How would you feel if your best friend was taken away from you by the government in the city you lived in? Unfortunately a young autistic boy is facing this problem because his city council has removed his 80 – pound best friend Loopey, who just so happens to be a pig. Do you believe that the city should get rid of this rule completely? Or possibly should the city grant a special right for the young boy and allow him to keep the pig? Or do you believe that the city is completely right in what it’s doing?
First off I hope everyone enjoys this particular blog because it was discovered by yours truly. Anyway, I don’t believe that it’s fair for a single person to receive a special rule that excludes him/her from a law; especially when that law must be abided by all other citizens. Therefore, I think that the city council should lighten up. What is the difference between a pig and a dog living in a house hold? I’ve seen plenty of dogs that can weigh up to 80 lbs and even exceed this weight. And if the reasoning behind the city council’s decision is that a pig doesn’t belong in this type of atmosphere, well than that’s just a bit conservative. With enough training any mammal can obtain proper obedience in a home and survive just fine. Plus, I’m rather shocked that the results of the council voting were as depressing as they were. I would have thought that at most, maybe two or three out of ten people would have voted against the revising of this law. I feel that this city council is taking this matter a little too far, and just honestly consider the positive and negative aspects of allowing a revision to this ridiculous law. If they allow this mammal to live within a suburban home, the pig will probably just fine as long as all of its necessary needs are provided for. Besides food and shelter, what else does a pig need? Roaming room? Well I’m sure the backyard would be just as sufficient as the area provided for the animal in a zoo. The only exception here is perhaps the fact that the pig may need medical supervision. But a periodic visit to a nearby vet, or even the zoo vets should be sufficient.
ReplyDeleteJulia-
ReplyDeleteI am very upset that this young autistic boy’s best friend was taken away by the government in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The government voted against an ordinance that allowed the pig to stay within city limits. The boy’s best friend was an eighty pound pig named Loopey. In the attached article, it said that “Before they brought Loopey home, Anthony had trouble with head and hand shaking, bed-wetting, sleeping and interacting with other people.” Once they brought the pig home, these problems went away. Even for a little boy with no problems, I don’t think the government should have taken away the pig. But especially for a little boy with autism, I think it was horrible that the government took the pig, and best friend, of the boy away. I do not think that letting the boy keep the pig would have made a difference at all to the government, yet it would have made all the difference in the world to Anthony. This situation causes a huge burden on Anthony’s entire family. Since the boy was so attached to the pig, he makes daily visits, thirty five miles away, to the farm where Loopey lives to visit with him. This takes a lot of time and gets expensive with gas for the family. Also the family is burdened with the constant complaining and tears from poor Anthony who just lost his best friend. I know what it’s like to lose a best friend, and trust me it is the worst feeling in the world. I think it was very wrong of the government to take Loopey away from Anthony.
-Julia Gordon
Sean Weinhouse,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. I feel that a pig as a household pig is barely different than having a dog. I have seen many dogs that exceed eighty pounds, one that I know personally. This family was willing to take care of the pig and give it the love and care that it needed. They provided the pig with food, water, attention, and a home to live and roam about. I feel that there is no difference between the pig living in Anthony’s home or on a random farm, and I can almost guarantee that the government council could careless either. I know a law is a law, but I feel that in this case they should have bent the rules. I agree with you that two or three “strick-to-the-law” members would have fought for the law, but I thought too that the majority of them would have let the pig stay with his best friend. I am just as upset with these depressing results as you are, Sean.
-Julia Gordon
If my best friend were taken away from me on the grounds of his simply being "banned from the city", I would react with indignation and incredulity; the former because it is my best friend they are taking from me, and the later because there is usually a more definite reason than provided by this hypothetical situation for a city government to apprehend one of its citizens. However if I were autistic and I lost my pig, I would entreat my parents to apply to the city’s government for a reconsideration of their decision.
