I worked my way through the font tags of this ridiculous post and find your opinion, and your lackadaisical and careless attitude toward these living things to be one of the most vile and wretched I've ever encountered.
No, I am teaching my children the responsibility of taking care of animals. I am teaching them the value of life. I'm teaching them that death is a part of life.
If you wanted to teach them the value of life, you could do so just as easily by adopting or by volunteering and taking your children with you to a shelter or rescue. You'd also teach them to respect life and value it, rather than to simply do what they want to do because it seems like a good idea at the time, or simply because it's what they want to do.
You have an opportunity to teach them to be
conscientious participants of helping be a part of the solution to animal suffering and neglect, rather than being a part of the problem.
Though I think it's jumping to conclusions to assume a bred female will die.
I'd think it should be enough motivation not to do it simply knowing that she could die or have other serious complications. But then again, I imagine you'd just morph that into another of your all so meaningful "life lessons," eh?
It's not my right to let an animal breed? Excuse me? What about "the pursuit of happiness" or has this country become so socialistic that I've lost those rights?
Sure thing, you have a right to let your animals breed. You also have a right to continue contributing to an already immense problem that results in the needless deaths of helpless animals each and every year, animals whose only offense is not being wanted. And that's what you're choosing when you exercise your "right" to "pursue happiness" and force your pets to procreate.
And I can't help but laugh at how you seem to think that I'm forcing Henry and Lady to breed. I'm not standing over them forcing them to do the deed!
I'm uncertain whether you're being purposely obtuse to satisfy your own desires or if you're really ignorant in this matter. For your sake, I'm going to assume the latter and explain.
Not preventing them from breeding is effectively forcing them to breed. They have an instinct to breed, and it might even seem that they want to. It doesn't mean they should. You, as the one who
chose to be their caretaker and therefore responsible for meeting all of their needs, need to make a decision on their behalf to disallow them from doing something that is potentially harmful to them. It's not unlike being a parent, really.
Your children probably would LOVE to eat nothing but Lay's potato chips and ice cream sandwiches. Does that mean you let them? I wouldn't think so, and why is that? Because it's bad for them.
It's for this same reason that you should not force your pets to breed simply because they will do so if given the opportunity.
Here's another example. My dog *loves* to eat poop. Duck poop, cat poop, nutria poop, you name it, if it's poop, Finn's on it. Seeing as how this is potentially harmful to him in a variety of ways, as his owner and caretaker, I prevent him from doing this. Following your logic on the matter of breeding though, I could simply say,
'well, you know, he really does want to do it, and I'm not forcing him to eat the excrement of other animals, so hey, let him have at it.'
That an animal might want to, or even have an instinct to do something by no means justifies you allowing it to happen if allowing it is, or even can be, to their own detriment.
From what I've read, it's not often that a guinea pig birth is witnessed. So I doubt my children will see the actual event. But they have seen pain in childbirth before: mine. I still don't know that animals feel the same pain as we do in labor. I'd quote why, but it's prohibited on this site.
The powers of rationalization when you're doing something simply because you want to do it really are remarkable, aren't they?
Yes, I agree that good care should be given to animals. We are supposed to be good stewards. The extremes I was talking about was aimed more at the attitudes and ideas that many here have. Attitudes that stretch to the point of putting a creature above a human.
You needn't put a creature above a human, all you really need to do is simply not put yourself as a human above the creature. I am of the belief that every life has value, and meaning, and that therefore every life counts. That means not ascribing either more or less importance to myself or my pets.
Again, I wonder why many here feel the need to choose what rights the animals have. If animals naturally have the "right" to good food, shelter, and vet care why deny them the natural instinct to breed? What happened to their right to procreate? As blackarrow reminded us, Lady has already had babies. But, as I'm playing the devil's advocate here, why are we limiting them on their right to reproduce?
Because this particular "natural right" doesn't benefit them. In fact, it holds more potential for harm than good. And because "allowing" them to exercise their "right" in this case is done while countless others face euthanasia in shelters, again, for the mere offense of not being wanted.
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're trying to say in your post. Yes, I don't think animals have the same pain sensors as humans. At least in childbirth. I don't think they were bestowed with that curse.
You likely aren't of the opinion that they were "bestowed with that curse" because if they were, you might have to face the fact that breeding them is actually far more cruel than you'd like to let yourself believe.
I do think animals grieve over death. But they seem to get over it much faster than we do.
So we shouldn't worry about their well-being? The loss they suffer when they lose a loved one? They'll get over it soon enough, not to worry. How completely self-serving. And disgusting.
Um. I haven't not "bothered" to get a cage. Look again at my post. I am CURRENTLY AWAITING ONE! Ahem, forgive the shout. I thought that might come across a bit better. I also said in my earlier post that I like that they are together. I like that they have each others' company. So you're not accusing me of anything new.
If it were important to you to prevent these animals from breeding you'd have either gotten them sexed by a vet, or you'd have acquired a cheapy cage to separate them until you could be certain. But of course, you've already made it clear you'd be more than happy if they were breeding, that animals are of less value than humans, and therefore can't be bothered with this matter.
...I grew up in the country. Every now and again, one of the animals had to be "put down". And, no, we didn't call the vet to give them a shot. There are humane ways to put an animal out of its misery without calling in a vet.
"Humane" ways of euthanizing an animal in the country or a farm setting quite generally involves a bullet to the head. What, pray tell, is your plan to humanely euthanize an animal as small as a guinea pig?
