In a message dated 12/31/02 1:53:57 AM !!!First Boot!!!, [log in to unmask] writes:
Alas! Does any man know, does any consider--
What is this? What universal truth are you announcing?
--by how much the most precious of our possessions is
the power to reason wisely?
Your citing of Antigone is interesting, but I feel irrelevant. Antigone indeed felt that she had the right to bury her brother at any cost . . . . but her brother was not her property. She was acting out of principle and emotion, and it had nothing to do with property rights. It had to do with what was in her heart for her brother and the respect she believed due him, i.e. a decent funeral. A more relevant point might be made by relating a few back page news items from the South Florida press that have appeared during the last year or so wherein owners of real property stated their intent to bury their beloved dogs in their back yards. Neighbors protested and put the issue in the hands of town officials. There were a rash of such incidences, three of four. The cases decided thus far went against the homeowners. I can understand the points of view on both sides. It's a different time; years ago, it was not uncommon to find homes with family graves located on the grounds. These days, houses and land are bought and sold so often that it's not a great idea. But, just because something is not a great idea doesn't and shouldn't decide the legality issue. But, of course, this matter of whether an owner of real property has the right to bury a pet on the property brings up another issue as well, of whether or not a "dog" is property. The law is very fuzzy on this point. I can take an ax and destroy my car if I like and as long as I don't put in a fraudulent insurance claim, this is legal; on the other hand, people who have been cruel to pets have been fined, even jailed in extreme cases of cruelty.