Posted on 06/06/2013 6:53:52 PM PDT by TexGrill
Of course, I never said otherwise. My point is that taken to extremes, a preference for animals over humans isn’t normal.
you are getting off into tangents.
you pose an impossible hypothetical. you claim this will cause problems despite the population rising throughout history, and still doing so. then claim it is estimated to rise more, then fall. so based on impossible hypotheticals and “experts” predicting with their models population dips sometime in the future, after 2 billion more people are living than now, that it’s a bad thing some people decide to have pets, but not kids. this is the thing that brings down the entire human race.
unless they are on public welfare, i think it is immoral to tell people they can have no kids, or a certain number but not more, or that they must have kids. i think the best people to determine if and how many kids they have are the two people involved.
you also make the asumption that adults that have pets and love them like kids, will never have kids in the future. many people only first have pets and learn to care and be responsible for another bondable pet - dog, cat, rabbit, etc - as adults. they may not be ready for kids right off the bat. they are the best ones to make their own determination if they are ready for kids, or not.
why is someone else’s companionship preferences, animal or person, your personal concern? must we all conform to your worldview?
some people relate to animals better. some people,’by their animals, have learned to relate to people better. some people have no other person in their lives - elderly especially - and benefit from animals. some have adopted animals that were abused or slated to be put down as their shelter time was running out.
i just don’t think you can make blanket value judgments on this.
I take it you didn’t read my last post.
you would be wrong assuming that.
There is no plan B when children die before their parents. That my FRiend would be a disaster. Older parents need their children to support them and I am not in any way talking only in financial terms.
A society which has a government that cares for its elderly citizens is a society not long for this world. Anyone who understands the perversity of socialism and its unintended consequences can see that.
Re your post 29, I do think I am in the right place. I strongly believe in the conservative philosophy of limited government, individual liberties, belief in God, etc. That is why I am so comfortable with Free Republic’s stances on almost all issues.
I think that the family unit is the centerpiece of civilization and should not toyed with; consequently, I strongly disagree with homosexual marriage.. I just don’t wish to participate in the traditional family. I never was interested in being a father and I made sure that didn’t happen. I have my reasons for that.
Perhaps you did not notice that I was not arguing against the family. Not at all. I just don’t really care for the family “value” (if that’s what you want to call it) that accents making sure that one has children for the purpose of taking care of himself in his old age. It just seems to me that one should take that responsibility upon himself. That is my “moral objection.” I guess you disagree. Tough. Disagree.
Hey, you wanna argue against something that helped drive human evolution, to say nothing of the family unit being a family unit, knock yourself out. Hire your state trained aides to drop you in the bath tub for all I care.
I think not, or you wouldn’t have been so snarky in your comments.
fine, believe what you want.
Ditto.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.