<<I'm wholly certain I don't want to know the answer to this, but I'm also very curious as to what your "humane" plan might be. My sense is that you hadn't really thought about it. Much like you hadn't really thought about a lot of things in this matter and would be completely content to just "let things happen.">>
Again, I am not forcing the pigs to do anything.
I'll explain again. Not preventing them from doing something that is potentially harmful, that you are *certain* they will do, because it is their instinct to do so, is forcing them.
So, um, how do you know that having babies is a burden for the pigs? Or that they gain nothing from it? Or are you just projecting your own feelings into an animal?
They haven't the means to make an informed decision, as you and I do. I strongly suspect that when they are "choosing" to mate, they really don't have an accurate picture of what that's going to result in, as you and I do. So when a sow finds herself with a handful of sniveling little snots wanting to nurse and pester her, I'd say it's more of a burden than a joy.
Forgive me, I must not have been clear: I am playing devil's advocate by attributing human emotions to these pigs. What I am saying is that most people here seem to think the pigs just don't want to have babies and how dare we "force" these girls to mate and what about their rights, and so on. Well, I'm taking it further and saying, if you believe they have all these feelings, why assume that they don't want "children"?
Whether or not you can delude yourself into believing they "want" anything is irrelevant. As I said before, it's not exactly as though these animals can make an informed decision in the matter. THAT should be reason enough to prevent them from doing it.
Oh, and I did not say I would let them suffer in death, should death even come knocking.
Should death come knocking? They will die, eventually, at some point, you realize this, yes? Whether it's from a tumor or old age, death will surely come at some point. What's unfortunate, is that by taking your approach, you might let them die of something thats completely treatable, like a URI or UTI. And that's shameful.
Ha! That was awesome how you twisted my words! No, no, no. I am not neglecting my pigs. They get more than enough attention. They also get great care. My point was that while there may be neglected and unwanted animals in this world now, if we continue to neuter all animals, they will eventually have no way to procreate and will die out.
No, there will always be irresponsible people who allow their animals to breed. Look at what a great case you're making for that all by your lonesome.
Yes, you make a good point about these animals not being wild and us having the say-so in there, ahem, sex life. However, while I am not forcing them to do anything, I wouldn't mind them having babies. Again, I was playing devil's advocate in saying that their "rights" should include procreation.
Actually, what you said, rather than that you "wouldn't mind" them having babies, was this:
I guess the true test will be if we end up with babies--which was planned from the beginning.
Hmm. If it was "planned from the beginning," that seems to imply a little more intent than saying that you "wouldn't mind" if they had babies.
If I truly didn't care, I would let them have a million babies and then let the babies mount mother and sisters to their hearts content. But I personally don't want that, and so yes, I would control that "urge".
You don't think you want it now, but what's to say your mind wouldn't change when you saw that first adorable litter and realized perhaps that nothing had gone wrong? What's the harm in just one more litter ...
Your justifications here are careless and cruel.
Why not pick up a used cage? Because I have, at this time, a budget to stick to. And again, am waiting for my cage parts to arrive.
Excuses, excuses. I do wonder, though, what might happen to your "budget" when you have a sow that has complications during birth, or pups that might need immediate medical attention.
Oh, wait. That's right. You'll simply "humanely" put them out of their "misery" there at home. What an outstanding lesson to teach your children.
There's no question about me trying to make this pet-thing "work". I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. We won't "dump" these animals. We've made a commitment and we're sticking to it!
Yes, for now. When you've got an entire herd of these animals and you find that their care is a little harder than you'd imagined, or harder than just the two, I suspect you might change your mind. Forgive me, but you don't exactly strike me as the kind of responsible animal owner who first thinks things all the way through and then makes right by their own choices and decisions.
And who said these "sentient creatures" will suffer? You're assuming they'll be suffering but you really can have no idea!
Nor do you have any idea that they don't suffer. And extrapolate a little here. So let's say your personal pigs don't suffer. What about the pigs in shelters across town that will because you made a choice to breed rather than adopt them?
And no. My children are not at all equal to animals. I expect more from people, who are able to control the sexual urge.
Huh. You understand that breeding is something the animals don't have control over, at least conscious control, and you would opt to "let" them do it anyway because you've allowed yourself to believe it's what they "want," when in reality it's you who wants it? Outstandingly selfish.
I don't know for certain that Henry and Lady's ex-owner lied to me. There could be multiple explanations for the possibility of Henry really being a girl. If they are both girls, I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm not planning on having babies. But, as I've said before, I wouldn't mind if they did.
No, what you said before was that babies were "planned from the beginning." Take some responsibility for yourself, please.
I find it sad that animals are becoming mini-people. As animals are lifted into roles they were never meant to be in, human life is basically spit upon.
I find it sad that there are people who feel animals are so far "beneath" themselves that they can justify treating them with cruelty or carelessness.
Thanks to all those moderators out there who are quick to delete my post when I ignorantly break the rules, but let people fling names around willy-nilly. Yeah, just toss in a, "Keep the language clean" and let them continue on. Isn't it great how we're all treated equally here?
You are responsible for knowing the rules. Again, it would really be refreshing if you could assume some responsibility for your own actions rather than devoting all your time to pointing fingers at others.
I've been wondering. Are y'all upset about these pigs having babies because of their genetics or do you think it should never be done, no matter the genetics? What if a person had purebred guinea's and wanted to continue the lineage? Or breed for higher quality. Would you still call that person a backyard breeder?
CavySpirit has a wonderful thread about what it means to be a truly responsible breeder in The Kitchen section of this forum. Take some time to read it if you wish. You'll find that you are the exact opposite of "responsible."
