Is it wrong to want another purebred?

"Phil P." wrote in message
...

Absurd. He'd be *saving* the life of a cat - which would free up space
and
resources for another cat that might be otherwise killed. Ergo, he'd
actually be saving two lives for the 'price' of one whereas buying a cat
from a breeder would indirectly cause the death of those two cats.

Gotta say, I don't understand how people can keep breeders in business - I
wish they would all just *STOP* (sorry those of you who may be breeders, but
I *really* don't like what you're doing to those cats who need a home but
aren't fortunate enough to be born with a pedigree). What a cat looks like
is not what I fall in love with (DH is *SO* glad appearances aren't what I'm
interested in ducking - just joking sweetie!!!!).

Hugs,

CatNipped

"PawsForThought" wrote in message
...
Mary wrote:
We all have a deep-seated drive to reproduce

Speak for yourself! LOL

--

Haven't you ever felt it, on a basic biological level? Like you
can feel your blood simmering in your veins at certaintimes?
Or experienced changes in the way you look at babies or feel
when you hear a baby crying? In my 20s I referred to such
events as Mother Nature thumbing her nose at me. It
is not a desire so much as a drive. Even sexual desire is
part of it--and the entire reason we are programed to find
that desire so strong and powerful and compelling. Happily,
I have rarely allowed what I am sitting on to dictate my
actions.

Mary wrote:

"-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?



I don't have kids, well except for my cat.

"Joe Canuck" wrote in message
...
Mary wrote:

"-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?



I don't have kids, well except for my cat.


I was talking to Lynnie, but that is good to know, anyway.

"PawsForThought" wrote

Mary, honestly, I never have. Maybe there's something wrong with me
but I can tell you I've never felt that desire. I mean I like kids, so
long as they're not mine. Funny, when they show a baby on tv for
instance, my husband and I will look at each other and say "too bad
it's not a kitten. Now THAT would be cute!" :')

--


I have had the impulse, but as soon as I thought about how
it would change my life I vetoed it. Even with my sisters and
many of my friends and colleagues doing the little mysterious
smile and comments such as "it's the most wonderful thing
in the world" and all that other stuff the childful do around
us child-less, I have never bought into the idea that I am
missing anything I don't want to miss. For me, doing anything
and everything I want to do with my life without having the
distraction of dependants who might or might not even like
me or appreciate what I have done for them just does not
quite suck. I have watched my oldest nieces and nephews
grow up, too. Let's just say that their parents' experiences
with them have done nothing to make me think my first
take on the situation was wrong.

Mary wrote:

"Joe Canuck" wrote in message
...

Mary wrote:


"-L." wrote in message
egroups.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?



I don't have kids, well except for my cat.



I was talking to Lynnie, but that is good to know, anyway.



In the newsgroups when one posts, they "speak" to everyone.

Mary wrote:

(No, I do not and
will not have children, for reasons of my own.)

Thank God. But it might cut down on your incessant usenet postings so
I guess there would be an upside (for us).

Candace

"Candace" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mary wrote:

(No, I do not and
will not have children, for reasons of my own.)

Thank God. But it might cut down on your incessant usenet postings so
I guess there would be an upside (for us).

Candace


Wow. That was so witty, and not at all predictable. You
radical, you. G

Mary wrote:
"Candace" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mary wrote:

(No, I do not and
will not have children, for reasons of my own.)

Thank God. But it might cut down on your incessant usenet postings
so
I guess there would be an upside (for us).

Candace


Wow. That was so witty, and not at all predictable. You
radical, you. G

Oh, is that why you posted it--so someone could predictably respond and
fall, once more, into your trap? I feel sooooo foolish...and
simple...and mainstream by doing so. If only I could take it back,
darn, bested by "Mary" yet again...

On 2005-03-27, Mary penned:

Kelly. The two situations are not even comparable. It is a false analogy. We
all have a deep-seated drive to reproduce, and in some cases a need to
parent. In addition humans, while we are animals, are the only animals who
____ and _____ and do any number of things including conceive of a time
beyond our own deaths. Whether or not we breed is personal and very
complicated--and not the same thing as whether we choose to support the
breeding of domesticated animals who are currently overbreeding. From a
Randian point of view (not my own, or not all the way, anyway) when the
other animals outstrip our own abilities and grow bigger cerebral cortexes
and opposable thumbs then THEY will have the dilemma about whether or not
they allow US to breed. Until then it is every human for his or her self.

There is absolutely no way to prove that no animal can conceive of a time
beyond its own death. Every time I've ever heard a characteristic described
as uniquely human, like self-sacrifice for strangers or the use of tools, it's
turned out to be disproven, so I tend to be skeptical of any claim about how
special we are.

Anyway, I really don't think that, for most people, the question of
reproduction is any more complicated than "How many?" The idea that producing
more children could be morally wrong just doesn't have much place in most
people's worldview. You're giving humans more credit than I would.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca