
If you haven't, here's a picture of him, the famous 3-month-old polar bear who was unfortunately rejected by his mother. He should have his furry best friend by his side, but sadly, after their mother had left them both to fend for themselves, his twin brother didn't make it. Sobbles.
Ain't he the cutest baby boy! All cuddly and furry, he has the roundest eyes, sweetest smile and cutest ears. My heart melts each time I see him.
The way he mischeviously runs about is so cute and just look at how

Point is, I just don't get it. Why should his life be put to a halt just because his mother refuses to take care of him? I know, I know, I know. I know that wild animals should not be humanised, I know they probably can never be domesticated. I understand that they should be allowed to live the exact way they would if they were in the wild.
But........in Knut's case, which is the greater evil? To let a human take care of Knut until he can take care of himself? Or to kill Knut?
The answer is clear to me, it's not as if the Berlin Zoo will throw Knut into the wild, after domesticating him, right? He's going to live in the zoo, he's going to be happy polar bear. Yes, he will be less wild, he may not be able to fend for himself if you dump him into the wilderness. But just make sure you don't throw him out into the wild and everything will be rosy and cheery for Knut, isn't it?
Knut has a new found best friend (who also valiantly taken on the role of a father), Thomas, a zookeeper. Thomas has moved into the zoo to take care of Knut. He sleeps in a bed by Knut's crate, bottle feeds him, croons Elvis hits to him and even showers this baby with Christmas gifts. He loves Knut heaps, and I'm sure Knut loves Thomas truckloads too.
The director of the Aachen Zoo believes it was a wrong decision to save Knut and said this: "It is not correct to bottle-feed a small polar bear. He will always be fixated on his keeper and will never grow to be a proper polar bear."
But say this to me anytime, and I'll give the same reply. I prefer a living Knut to a dead Knut. I prefer a not-so-proper-polar-bear Knut to a Knut who ain't breathing and cannot move. Not so proper? Does 'not so proper' just mean he is different from wild polar bears? Different, as in he probably can't find his own food if you throw him in the oceans? Does that difference matter so much? Does that matter more than Knut's right to live?
I want Knut to be able to live. I want Knut to be a happy smiling polar bear. I want Knut to have his new best friend by his side and live happily ever after in our crazy warped world, where animal rights have contradicting meanings.
Save animals! Kill animals! Apparently to activists, in Knut's case, they equate to the same darn thing: animal rights. What an insane world..............
Click here to read more on Knut: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21421012-5006007,00.html