ReplyDeleteTechnically the city is acting righteously, as its decision is backed by the law; but upon personal and practical consideration, as the uniqueness of this case obviously warrants, they are acting heedlessly and unethically.
If it were up to me, I would without second thought deem the boy’s case as exempt from the law. If setting a legal precedent were of any concern to me, which it seems to be of those who voted against modifying the law, I would set the general circumstances necessary for exemption precisely to those of this specific case, with the confidence that a case so unique as this one could not possibly repeat itself in the future. And if it did repeat itself, then it is for the license of that age to address and correct.
In response to Thomas,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don’t agree with your mentality of leaving a possible altercation with a future generation, I guess in this particular circumstance I agree that if the city were to revise the law, that it should be case sensitive and basically apply only to this particular situation. For instance, if they revise the law to the point where all animals are acceptable house hold pets, as ridiculous as that would be, then I’m sure people might get a bit out of hand and possibly adopt a horse for the house hold or some other animal equally absurd. Hopefully none of the other citizens act to strongly towards this matter and speak out if the city council does decide to grant this family a special exemption. This might cause too much anxiety for the young autistic boy and in the long run affect him worse than if the pig were just simply taken away.
I find this story particularly sad. This town had the chance to really get behind Anthony. Anthony and Loopey could have become a sort of town mascot. Obviously this is a special case. I do not think that other people would be mad about bending the rules for this little boy. I mean I understand if the city council is worried about bending the rules, but I think that they could have at least sent the issue to a community vote. I think that if they had let the people decide what to do about Loopey, the eighty-pound pot bellied pig, Anthony would be happily back in possession of his best friend. I do agree with a comment that I read on one of the articles. If it was my son I would move out to a rural area so that he could live happily with his pig. If the issue was important enough to my family and me I would be totally willing to move where ever I needed to. After trying to force a whole city to bend their rules to accommodate me, I think I would then try and think of a new plan. The most obvious fix for this is just to move to an area where the laws allow the things that I wanted to do. It does not sound like Anthony would be upset about moving if he could still have his pig. This move would be a big sacrifice for the family, but I do think that if Loopey means enough to them to make this an international issue they should be willing to make some sacrifice too.
ReplyDelete-Kali
Dear Thomas Ash,
ReplyDeleteWow. I just read your comment to Julia. I thought that this blog was a place for everyone in our class to express their views on specific issues without being ridiculed or made to feel stupid. I think that your “response” to Julia was very rude and pretentious. This blog is required for our class so everyone has to give an opinion, even if the issue of the week is one that they do not care about at all. Maybe Julia was just happily typing along, trying to complete her assignment so that she could get on living her life, not really thinking, “Oh man, someone is probably going to call me out on every grammatical error I make while writing this.”
To me, the part of your “response” that was exceptionally rude was directly at the beginning when you told her “A recounting of the story is a tad unnecessary for your response.” Hmm. I think that she gets to pick what she wants to include in her response.
Furthermore, I am sorry for calling you out on being so rude, but I just want to make sure our blog is a place where everyone in our class feels comfortable writing what they think without worrying about being personally attacked.
Thanks!
Kali
Well it's a shame that the kid lost his pet pig to the government, but from a law follower perspective the government was doing it's job by abiding to the laws that it established. However from a moralist and a person, I think that the government needs to be more lenient about their laws. I mean what's wrong having a pig as a pet or any kind of animal as a pet? It's not like it's an flesh eating alien that it laches onto you and french tongues you to lay, or more accurately ram, a parasitic egg down your throat, into your stomach and tears a huge hole through your chest when it's offspring is ready to come out making a high pitch screech.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, people made rules in order for other people to follow them. It is the most basic parts and foundations for society, if the law makers don't follow them then how will the rest of society follow then? As for bending and mending the rules to fit to one's liking. The desire of bending the rules is proof that society is human, people naturally want to show sympathy and favor to those that we care about. The city council taking the boy's best friend that is a 80 lbs. pig is just too cruel. The pig did nothing wrong in terms of hurting or disturbing others in any shape or form. Plus the pig maybe the boy's only friend. The boy feels comfortable and happy around the pig and both did nothing wrong, so the city council should just leave the two alone.
