Why make the choice to not have children?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cataholic
I have had many people tell me something magical happens when the baby is born, or placed in your arms for the first time. That alot of your fears disappear, and you just 'become'.

---

Johanna, I can tell you that is exactly what happened to me. I am on only child, and the youngest cousin in the family, so I NEVER had any experience at all of holding babies or babysitting when I was growing up. When my eldest was born it's like I downloaded a whole new set of software into my brain - I instinctivly knew what to do, and felt comfortable doing it!

My three are now 15; 14 and 12. so they are now at the age where I can go for a meal with hubby or friends, or leave the house and go out with the kids with very little planning. The days of prams and nappy bags are over. So I can relate to the "freedom"you have when you don't have kids. Make no mistake, it takes a BIG chunk out of your freedom when they are small - we didn't go on holiday for 7 years, because with school fees etc we couldn't afford it, and our old jalopy wouldn't have got us very far anyway!

I fully respect anyones decision NOT to have children. I don't expect everyone to own cats just because I do, so why should kids be any different? I would never ask someone why they didnt have kids.' I just respect the individuals right to choose!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NoahsMommy
Some people weren't put on this earth to procreate...its just that simple. Its a personal decision, just like YLL stated. You are wise beyond your years, my dear. :)

---

Aww, why thank you! Now I'm blushing. :o :o :D

That just because some of us are CBC, doesn't mean we don't have the capacity for nurturing. I feel much more comfortable nurturing a litter of kittens needing bottle feeding. This makes me a mother to "fur kids". Or "feather kids" when the inevitable nestling falls out of a tree and with all the cats around here, its chances are not good without help sometimes. :) So we are all mothers & fathers in our own unique ways if you stop and think about it. Granted all I'll get for "Mother's Day" is more poop, and an occasional hairball, but all in all it's the same be it snake, lizard, dog...etc. We love what we have chosen to care for in our lives! ;) ;) ;) And the best part is, no back talk, clothes to buy (with the exception of doll clothes at yard sales to dress kittens in :D ) and no borrowing the car....and on, and on. The bills are probably much lower than raising a "skin kid". :) Jan (mom to too many now..yikes)

Jan you are so right, whether you choose to nuture children or animals, it does not matter,but yes the latter is somewhat less expensive, and probably slightly less emotionally demanding, but regardless both are important roles in life.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by carole
Jan you are so right, whether you choose to nuture children or animals, it does not matter,but yes the latter is somewhat less expensive, and probably slightly less emotionally demanding, but regardless both are important roles in life.

---

I'm not so sure that animals are less expensive! Last year I spent 10 grand at the vet. Had it been a human child who needed medical attention, it wouldn't have cost me a dime! I'm a Canadian so medical care doesn't cost me directly from my wallet! I have a great benefit plan at work that covers dental, prescriptions, ect. Kids would be cheaper for me.....Course, my dogs will never need university tution either! ;)

IMHO, there should not be a debate about which is more important, which you should save in a fire. I can respect the fact that some don't want/like children, but children have souls and animals don't. When choosing a life that already exists, the child is more important!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahved
but children have souls and animals don't.

---

Woah.

??? It's the truth. You don't have to believe it...

Truth according to "your version" of "your religion." Other than your religion, how do you know it to be true?
Not all Christians believe this to be true.

Like I said, you don't have to believe it. No one else has to believe it if they don't want to! I just know it's true! And if a Christian doesn't believe this, then they aren't interpreting the bible correctly, IMHO.

Just wanted you to know I deleted that thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahved
but children have souls and animals don't.

---

:eek: WHAT?!?!?!?!?! :eek:

Every living creature has a soul. The thing that's inside our bodies that keeps us alive is our soul. Without our soul, we are *just* a body........not ourselves. Same with animals. If they didn't have a soul, they would be dead. Their souls may not be accountable for their deeds, etc. as our's are, according to most religious beliefs, but they STILL have a *soul*. I don't know how anyone could deny that.........its common sense.

As to saving an animal over a child in a burning building, that is just ridiculous. Saving a child is of course something one should do before going for the animals. I would try for both, but the child comes first.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahved
but children have souls and animals don't.

---

That's absurd. :mad:

Quote:

---

Every living creature has a soul. The thing that's inside our bodies that keeps us alive is our soul. Without our soul, we are *just* a body........not ourselves. Same with animals. If they didn't have a soul, they would be dead. Their souls may not be accountable for their deeds, etc. as our's are, according to most religious beliefs, but they STILL have a *soul*. I don't know how anyone could deny that.........its common sense.

