  I know it may sound harsh, but look at the facts: limited health care is better then no health care.  Even if you can only afford the cheapest available, you're still covered under some circumstances, and it is better then going at it without any coverage.  If the health care you require is very expensive, cut back on other areas.  Don't go out to eat too much.  If you smoke, quit.  Take less road trips in your hummer and explore any hiking trails in the area.  Chances are, if you don't eat out so much you'll gain less weight (if any) in a given period of time, smoking will reduce your risks of medical ailments, and hiking around your area will promote exercise and possibly weight loss.  Losing weight and not smoking are usually incentives in a lot of health care plans, and if you reach certain goals in many plans your premium gets cheaper.  It's a win-win situation, and you have more money for whats really important.

People will say, "You can't just walk in anywhere and get a job.  Why do you think their are millions unemployed?"  I'll tell you what, I've never seen a McDonalds with too many employees.  Or Burger King.  Or Wal-Mart.  You walk in on a Sunday morning and you see five kids under the age of 16 washing tables or stacking shelves.  You really don't think these places aren't always hiring, and you can't get a job?  I know McDonalds won't pay for a heck of a lot, but it's a start.  Get a promotion, save up the money to get some schooling, move on to a better job, and in a couple years you'll have an excellent chance to access health care.

I know my ideas are "gee-whiz, that's too simple."  And maybe they are too simple.  Maybe it's not that easy, but I work with computers, not analyze the latest economic busts or health care trends.  So many of my ideas may never be truly attainable for all people.  But, if this guy has a job, there is certainly a job out there for anyone.

Government and Universal health care would benefit too few and leave too many behind.  There is not a single health care policy for 300+ million people, and there is no way a government that supports the belief in any religion you desire will be able to come up with a plan that adheres to all desired religions.  This kind of health care would also probably not cover the kind of drugs that have passed all the tests to start being used on people, though are still being "clinically trialled," but they will assist in suicides and abortions all in the name of prevention and safety.  A health care system for all is not the answer.

I know it has been quite sometime since I have posted.  I typically don't post unless there is something that really catches my attention and I feel an urge to write, but over the last couple weeks nothing has really tugged at me.  I've also been quite busy, so that may have affected it as well.

This post will be short, but it has to do with an article from MSNBC about Rachael Ray and an ad she is in that is being pulled because some pundit believes it is promoting terrorism.  If you open this link it shows Ray in a photo wearing what appears to be a torn and ripped scarf, and anyone who has walked outside these days knows that anything torn and ripped seems to highly fashionable.  However, the pundit Michelle Malkin believes the scarf resembles a kiffiyeh, which has apparently been popularized by Yasser Arafat and Muslim terrorists that appear in beheading and hostage-taking videos.

For one, this is an ad for Dunkin' Donuts.  They are about as American and wholesome as the donuts and coffee they serve.  Do you really think they picked this scarf out on purpose to promote terrorism?  I really don't think so.  I did a Google image search for Yasser Arafat and Muslim hostage-takers and really could not find a resemblance, or even a decent photo of any of these people even wearing a scarf.  So Malkin must know something that we can't easily find.  If anyone else can find such a picture, please share.

Malkin also suggests that Colin Farrell, Kanye West, and Howard Dean have also been seen wearing similar garb, but why haven't we heard of these instances before?  Respectively, one is a world-wide movie star, one is a Grammy-winning rapper, and one is at the head of the Democratic National Party.  If anyone would be called out for this, I would think it be Dean or either of the other two, not a woman who cooks food on TV and does food ads.

Thats the problem with political pundits.  According to dictionary.com, a pundit is 1. a learned person, expert, or authority; and 2. a person who makes comments or judgements, esp. in an authoritative manner; critic or commentator.  Technically speaking, this makes me a pundit.  However, I don't look at ads and scream "terrorists!"  I look at things as what they are.  In this case, Rachael Ray is wearing a scarf during an advertisement.  People all over wear fashionable scarves, and *news flash*, they come in handy during the winter, whether they're torn or all in one piece.  Pundits have also called racism on Vogue for a cover featuring LeBron James, which has been covered by this blog as well.  People needs to stop looking at "what could be" and start looking at "what is," meaning instead of looking for the negative in everything, see that what is currently being displayed is not offensive, nor reflects terroristic views and the like.

