Our pets having babies, what a concept!

[Seekeroftruth55]

Something has been bothering me lately with all of this so called "don't go to breeders they are evil!" "Nobody should let their pets have babies cause we all have to adopt or too many animals will be killed!" aspect.
I see it all too much in our society saying we always have to spay and neuter our animals, or we always have to adopt because then they go without homes and such.
I don't necessarily find it a problem to adopt, the issue I have is when so many are saying that our animals shouldn't have their own kids, and have to be "fixed" immediately. Do these activists even realise that the shelters and pounds that they expect us to adopt from, are super corrupt and willingly kill those animals that don't get adopted in time? How about the cost, and all the hoops people need to jump through to get the adoption process finished? THIS is what makes it harder for the poor animals to get homes, and what causes them to be killed for no reason.
The same people saying people shouldn't breed or go to breeders, are the same people who claim these shelters are good because they get people to adopt. Interesting enough, they are of course condoning those that are doing more of the killing!
There was a really cute post I saw of a pregnant dog, it was so endearing to see this animal do what animals/people naturally are supposed to do, and of course some brainwashed minion decided to say that people are jerks if they let their animals have kids because "so many animals are dying all the time!" Kinda seems a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?
And what's wrong with our animals doing what they are supposed to be doing by nature?
The answer to this question always comes back to one answer:
Depopulation.
This is happening to us, and it is also happening to the animals. When we see mouthpieces on the tv saying we should "spay and neuter our pets!" They are just enabling the exact notions of the top elites and satanists to wipe out life as we know it.
Please discuss!

 

[clambot]

I have long found it interesting the lengths taken to hide the truth by using the language like "fixing" an animal (as if it was broken), or "putting it to sleep" (when sleeping is not what's happening.) I forget the term...is it "neologism"?

I'm not sure when these practices became widespread, but I'm confident that prior to the Industrial Revolution, veterinarians did indeed FIX an animal (if they could) and shot them if they couldn't. I remember my Grandfather talking about having to shoot a mule. SHOT DEAD, not "put to sleep" until the next morning. Too many kittens? Drowned in a sackcloth weighted with stones, not "put to sleep." Old Ain't Carrie and Uncle Joe had lots of cats up thar in the hills. Joe had to drown lots of kits. Tweren't enough mice to feed 'em all. They paid the vet to help birth a calf or set a broke laig if they could. If not, well, get your rifle or scattergun and put the poor animal out of its misery.

"Put to sleep" --- pshaw, you put that poor critter OUT OF ITS MISERY if necessary. This Modern World is OUR misery.

 

[Seekeroftruth55]

They do seem to use sugar coating terms! It's so annoying.

 

[Seekeroftruth55]

Bump! This is getting buried lol!

 

[clambot]

I seem to see more and more "personification" of animals in media. One particular television commercial that struck my irony bone was for some kind of dog food, and the "big sell" (I suppose) was captioning the human owner (a female) as being the "dog's Mom."

So I guess that makes her ... a five-letter word that starts with B. I don't know if this site allows the writing of the technical term for "a dog's mom." You know, the thing that in reality gives birth to puppies is called a b**ch. At least that's the word we used for "a dog's mom" back in the day.

I got a kick out of that. Oh, the caption SHOULD have read: "Dog's owner." NOT "dog's Mom." LoL. ANYWAY, back to personification (I think that's the word I need): people calling their pet their "baby." NO, it is not "your baby", it is your PET, or your PUP, or your KIT. I don't know snakes or fish, only cats and dogs.

BABY is the term reserved for human infants.

 

[Seekeroftruth55]

Yeah, they like to call them furbabies

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

Yeah, they like to call them furbabies

I loathe the term "furbaby" lol

Anyway, i dont have much to add to the thread, but i do find it ridiculous that people are supposed to neuter their animals immediately, while at the same time a "licensed breeder" is taking preorders on a litter that hasn't been born yet and is going to cost several 1000 per puppy. A dog shouldn't cost a few thousand!

Even more ridiculous, the concept of microchipping and registering a cat.

I also don't agree with killing perfectly healthy kittens. If there is truly not enought food then the ones that are not able to compete will just die off from starvation...

 

[Seekeroftruth55]

i do find it ridiculous that people are supposed to neuter their animals immediately, while at the same time a "licensed breeder" is taking preorders on a litter that hasn't been born yet and is going to cost several 1000 per puppy. A dog shouldn't cost a few thousand!

That's why I definitely prefer it if the animals are to have babies, the owners just give them to people in the neighborhood and such, I agree that a dog shouldn't be that much! It becomes about greed at that point. This is hypocritical of those that say that, for sure. They definitely are hypocritical in so many ways. They seem to want to "depopulate" the animals by wanting them neutered, but then say that it's cruel to have breeders or just owners letting their pets have babies, when the shelters just kill them off, it's ridiculous.

It is horrible they microchip cats, that makes me sick lol.

I'm not too bothered by the term furbaby, but I can see why some would be lol

I don't even see how anyone could kill a kitten! That sounds so sick...

 

[clambot]

I also don't agree with killing perfectly healthy kittens. If there is truly not enought food then the ones that are not able to compete will just die off from starvation...

Up in them thar hills in yon olden days (we from Ozark hillbilly stock) allowing kits (or pups, or any animal) to simply starve was considered cruel.
We put them OUT OF THEIR MISERY.
'course nowadays, y'all buy that fancy cat chow and such. We wuz poor sharecroppers. Alls we hads wuz mice. The few dogs were Joe's hunting dogs. The grown cats prowled and kept the rodent population controlled.

Tweren't no "grocery stores" or "pets"--them animals worked for their food and stayed under the house--not in it.

Ol' Uncle Joe shot his meat down in the back 40 and dressed it in his barn and smoked it in their smokehouse. Aunt Carrie raised their vegetables in her garden, and the fruit came straight off the tree. They had two pecan trees for nuts in the winter. They were my Father's "great" aunt and uncle, so I guess technically they were my "great-great" Aunt and Uncle. We always went to their farm on Thanksgivings. Best food ever, and we spent the evening around the pot belly wood stove to keep warm. Those times are gone. I was barely six years old back then. Great memories.

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

Up in them thar hills in yon olden days (we from Ozark hillbilly stock) allowing kits (or pups, or any animal) to simply starve was considered cruel.
We put them OUT OF THEIR MISERY.

My mother lived on a farm with her great grandparents for a while when she was a child. She told me, in way too much detail, about being sent out back to kill a litter of healthy kittens when she was about the age i was then. I could not, and still can't, imagine why she wouldnt have just let them loose and hoped for the best. Takes a certain amount of cold bloodedness to kill as a child, in my opinion. I womder if it warped her mind.

I'm also going to say that deliberate depopulation rather than death by starvation sounds too much like bill gates and "useless eaters" to my liking. OP did mention the depopulation connection...