---

Amen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahved
Like I said, you don't have to believe it. No one else has to believe it if they don't want to! I just know it's true! And if a Christian doesn't believe this, then they aren't interpreting the bible correctly, IMHO.

---

Oh and you are an expert on how the bible should be interpreted, huh? I definitely believe that animals have SOULS so I guess I'm not really a Christian. :rolleyes:

So can there be bad animals that go to hell?

I respect the fact that you have a different opinion. I just don't think you're right:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahved
So can there be bad animals that go to hell?

---

I don't believe in hell, so no, in my world bad animals don't go to hell. :rolleyes:

So if animals don't have souls & those of us who believe they do are intrepreting the bible wrong....Then how you would explain this quote from Pope John Paul...

In a public audience on January 19th 1990 Pope John Paul II declared "Also the animals possess a soul, and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren." He went on to say all animals are "fruit of the creative action of the Holy Spirit and merit respect." They are, he asserted, "as near to God as men are."

He pointed out that in Genesis "the way in which man was created suggests a relationship with the spirit or the breath of God. And one reads that after having created man from the dust of the earth, the Lord God 'breathed life into his nostrils and man became a living soul.'" He went on to say that animals have the breath of life and were given it by God. So, in this respect, man, created by the hand of God, is identical with all other living creatures.

this webpage has the full speech:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/krish/anima.htm

Just curious--I don't normally get involved in these types of issues, but I do firmly believe that animals have souls. If my dogs aren't waiting somewhere for me, then send me whereever they went!

I don't generally believe what the pope says (I'm not Catholic).

A soul implies eternal life. We have souls because we live or die eternally. Animals just cease to exist in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahved
??? It's the truth. You don't have to believe it...

---

Sometimes, I think you post solely for the reason to get the rest of us fired up.

Your idea of 'truth' is not universally supported by all christians. It is one thing to espouse an opinion. It is quite another to espouse a 'fact'.

Though I confess to getting the Harris family confused....with your similar names and all, weren't you the one that was commenting on how unpleasant people were being to you? If so, do you not see how some of your comments just might make people a tad bit offended?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahved
So can there be bad animals that go to hell?

I respect the fact that you have a different opinion. I just don't think you're right:)

---

Uh.........just because they have a soul doesn't mean their soul is accountable for what they do, as they don't have the understanding of right and wrong as we do. Animals in this world HAVE a soul.............if they didn't, they would just be a dead body. The souls of mankind will be questioned. Animals won't from my religious beliefs, but they still have a SOUL.

CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME???????


I SAID they were my opinions. I've continued to post because people have continued to say how wrong I am. I have maintained that they are opinions.

I BELIEVE THEM TO BE FACT.

But I have clearly said EVERY TIME that they are my opinions. EVERY TIME! I'm assuming that you didn't see the post totally attacking me?

I never said ANYTHING negative about anyone. JUST STATING WHAT I BELIEVE!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahved
Animals just cease to exist in my opinion.

---

Personally I am looking forward to being re-united with all my RB pets one day.

I can't say it better than Pops already did:

Every living creature has a soul. The thing that's inside our bodies that keeps us alive is our soul. Without our soul, we are *just* a body........not ourselves. Same with animals. If they didn't have a soul, they would be dead. Their souls may not be accountable for their deeds, etc. as our's are, according to most religious beliefs, but they STILL have a *soul*. I don't know how anyone could deny that.........its common sense.

Who was it that said, "Me thinketh the lady doth protest too much?"

Glacier, that is really interesting! I never knew any of that, since I'm not religious. :o

Quote:

---

A soul implies eternal life. We have souls because we live or die eternally. Animals just cease to exist in my opinion.

---

So, how come people can have eternal life but animals can't!? Is it because we are humans and think we get to decide what we can do and what others can't!? :confused: (Remember, I am not religious, so I don' follow up on any of this....)

Quote:

---

Sometimes, I think you post solely for the reason to get the rest of us fired up.

Your idea of 'truth' is not universally supported by all christians. It is one thing to espouse an opinion. It is quite another to espouse a 'fact'.

Though I confess to getting the Harris family confused....with your similar names and all, weren't you the one that was commenting on how unpleasant people were being to you? If so, do you not see how some of your comments just might make people a tad bit offended?

---

I agree with you Johanna! 100%

The book of Genesis tells us that animals were expressly created by God as companions for human beings.