@ sean weinhouse
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement that the city council and any form of government should lighten up on the rules. The city council were going too far in terms of listening to the law. The pig didn't do anything wrong and the boy just wanted to have a friend. It's obvious that you looked up for details about the case and I agree that the city council votes were very depressing. NOt even one had even try to think that it was ridiculous and go against. It's funny how some people in the world can be this way. They see the pig as a threat to the city. I can see that they want to stick to the rules , but it's a pig it won't do anything. It won't kill anyone, at least not intentionally. Plus this is the best friend of a little autistic boy who treasure the pig. I think that they city should just get of the rule of not having a 80 lb. pig walking around. It's only one and the pig won't do any harm. I don't even that 80 lb. pig is a problem to anyone.
I would be very upset if my best friend were forced to leave the city. Friends are really important to me so I can understand why this little boy is suffering so much. I probably wouldn’t suffer in the same way as he is, but I can still understand that it would be devastating. Personally, I think that the city should make exceptions on a case-by-case basis. I’m not sure what the reasoning is for the pig ban, but if I was the city leaders, I would check to see if this one pig was really going to cause that much of a problem. If it really wasn’t a big deal, I would give the pig back to the little boy. On the other hand, if it was a big deal, I would have to keep the ban on the pig for the sake of the city. Honestly, I don’t see how it could be that big of a deal, but that’s not for me to decide. Also, I think that the parents should consider moving. They would only have to move like half an hour away so it wouldn’t be that big of a deal. I know that it seems like a lot for the sake of a pig, but if it’s that important to this child’s mental health, then I think it is worth it. Either way, I think that someone should find a way to reunite this child with his pig. The pig clearly helped to alleviate the child’s symptoms so it seems like a sacrifice would be worth the benefit. Overall, I just feel bad for the little kid, and I don’t really see what the city could possibly gain anything by taking away his pig.
ReplyDeleteDanny Galvis
Julia, I understand how you feel about what happened to the little boy's pig. I can’t really think of any way the city would benefit from banning Loopey. It just seems like the government should be more compassionate towards Anthony. On the other hand though, I feel like the parents should consider moving out there. I don’t know if it would be possible for them, but I figure it would be. If they are already making daily trips out there, then they’re already using that much gas. They might as well use that gas to get into town every day. I just think that something should be done. There has to be some way to remedy the situation. I think that Anthony really needs that pig so someone should find a way to make that happen. It’s not as if Anthony just really wants the pig; he actually needs Loopey.
ReplyDeleteDanny Galvis
I think that the rules should be bent at time. If my best friend was forcefully taken away from me, I wouldn't know how to continue my life. She is always there for me no matter what. Going away to college and my best friend staying home for another year is really tough on both of us. Support through your best friend is what helps your get through your day.
ReplyDeleteThis autistic boy has been through rough times in his life. It's hard to understand being in his shoes. He has so many limitations set on him already, why should the city council ban his best friend?
This is supposed to be the land of the free, and civil rights has been in movement for years. This poor boy is already not free because he is forced to live with a disorder that tends restrain him in several different ways. Kids with autism tend to have social problems; it is usually hard for them to have a friend and stick with them. Often times, the friend grows up and realizes his friend hasn't grown up with him. So for this boy to have a best friend, no matter what kind of friend it is, he should have enough freedom to keep it.
Therefore, I believe that the city should grant a special law based on this boy alone to be allowed to have a pig live with him. We all want to be happy and feel comfortable, what makes this little boy different?
-Shannon Van Woerden
In response to Danny Galvis,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. This pig and child is harmless. The government should bend a little when it comes to cases like these. Everyone has a different circumstance. This is why people have court appearances to be freed from their charge because they have a special need or circumstance. The city is taking away a little boy's memories, and only true friendship, whether it be a pig or not. Parents don't take away invisible friends from their children, why should this child be any different? The little boy deserves a chance at a good life, and if this autistic boy can not have a normal life, he should at least be able to live it the way he wants to live his life. A city a one pig should be able to get along for a good cause, and I believe that this boy deserves it.
