Is it wrong to want another purebred?

Ashley wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


Not exactly. He will be *buying* a purebred kitten who doesn't
exactly
"need a a home"--Bengal breeders probably have waiting lists, and
the
kitten will get a home irregardless.

Kitten still needs a home. If Brian takes it, someone else who might
have
taken it might take a shelter cat. But then again, we could go "if"
forever.

Brian should do what Brian wants to do. I have no problem at all with
people
deciding they would like a certain breed of cat, and getting it.
That's
their right.

Bull****. The kitten does NOT "need a home." You're advocating buying
a specific breed because you *want* it. Don't use such a lame
justification. Just simply say you don't give a **** about how many
homeless cats there are already, as long as you get the look you want.
THAT is your "right".

Sherry

KellyH wrote:
"-L." wrote
As I well know. State adoption is inexpensive. In some states
it's
free. Infant adoption is extremely expensive, mainly because it is
privatized.


True, but it's not for everyone. It's pretty rare to get an infant
through
the state, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to be certified
foster
parents first.

In most states you have to be approved to adopt which differes from
being certified as foster parents. But it depends on the state.


I don't know why you saw yourself in what I wrote, or thought I was
referring to you. You definitely do not fit the menatality of
"mindless breeder."


Because you said (to paraphrase) "everyone should adopt and not
biologically create their own children".

Um, don't put words in my mouth.

Joe said :

"Once *all* the parentless kids have been adopted, only then should
couples consider having their own kids."

I said:

"I don't have any problem what-so-ever with that sentiment."

I don't have a problem with that sentiment. That doesn't mean I think
it should be instituted. If it was instituted, I still wouldn't have a
problem with it, personally. You can't blame me for wishing every
child was wanted and loved. You can't blame me for being pro-adoption.
I am completely in support of reproductive rights - even the right of
the mindless breeder to pop them out every 10 months, while being on
welfare. But that doesn't mean I don't think adoption is a better
choice for a number of reasons, primarily for the welfare of children
in general, and for the environment. I'm an adoptive parent - how can
I feel differently?


What if your IF treatments had
worked?

If they had I might feel differently. But we had planned to adopt in
either case, so the point really is moot.


You know in the adoption groups the arguments go on and on. Like, if
you
want to adopt an infant, that's wrong, you should be adopting an
older
child. Why aren't you adopting a special needs child? Etc, etc.

I know. But adoption of any child differs on a number of issues, from
creating more children.


If this round of IVF hadn't worked, we probably would be adopting. I
felt
like, we had the opportunity to try it, so I should at least give it
a shot.
I didn't want to wonder "what if?"

I totally agree that you made the right choice for you. That's great.
I am truly happy for you. Seriously. I don't deny you the right to
make the choice you did. Obviously I didn't make the same choice
mainly because I thought the choice I made was the "better" one under
the circumstances, for a number of reasons. That doesn't make you evil
or wrong for making a different choice. In a perfect world all
children would be as wanted and loved as mine is and as yours will be.
I just wish *all* children had that opportunity. Thus, I agree with
Joe's sentiment.

-L.

"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...


Every cat bread means another dies. If you think that's not
"harming" cats, I don't really have anything else to say.

Excellent.

"Phil P." wrote in message
...



He's harming the cat he could have adopted.


But by adopting that cat, he'd be harming all the other cats he could have,
but didn't adopt ... I mean we could go down this silly "what if" road for
ever. It still wouldn't take us anywhere sensible.


Get a conscience and some
compassion.

I have both in plentiful supply, thank you. I also have a sense of
proportion and reality. There are more than a few people on this group who
would be wise to do the same.

wrote:
Bull****. The kitten does NOT "need a home." You're advocating
buying
a specific breed because you *want* it. Don't use such a lame
justification. Just simply say you don't give a **** about how many
homeless cats there are already, as long as you get the look you
want.
THAT is your "right".

Sherry

But that would require too much honesty, Sherry. Really, you're
expecting too much.

-L.

"Phil P." wrote in message
...

"Ashley" wrote in message
...

When I next get a cat it will be an oriental shorthair,
and I have not even the slightest feeling there is anything wrong in my
wanting that and acting upon that want.

That's because self-gratification is more important to you than the
welfare
of the feline *species*.

Of course. That must be it.

"-L." wrote
Um, don't put words in my mouth.

Joe said :

"Once *all* the parentless kids have been adopted, only then should
couples consider having their own kids."

I said:

"I don't have any problem what-so-ever with that sentiment."

Sorry, didn't mean to. That was my take on what you said. I'm going to
email you, this is way OT for the cat ng.

