Stop saying humans are the only animals who kill their young! (Page 1)

I do and I don't feel bad for them. If they are not endangered, I see no reason why they should gestate. But if insemination is taking place to conserve the species, then I wholeheartedly agree. Especially when the conservation of one species preserves the conservation of other species as well, like with tigers and other big cats. And polar bears. Animals do not have the means or technology to preserve their own kind against us humans, selfish and greedy apex predators that we are.

I think its wrong to screw with another being's reproductive organs. The natural way of life means if you ate X and X is no longer an option you'll start eating Y as a means to survival until evolution catches up. Animals living in the wild live so much longer on average than those living in captation (sp? I KNOW I botched that word). As much as it hurt me to see an episode of Earth on Animal Planet where a little leopard cub was hunted and my guess eaten (because the show goes off with the mother very far away from her cub and two very large male primates were closing in on him for a snack) they made a ntoe to say how they do NOT interfere in such situations. Its the circle of life and wild animals have been living thriving, going extinct and evolving long before humans got deeply involved in their lives.

It is NOT part of the circle of life when we humans get involved and start hunting animals for their fur or tusks and ONLY that, just so we can have a pretty spotted coat or a nice ivory statue of some diety we worship. Or taking away other species' habitats so we can build (another) large mall/shopping center/housing complex/nuclear power plant. That is why I am all for insemination to conserve a species WE destroyed. I am not talking about eat or be eaten, I am talking about downright selfish destruction of one species just to make room for our own species or get that cool fur coat or ivory statue or whatever. I hunt deer for food and leather. I don't hunt tigers for their fur. I don't hunt whales for their blubber. That is pure selfish destruction. We have the means of creating artificial ivories, artificial furs and we can create cosmetics without the use of whale blubber. So why do we continue to use animals as disposable resources? I am not for messing with one's reproductive organs, but if saving the tigers, who cannot sustain their breeding in the wild (there are just too few of them to do so because of us), saves other species from either disappearing or running rampant, then I am all for artificially inseminating them or at least letting them get it on in captivity. With tigers, and some other species, they cannot breed in captivity, and breeding in the wild will not sustain their numbers. So, I am all for helping a species we helped disappear come back into the world. I am sorry, but tigers and most other animals have sex to breed, even the dolphins do. Some animals will also mate as recreation, but all in all, the whole purpose of that act in the wild is the instinct to procreate. We are above animals in the sense that we are a more evolved species and can procreate at will (by that I mean we can use protection, abort, or even choose IVF/artificial insemination) or choose to not procreate. Our survival does not depend upon it as the animals in the wild depend upon procreation for survival.

I agree completely and have often pointed out the hypocrisy of pro-life meat eaters. Their main argument centers around the "ideal" that life is sacred and it's soooo very wrong to kill those who are helpless (They seem to overlook the helplessness of caged chickens and penned-in pigs and cows and lambs against men with cattle prods and guns.) when there are OTHER options available. These people realize that they can be vegetarians, but they don't want to because "animals aren't as important as people." They'll roll their eyes when I call them on that philosophy but watch the outrage boil over when I suggest that fetuses aren't as important as grown women.

With few exceptions, I firmly believe that the pro-life movement is not about saving babies. It's about keeping women "in their place" and making it harder for them to be strong and independent. Women are easier to push around when they're saddled with a brood of offspring that keeps them from being able to work and earn a decent living. The #1 excuse that abused women give for sticking around is "He said he would take my kids away and since he has a job and I don't, he could do it." It's a hell of a lot harder to bully childless women by dangling a few bucks in their faces. Tons of women (men too) have stuck around in unhappy marriages "for the kids." Therefore, it serves the interest of certain zealots to keep women breeding and helpless, thereby "preserving the sanctity of the family." Translation: if people can choose not to have a houseful of kids, how in the world will we be able to bully them into doing what's best for themselves?

No offense as I hold you in the highest regard, but who are you to decide which of these animals reproduce? What right do we have to force them? If you were one of these endangered species and someone tied you up to keep you from resisting the male, how do you think you would feel?

The thought of tigers and pandas and bald eagles dying out makes me sick to my stomach. The thought that there are self-serving elitist morons out there thinking that overpopulation of our species is the answer makes me feel even more nauseated. However, we are NOT the owners of these animals. We are supposed to be living WITH them, not using them for our own greed. I say toss a couple of tigers together and if they get it on, more power to them. Raping endangered species when our kind is determined to wipe them out won't help.

Hell, Prolifers don't even think black people are a member of the human species. Just look at the twisted billboards in Georgia.

None taken. Your opinion is yours as mine is mine.

The problem with that scenario, as with many other animals in captivity, is that tigers cannot breed captive. That is why I am thankful there are reserves in the wild. However, there is just not enough to sustain the population. How is helping them conserve their own kind when they don't have the means to do it themselves using them for our own greed? Yes, it can be construed as selfish, but so can anything else. There is also selflessness involved.

I don't go around artificially inseminating my own animals, but come on. Can an animal consent to ANYTHING we do to them? Be it breed, treat illness, perform an emergency surgery? It is considered cruel (and punishable by law) if you do not take care of your animals by giving them what they need (including medical care, which as I stated above, they cannot consent to) so why does it have to be considered cruel (or rape, which I don't see it that way, but I digress) to help them when they cannot help themselves?

When I breed my Danes, I breed them to males (or females) that have no health issues, are of good conformation, and are of right color (some colors can produce dead or blind/deaf pups, the merle is one of them) in order to sustain a good line of healthy, quality show dogs and sweet, healthy, happy companions. Do they get to choose their partner? No. Is that too, considered rape?

Where do you draw the line on this? Stop treating sick animals because they obviously cannot consent to treatment? Stop giving life saving surgery to animals because they cannot consent? Stop giving them food because they cannot tell you if they like it or not or if it is healthy enough for them? Stop brushing their coats because they may not like being touched at that moment? Or does it only apply to "rape"? We helped wipe out some of these animals, the least we can do is help them get on the right track to where we don't have to "screw with their reproductive organs" anymore.

You are right. No human interference at all. Let's blame spiders then for the hunting for fur and ivory, we can blame the birds for taking up precious rainforest and other shelters animals call home all for their own selfish agendas. Absolutely no humans did this. We have not interfered at all. I wonder, is it the animals' own fault that they are now endangered? After all, we certainly didn't interfere...[/sarcasm]

I actually wouldn't feel bad at all, if it is for a good cause. And yes it would kind of be considered my job in a way.