-Shannon Van Woerden
I think losing someone that we care about is hard enough for anyone, for Anthony, this pig was his companion, and even his medicine to some extent because somehow the pig helped alleviate Anthony's symptoms. Laws are made to protect and benefit the community; however, this law is harming this child by not letting him be with Loopey. It s understandable that they don't want to make an exception because then people might want their cases to be exceptions too, but this case goes beyond just an emotional attachment, Loopey was actually helping Anthony with problems he had, such as head and hand shaking, bed-wetting and even interacting with other people. I'm sure that the parents tried other methods before bringing a pig into the house, because that's not the first thing that people tend to think when they have an autistic child. So, if they have tried other ways and other methods, but having a pig in their house is the best they have found, the one that has helped Anthony the most, shouldn't Loopey be allowed to keep helping Anthony?
ReplyDeleteThere are places where animals aren't allowed, yet they make exceptions for people who are blind so that they can bring their dogs, this is because the dogs guide and help them, I'm sure that these people also develop a certain attachment to these dogs, so why, isn't Loopey allowed to stay in the house of this family, where he's not bothering anyone and is being well taken care of while also helping this family?
Ana Martinez
I agree with Kali in that if the decision of whether or not the pig should be allowed to stay with Anthony would be up to the people in the community more likely than not, the pig would be allowed to stay and the family wouldn't have to be going to the farm every day so that Anthony gets to see Loopey. However, if this wouldn't work I know Kali said that if it was her family she would consider moving somewhere where she would be allowed to have the pig without those kinds of problems, but in the article it said that the family couldn't afford something like that. I really hope that they get the chance to have Loopey in their home again, it seemed like they took great care of it and that Loopey helped them with some problems that Anthony had. I know that this would help Anthony and would make him happy.
ReplyDeleteAna Martinez
This is an interesting story, and a sad one at that. I think that if the government can help a disabled child in any way it should be done. And if that means allowing Anthony Pia to keep his pet pot bellied pig then that is what should be done. While I don’t believe it is necessary for the town of Fayetteville, N.C to get rid of their ban on pot bellied pigs entirely I think they should change the law so that if there is a special case the mayor should be able to decide on a case by case basis. This would allow Anthony Pia to be granted special permission to keep his pet, or as the article says, his best friend. I don’t see how it would make any difference to the city if Pia had a pet pig or not. What harm were Loopey and Anthony doing? None. While the government did the right thing and brought the issue before the city council because of the lobbying of Anthony’s parents, the fact that the motion was tied 5-5 astounds me. Why would you ever vote against letting a disabled child keep his pet?? A pet that has helped him deal with his disability and live a happier life? Not only does this confuse me it angers me as well. The five who voted against allowing Pia to keep Loopey voiced the argument that if they allowed Loopey to stay then anyone would be able to bring in a prohibited animal. To me this argument has very little to back it up because the council could simply decide to either give Pia special permission, or rule on pets on a case by case basis. Granted this would require more time and effort from the city government, but if it would help make a disabled child’s life happier and easier than in my opinion it would be more than worth it.
ReplyDeleteDanny,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100 percent, I don’t see either what possible harm could come to the city by allowing a child to keep its pet. It’s not as if he has ten pigs that he’s breeding so I don’t see what their so worried about. I also agree with your opinion that the city should make exceptions on a case-by-case basis. That way this particular issue would be solved and the city would still have a solution to whatever problem the pigs were causing before they banned them. I also think your suggestion for the parents to move is a good one, only as a last resort but if the city refuses to grant them special permission and the pig helped their son that much then they should. I defiantly agree with you that a way to reunite Anthony with Loopey needs to be found, it sounds to me that if there isn’t Anthony is going to get much worse.