--
-Kelly
kelly at farringtons dot net
"Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG

"Joe Canuck" wrote in message
...
Phil P. wrote:

"Brian Link" wrote in message
...

Also I'd be happy to hear

others' thoughts about adopting from a shelter vs adopting a purebred.



As long as you adopt the cat from a kill shelter - it doesn't matter
because
you'll be saving a life and providing a companion for Tiger. If you
plan to
buy a 'purebred', first, you might want to take a stroll down death row
of
your local kill shelter and then see how those forsaken faces make you
feel
about buying a cat from a breeder who probably has a waiting list of
buyers
and can't churn out cats fast enough.

Why do you ask? Does something not seem right about buying a cat from a
breeder while millions of cats are killed every year because of the lack
of
homes?



Perhaps we should apply this same line of thought with human beings...

There are thousands if not millions of kids around the world without
parents. Perhaps one should adopt a kid first rather than see other kids
go through the early years without the support and benefit of parents.

Once *all* the parentless kids have been adopted, only then should
couples consider having their own kids.

This is an old hackneyed chestnut, Joe. And the answer is, YES,
we really should. But where the analogy fails is that buying the product
of a commercial breeding is not the same thing as giving in to the
deep-seated urge to replicate our own DNA. (No, I do not and
will not have children, for reasons of my own.)

"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...

Joe Canuck wrote:

Perhaps we should apply this same line of thought with human
beings...

There are thousands if not millions of kids around the world without
parents. Perhaps one should adopt a kid first rather than see other
kids
go through the early years without the support and benefit of
parents.

I agree whole-heartedly. Especially since non-renewable resources and
our ability to deal with output are dwindling.


Right. So this means that you would NOT have had your own
child if you had not been infertile?

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...
On 2005-03-27, Mary penned:

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote :

You're asking a tough question here. For me, cats are cats regardless
of
breed, so I have to put the question to myself in terms of dogs, where
variations are more significant to me. There are most certainly breeds
of
dogs that I like much better than others.

I believe in the principle of generalization (kind of like the golden
rule): this is one way that Kant proposed to evaluate whether or not
something is moral. You simply pose yourself the question, if everyone
were to do what
I
am considering, would I find the world to be a better or a worse place?


Mo, surely you know that Kant's ethical proofs are entirely full of
****.
His metaphysics are more defensible IMO. But most people think they are
too.
The principle of generalization is along the line of Aristotle's
Doctrine of
the Mean. Okay in a survey course but entirely indefensible in terms of
proofs. Did you have these things as part of logic courses or Intro
philosophy?

Doesn't matter. Of all of the attempts to philosophize moral arguments,
this is the only one that's actually been useful to me in daily life.

Here is where it falls down--as a basis for moral behavior, forget the
predicate logic. It is not only completely unlikely but utterly impossible
that "everyone" would do whatever thing you are considering doing.
Therefore you are measuring the worth (or potential harm) of an event
or deed by a false measure. It would be more effective were you to ask
yourself something like, "would this be a good thing if 100 out of every
10,000 people did it." But still it would fall down, because I can give you
example after example of beneficial or "good" deeds/events/choices that,
were say, even half the population to do them, would NOT be good. The
first that comes to mind: you are in a large city on a large, busy city
highway
or beltline or freeway. You see an accident. You stop to see if you can
help.
As it turns out, you are able to pull a child to safety before the care
blows
up. Now then, what if half the people on the same busy beltline did the same
thing? Meaning, stopped to help? It would most certainly not be a good
thing,
and in fact the resulting gridlock would keep the emergency vehicles needed
to contain the fire in the car and administer medical help to the child
could
not reach the child due to all the stopped vehicles on the road.


And I actually have a minor in Philosophy, so while it's been a while, I
certainly have studied more than just a survey course.

Very cool. That's a lot more than most people get.

It has its
limitations, but asking yourself "What would happen if everyone acted as
I did?" is a very good start in figuring out whether what you're
thinking about doing is a good idea.

It's not bad, but the fact is there are things one should do that would
not be good things if everyone or even half of everyone did them.


I don't really care if it can be
logically proven. Logic proofs are fun and neat, but in the end they
always start from some assumption that can be argued, so even if there's
no flaw in the logic, the proof itself won't convince someone who
doesn't want to be convinced.

No, they do not always begin with an assumption that can be argued.
But that is neither here nor there in terms of the present application.
The practice of predicate logic can be thought of as no more than
mental masturbation--or it can be much more, as it can transfer off
of paper and into actual life.


If you have a better rule of thumb, let me know.

I do not have a better rule of thumb but I have a better idea:
ditch "rules of thumb." Examine every situation as the unique
combination of causes and effects that itis, and each potential
deed, too.