"It is only reasonable to conclude, from all extant evidence, that induced abortion is indeed a risk factor for breast cancer, despite the strong and pervasive bias in the recent literature in the direction of viewing abortion as safe for women. Recent prospective studies, widely touted as refuting the abortion-breast cancer link, are found to embody many serious methodologic flaws sufficient to invalidate their findings.

 

"It is deplorable that in an era in which women's rights appear so prominently on the political and public health landscape, women should be denied the right to know about the breast cancer risk increasing effect of such a common matter of choice as induced abortion."

By now I'm sure most people have heard about the horse, Eight Belles, that died at the Kentucky Derby last Saturday after breaking both ankles after the race has finished.  And I'm sure by now most people have heard the backlash or weighed in on it about how it was the jockey's fault, or how the sport is so cruel, or how tragic it was.  Let me be the 1,756,984th person to say something:

Get over it.

Seriously people, this event will not destruct the architecture of the United States, not cause aliens to land on Earth, and not cause further global warming.  As my friend Steve says on his blog No Huddle Offense, "A school shooting is a tragedy. Suicide bombings in Iraq are tragedies. That 15,000 people just lost their lives to a cyclone in Myanmar is a tragedy. A horse dying is not a tragedy."

Before people start ripping me a new one, I like horses.  My Mom grew up on a farm with them and loves them.  My wife and I like to go horse-back riding in the Dells each summer, and we have a good time.  My uncle used to compete with them, and I got to "drive" them on his dirt track while visiting in Colorado.  Horses are cool.  But they aren't gods.  They're pets.  And pets die sometimes, either from old age, injuries, or sometimes by accident.  Either way, their owners will shed some tears, say goodbye, and move on.

As described by this Slate article, not killing him on the field would have been more cruel then letting him suffer during a certain death.  An injury such as this to a horse can result in infection, the risk or doing even more damage, and the risk of many failed attempts to recover.  Barbaro, which this article was based upon, is almost a wonder-horse in the length that he was able to stay alive before he had to be put down.  Reading this article, the trainers did the right thing.  Everyone says that any animal should be killed rather then have them suffer through pain and anguish until they die, and the trainers saved this horse from the pain it would have surely endured.

But of course, "ethical" groups such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals came running and crying, demanding things that are unreasonable.  PETA called for the suspension of Gabriel Saez, the jockey who rode Eight Belles.  They claim he should have known that she was injured, and should have pulled her back instead of "cracking the whip."  However, the injury came after the race was over and after Saez was trying to slow her down.  Had anything been wrong during the race, the horse would have started to run different, and I'm sure Saez would have surely known something was wrong and then pulled her back.  To see that this horse took 2nd place behind the favorite, I don't think there could have been anything wrong with this horse during the race.  Reactions like this from PETA make me want to eat a big steak in defiance.

Michael Rosenburg explains in his article that this death brings to light the dark side of horse racing.  Dark side?  This isn't like Darth Vader here.  Like other sports, these horses are trained to race and compete.  Just like horse pulls.  Just like dogs are groomed for dog shows, in which people spend more money on their dogs then their kids, or giving those thousands of dollars to charities that could help people less fortunate then they are.  Another example: if horse racing is so bad because one horse out of a thousand dies, should the folks in Greenville, Wisconsin be condemned for having their annual catfish races?  Every summer they hold catfish races, in which people place bets on which catfish will win each race, and at the end of it all they kill the fish and eat them during a large fish fry.  Oh my goodness!  They're racing catfish, and not only do they all die, but they're eaten!  Again, animals that are raced and then killed.  At least horse racing doesn't involve the mass killings at the end.

People need to look at this in perspective.  If the jockey died, then it would be a tragedy, and something to look into.  If fans died as a result of something horrible, then that would certainly be a tragedy.  But this was a horse that broke both ankles, and to prevent any further suffering from an injury that would likely lead to death anyway, they put her down.  Now, I'm sure the trainers would have rather done this in a private area instead of in front of 157,000 people, but so be it.  They had no other choice.  This just happened to be an expensive pet that ran a fantastic race, but the owners aren't going to go broke, and they have many other pets to take care of.  Of all the things that could go wrong with this country, one dead horse shouldn't be dominating the headlines.