The topic of weather or not to follow through with law seems to come up quite often on our blog board. I usually tend to disregard emotional bias and interpret situations in a more legal sense. This in some posts may make me come off as somewhat heartless. Although I feel bad that a boy who is dealing with issues that are clearly beyond his control, had to have his pet pig, that meant a lot to him, taken away, I can definitely see why the town voted the way they did on the issue. The fact is that if you make one acception to a rule people will in general expect you to make another and another and so on. If our government ran this way it would be chaos. All of this being said I do feel that it is unfortunate that the boy was forced to part ways with his pet pig and visit him on occasion 35 miles away on a farm, however the law of the town needed to be upheld. Looking at things from a different angle I am sure that the family of the boy would not enjoy it if one of their neighbors got a large hog that smelled up the entire neighborhood and ran wild in the streets. If the family feels as strongly as they clearly do about the action taken by the town perhaps they should consider moving to a town with laws that favor that of pigs as pets.
ReplyDeleteDear, Sean Weinhouse
ReplyDeleteIn response to your post and quite frankly everyone else's I would tend to disagree. Although I can defiantly see the strong points of your post and basically everyone else's, in the sense that a special exception should be made for a young boy who has larger problems than just losing his pet pig, I would still tend to argue that an exception seems to be not in the best interest of the general public. In addition to this I would argue with everyone to look back at previous blogs and view their responses. Most of the previous responses seemed to want a law or ruling upheld. Although you may say that the circumstances are completely different, which they are, at the principle the arguments are exactly the same, weather or not to uphold law when a special circumstance could be made.
Before I read the article, I agreed with the government's actions in removing the hog from the city because I was under the impression that the hog would merely be relocated a couple of miles away from this boy's home. However, after reading the article I understood all the details of this particular situation and I believe that the government is wrong in every single way to have "legally" removed this young boy's friend. I believe that it is unethical to remove this pig under the circumstances that this boy is autistic and this pig, who is more importantly his best friend, helped him overcome many of the problems he faced on a daily basis, and absolutely important - the daily struggles he had gone through but overcame with the help of his friend are now worsened by the government's decision to remove the pig from the city. Their decision might have been justifiable if the relocation of the pig/best friend were moved only a few miles away so that it would not be a problem for the child to visit it easily. However, that is not the case. The pig was moved about 30 miles away if I remember correctly and is a major roadblock for this autistic child because it causes him grief and stress. It is in this special circumstance that I believe the government should make exceptions. Also, it did not really make sense that they would overrule the case when it was tied. The whole "government voting" situation seems pretty biased to me.
ReplyDeleteJohn McNamara:
ReplyDeleteI can see exactly where you're coming from although I mostly disagree with you. I considered that the family should just move closer to be with their son's best friend, but as you know our economy is in a little bit of a pickle right. This family probably does not have the means to just 'up and leave' to be closer to a pig. This is probably and most likely the reason why they did not do just that. Other than that though, I really can not back up my argument. I never really know what to think in these kinds of situations where I have to choose which is right or wrong. Plus, if I'm forced to choose a side I usually just give in to my ethical/pathos side. Hm. I feel like I would do badly in jury duty.
I find it great that the young boy with autism found that his symptoms deteriorated when his family adopted the pig loopy; however I don’t think a rule should be changed for him. I believe the city government is doing the right thing by fining the family. His parents should have known better when first adopting the pig, it’s like having a puppy illegally in a building and then having to give it up because you weren’t allowed to have it in the first place. Just because he had a reaction to a pig at the farm doesn’t mean you adopt it, if he liked a zebra they wouldn’t sneak that into their house. If his parents truly felt loopy would help their son they should consider moving to a ranch type place where they can legally have the pig and their son can continue to grow a bond with his best friend and out of his autism. I’m sure they are not the first family who have found an unusual house animal to be self-curing. Pigs are dirty farm animals that probably carry disease and disturb neighbors with their snorting which is why they would be prohibited from a city that houses families, businesses, and schools. I believe that rules are implemented for a reason and they should not be changed under any circumstance. Whatever is decided in the case it is great to see the family is getting so much support from others with the online petition and that this case is now so well known.
