Over the last few days, I’ve heard many voices speaking out for and against the Philadelphia Eagles’ decision to sign Michael Vick. The passion on both sides has been impressive, if not always admirable.

Many animal activists have decried the move, suggesting that Vick should have been banned from the NFL for life—though, oddly enough, not the head of the Humane Society, who hopes to use Vick as an anti-dogfighting spokesman. Some have applauded the Eagles and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell for allowing Vick a second chance. The man himself seems humbled and willing to prove himself. Tony Dungy, a deeply religious man, stands beside Vick and his attempts to rejoin society. And in between, a whole lot of people aren’t sure what to think.

I’m with them.

On the one hand, I agree with the activists. I’m for animal rights myself, and I was shocked, sickened, and outraged by what Vick and his companions did. I agreed that he should go to jail, and when it was announced that he might get released early, I protested, including joining that Facebook group “Keep Michael Vick in Jail.”

On the other, I firmly believe in giving people second chances. Vick served his time and lost over a hundred million dollars. I don’t think we can deny him the chance to earn a living or to pursue his own American dream, not without picking and choosing when to apply our beliefs. If I believe in second chances for those who have taken their punishment and who claim to be trying to make amends, then I have to believe in it for everybody. So I have no problem with the Eagles’ signing Vick.

But believe me, I’m planning to watch him and his behavior very carefully. In instances like this, there should be no third chance. If Michael Vick engages in animal cruelty or some kind of major crime against a person, he should be banned from the NFL for life and imprisoned, this time for longer. I don’t buy the argument that his dogfighting stemmed from immaturity, but I think there’s something to the claim that some particular environments can encourage a kind of moral relativism. I want to give Vick a chance to transcend the man he was and to show us who he’s become.

But if it’s a case of “six of one, half a dozen of the other,” then I’m all out of sympathy for him.

That’s my opinion. What’s yours?

Email The Sportswriter at sportstalk2010@gmail.com