Those who understand that God's love and care extends to all creatures are often challenged by religious people who insist that the concern for animals is a secular issue. Their insistence is easy to understand. Although the bible has a great deal to say about God's concern for animals, and the relationship between human and animal beings, this subject has been ignored. With very few exceptions, neither rabbis, ministers, theologians, nor biblical exegetes have braved the chauvinism of human bias. A bias which sees its own species as the center--and the circumference--of God's concern.

This bias continues in spite of the fact that the Bible depicts the spiritual journey of animals just as surely as it describes the human journey. The scriptures trace their story from the time of creation, through their sojourn in a fallen world, to a millennial world they will share with their human companions. And in the book of Revelation, both wild and domestic animals are shown in heavenly places, praising God for their redemption.

The rest of this article can be found here

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahved
IMHO, there should not be a debate about which is more important, which you should save in a fire. I can respect the fact that some don't want/like children, but children have souls and animals don't. When choosing a life that already exists, the child is more important!

---

You said that in your opinion there should be no debate. You said that animals have no soul as though it was fact. I agree with Johana, you seem to post for the sole purpose of upsetting people and getting a negative reaction. Well, you've got your negative reactrion, and you've changed this thrad from an open discussion into an argument.

Why should it matter to you if someone else feels that all lives are equal, and one species should nt be valued over another? You aren't going to change any minds, so this is one point where we need to agree to disagree.

Go start another religious argument thread if that's what you want to have.

Quote:

---

??? It's the truth. You don't have to believe it...

---

Yes, we can hear you. You didn't say it was your opinion, you said it was the truth. HUGE difference.

Quote:

---

I BELIEVE THEM TO BE FACT.

---

Anything can be a fact, but that doesn't mean it's the truth. I can say the sky is purple and that would be a fact. A wrong fact, but still a fact. Just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean that it's THE truth. No one knows everything, for all I know you could be right and I could be wrong. But I know I would never run around telling people MY beliefs were the truth since they are only MY truths.

EESH!! This lady....... wow... :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahved
CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME???????

---

Sadly, yes. :p

You didn't originally say it was your opinion, you said it was "the truth". Not the same thing. You didn't say "my opinion is that it's the truth", you said, "it's the truth". I have no religious beliefs at all here, no opinions on who or what has or doesn't have a soul, but I feel very strongly about people expressing themselves and then not having the b**ls to admit what they really said, instead of backpedaling and indignantly claiming to be misunderstood.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cataholic
Who was it that said, "Me thinketh the lady doth protest too much?"

---

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
William Shakespeare, from Hamlet



:rolleyes: I should not be here in the DogHouse but could not resist answering that one because I knew the answer!!:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahbed
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
William Shakespeare, from Hamlet



:rolleyes: I should not be here in the DogHouse but could not resist answering that one because I knew the answer!!:D

---

Yeah, I guess I tried to mix American NEW English with real Old English...I never was much for the arts...sadly, it shows.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cataholic
Yeah, I guess I tried to mix American NEW English with real Old English...I never was much for the arts...sadly, it shows.

---

:D :D I have a BA in Literature - and was so excited to know the answer to something for a change!!:rolleyes:

Well, I'm one that believes that animals will be in Heaven with me. I have also prayed that every animal that has contacted my life in some way join me there. Duke, of course, will have a very special place there but all will be much loved and I'll finally be able to have all the animals I want. Someone a long time ago tried to tell me they won't be there but I believe that if that's what it takes to make me happy there, then they'll be there right beside me.

I want to say one thing about wheather animals have souls, an whether they go to heaven, and thats if God don't let our pets go with us to heaven, then it would be such a dull and unhappy place for me.

Yesterday, I talk to a lady that is very religious, she lost her husband to cancer about two years ago, she said that about 2 or 3 months after her husband died, her beautiful German Shepard died too. She said this dog actually morned himself to death over her husband. He would howl everynight after the death of her husband. He had never done that before, ever! I told her the story of rainbow bridge and she took that to mean that her husband and that dog, and some of the other pets that was so dear to her and her husband were there waiting for her to come so they could all cross the bridge together into heaven. She was very tearful about this.


Her and her husband were unable to have children, these dogs were their children, the only children they ever knew. Now how could anybody tell her that those 'children were not at the bridge waiting with her late husband' for her to cross the bridge with them into heaven?

When your joys here on this earth involve dogs, cats, birds, and reptiles, etc, then how could you not have that joy in heaven too? To me I have to believe they will be there waiting for me.

If you believe there is no hell, then how can you believe there is a heaven? I hope and pray that our pets are in heaven waiting to greet us there. Now that would be heaven for certain to me.