ReplyDelete- Jackie Sonin
John,
ReplyDeleteIt seems like we have a lot of similar view on the given topic. I totally agree with you that if the family truly feels that the pig is helping their acoustic son that they should consider moving to a place where loopy wouldn’t be consider illegal. Maybe with all the support their getting they could raise money to move just thirty five miles away. I also agree with what you said how if a rule is bent for one then it should be bent for anyone. I think rules are set up for a purpose and there is always going to be special circumstances to consider but at the end of the day the rule is there for a reason. I also mentioned in my blog about how the neighbors would probably not like having a pig next door. I Know if I was ever woken by a pig I would certainly report my neighbor no matter what the circumstance was.
John,
ReplyDeleteIt seems like we have a lot of similar view on the given topic. I totally agree with you that if the family truly feels that the pig is helping their acoustic son that they should consider moving to a place where loopy wouldn’t be consider illegal. Maybe with all the support their getting they could raise money to move just thirty five miles away. I also agree with what you said how if a rule is bent for one then it should be bent for anyone. I think rules are set up for a purpose and there is always going to be special circumstances to consider but at the end of the day the rule is there for a reason. I also mentioned in my blog about how the neighbors would probably not like having a pig next door. I Know if I was ever woken by a pig I would certainly report my neighbor no matter what the circumstance was.
-Jackie Sonin
Kaley :
ReplyDeleteI could not even imagine the pain I would feel if my best friend was removed from our home town by the government. I would feel so helpless, betrayed, and wronged if that happened to me. Es epically if it was for an unrealistic and unjust reason. I do not believe the government should interfere with everyday life of its citizens. I believe the unnecessary intervention of the government into it citizens lives in a violation of our civil rights as Americans. In this situation where the government took a young autistic boys pet away from his home, for what reason? I believe this to be not only an outrage but entirely wrong. I don't understand why this is against city rules or why they can not make an exception for this mentally handicapped boy. I do think the city should rid its self of this rule if only for the young boys sake. I believe this to be not only wrong but a complete unjust ice. I believe the young boy has every right to owning that animal as any of us would owning a cat and dog. Not only is he not interfering with any one else's well being of harming the city in any way, but owning a pet can be very therapeutic for a individual and having that animal ripped away from a child who wont understand why his friend is being taken away from him is absolutely very wrong.
Maggie Main:
ReplyDeleteSounds like the two of us agree on this issue. I can tell that you also feel passionate on the fact that what the government did here was cruel and unsual. I totally agree with you in the argument of what harm was coming from the poor disabled child owning the pig? How was this hurting the city? Why do people have an issue with it any way? They managed to take away the one thing that brought that poor boy peace and I personally feel outraged by the fact. I think it shows a great lack of compassion in the government system.
Kaley
I think it is absolutely ridiculous to take away the kids pig. Whether a kid has autism downs-syndrome, any disease or just a normal kid he should be allowed to keep it. I do not get why it this is a discussion. It is not fair to take away the kids pig. There is no reason to take it away. The pig did not hurt anyone and was the kid’s best friend. I understand that if there is a law made that every citizen applies even little kids and that the health of the city is more important than the feelings of the little kid. That being said I do not think the rules should be bent for situations like this. Some little rules like classroom rules can be bent but when your dealing on a large scale they cannot. That being said I think that the law should be changed to allow people to keep the animal if they are a true pet. I feel for the little guy, losing his best friend. I have never had a friend that was a pig but I have had friends move away and myself have moved 6 times. It is hard on people so I feel for him and he is to young to understand why it has happened which makes it even more difficult to explain. I know this is a stretch but the family could move. I know that they probably can not but it is just another solution.
ReplyDelete