Friends of Darwin

He loves and she loves

Just Causes

Password required

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« Playboy as Marxist, social engineering vehicle? | Main | "A capacity to cherish and nurture" »

February 19, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

For those who don't understand, the human is a more developed animal. A different species, but none the less an animal.

Pff! People who spawn are always so insufferably pleased with themselves. Can their poxy shaved-monkey people-larvae run 'round and 'round on a toilet seat, chasing a flush? No. No, they cannot.

I hope I have not offended you in any way--I completely understand loving animals and in no way do I think that one has to have kids to understand love etc. It is those people who love animals only because they don't like people that I find objectionable.

My 2 grown children are the loves of my life.

I love both my cats and I understand perfectly well that they are animals.

My love for my cats is different than the love I feel for my kids but does that make it less real ?

As if people haven't had pets since the beginning of time to share their lives with, children or no.

Unfortunately, my brain cells have deteriorated along with the collagen and elasticity in my neck, so my thoughts on this border on the primal...

Thank goodness you are here to point out and rebut thinking of this sort, Sissy.

Considering the PEOPLE I have known in my 64 years on Planet Earth and the animals I have known in the same amount of time - there ARE times when I would really rather spend my time with my animals.

I believe that I am a human being with a soul and infinite possibilities to do either good or evil. I make a really strong attempt to do ONLY good, although like all fallible humans, I have been known to let anger or frustration take over for a brief moment. Our ability to reason separates us from the other animals, but when it comes to loving unconditionally, we need to look to the animals for guidance.

We, along with many sentient beings, have a capacity to cherish and nurture as well as a drive to compete. The ability to do so across species boundaries is not unique to our own, nor is it limited to our own flesh and blood.

I am unaware that the condition of "loving animals because you don't like people" that Dr. Helen finds objectionable has reached epidemic proportions (PETA notwithstanding).

In Dr. Helen's defense, her original blog objected to people putting their dogs in strollers and buying outlandishly expensive pet accessories. She was critical of those pet owners who are really over the top.

I more strongly object to Steyn's characterization of the "scraggy-old-chicken-necked" women who now desperately want children. There are a good number of women (including myself) who were misled by feminists in the 70's and 80's, told we should delay marriage and child rearing, set up our careers, etc. Too bad we ended up unable to have kids in our 40's, after setting up those important careers. His snarky dismissal of what is a pretty sad reality for many women was cruel. Usually I like his snark, but not that time.

Kids today seemed to have wised up. I see more people marrying and having kids in their early 20's now. Good for them.

Sissy... how do you manage to encompass so many many issues in one single post and yet make it all flow together? *grin*

Re: the Mark Steyn quote. Being as I'm a 48 year old "scraggly necked" woman. LOL. I've raised 2 kids - and I must say that I have zero wish to have a baby at this age. It was difficult enough when I was a young 20 something. The thought of starting out on the long years of raising a baby at this age... would fill me with a complete sense of exhaustion.

The real problem Mark was searching to illuminate is the problem of women waiting until the last possible second before finally having a baby. It was never a truly viable option before the advent of "the pill". Then women are mortified to learn they've waited too long and now they can't have that baby they insist they long for... Well, that's life. Biology rules.

Sweet of Mark to use such lovely descriptors though. Makes me want to pinch his cheeks and say "how are you today little boy?"

As for "fur babies". Yes, there are people who appear to have no concept of the fact that humans are human, dogs are dogs, cats are cats... etc. They want to believe that if they "treat" their beloved pets just like human children, then the dog or cat will become a furred human. (how demeaning to the dog or cat - as if just being a dog or cat isn't good enough!)

Watch an episode or 2 of Cesar Milan's The Dog Whisperer - an excellent show - and you will see this to be very true. It's the Disney-fication of our beloved pets and it's wrong. Our pets fill a niche that could never be filled by another human... so to try and "make" them human is to be completely insulting to them and their abilities.

OTOH - the press has a way of highlighting the most objectionable of behavior... because it's news, because it sells, because people read it and say "EWWWW!!!" I think that's what's happening in this case, along with the usual type of "look how these people are spending their money" reverse snobbism. I say, if they have the money they can spend it however they please, just don't tell me how to spend my money.

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Cold Turkey Cookbook


Blog powered by Typepad