Willie

I know the Harris family gets confusing - let me clear it up:
Sirrahsim (Missy) is my daughter
Sirrahved (Devon) is my daughter-in-love
Sirrahbed is me and I am the MOM

Sirrahsim started the thread. Sirrahved is now hurting because she feels strongly about what she believes and will not back down. You may not like her or what she says, but that is no reason to say things that sound angry and make her sad. I feel that some of you were rather harsh to her. As for me, I got a PM that said I hurt feelings but it may have been for one of the girls or maybe it was for me, I duuno, but I did PM back and apologize. Maybe my "maternal" is coming out but I do not want to see my girls hurt. I do not want to hurt anyone!! Do any of you want to knowingly hurt someone with your words??

This thread is now so OFF TOPIC - can we get it back to where it was??

MISSY - do you think it might be a good idea to just delete the thread?? - it has been very interesting but maybe it has run too long....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahved
I SAID they were my opinions. I've continued to post because people have continued to say how wrong I am. I have maintained that they are opinions.

---

I agree that you have the right to state your opinion. That is what is great about a forum... you can state your beliefs.

HOWEVER, there are ways to say things that offers your opinion without insulting others. Its as simple as choice of phrase. A person can say the same thing in two different ways... one way will rile everyone up, another way will get people thinking.

I certainly don't want to insult you, your beliefs, or your intelligence. I just feel that with convictions as strong as yours, you need to temper what you say and how you say it or deal with the backlash that follows.

As for animals, I wholeheartedly feel they do have souls. I look into Nicki's eyes and see a soul as deep and beautiful as any human I've ever met. Pouncer's soul is so directly linked to my soul that I swear he reads my mind, and I his. I didn't hear him fall... I KNEW... how can you explain that? I honestly feel he called out to me with his soul to mine. Ok, ok, I'm getting deep here, but I steadfastly believe animals have souls.

DESCARTES AND THE ANIMAL MACHINE
Descartes's doctrine that animals are pure machines, while men are machines with minds, was in part a compromise between his scientific aims and his voluntaristic, Christian view of man. If biological phenomena could be included in the domain of his universal physics, then the boundary would no longer lie between inanimate and animate beings; physics would include all of nature except the mind of man. Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood encouraged Descartes to attempt a general mechanistic physiology in hydraulic terms. Descartes argued that most human motions do not depend on the mind and gave examples of physiological functions (such as digestion), reactions; (such as blinking, and feelings (such as passions) which occur independently of the will. In man, however, the mind could also direct the course of the fluid ("animal spirits") which controls movements.

However, to attribute minds to animals would threaten traditional religions beliefs, since the psychological concept of mind was conflated with the theological concept of soul. Descartes argued that it would be impious to imagine that animals have souls of the same order as men and that man has nothing more to hope for in the afterlife, than flies and ants have. Similarly, God could not allow sinless creatures to suffer; without souls, animals would not suffer, and man would be absolved from guilt for exploiting, killing and eating them. But he considered the most important reason for denying souls to animals to be their failure "to indicate either by voice or signs that which could be accounted for solely by thought and not by natural impulse" (letter to Henry More, February 1649). Thus, the use of language became the criterion of thought-"the true difference between man and beast." This argument has been accepted in much of the subsequent debate, and discussion has centered on the characteristics of a "true language."

It has often been suggested that Descartes was not consistent because occasionally he did ascribe mental functions to animals-sensation, imagination, passions, memory. Although some passages support this view, it seems clear that he attempted to maintain a rigid dualism by granting these functions to animals yet insisting that they were purely corporeal, while in man alone they had a mental counterpart; for instance, man had both corporeal and mental perceptions, and the dualism of mind and matter extended into his account of feelings. If attention is confined to the animal-machine hypothesis, it might therefore appear that there is little to choose between the Cartesian account and the views of his opponents, who did attribute mental functions to animals. The very extensive literature on the animal soul controversy lends support to this contention. However, the debate was not primarily about what animals could do but about the implications for man of various interpretations of their behavior. More generally, it concerned the adequacy of mechanistic explanation to account for biological and psychological phenomena.

Descartes excluded explanation by purpose (the "final causes" of the Aristotelian tradition) from physics and from biology. Yet mechanistic explanation was remarkably unsuccessful in accounting for biological phenomena without making some implicit or explicit appeal to concepts derived from mental intention or without postulating some intermediate substance or special vital force. The discontinuity in Cartesian metaphysics represented, then, a highly unstable compromise. The application of mechanism to animals and to the human body had considerable utility as an alternative to animistic explanation in physiology, but the demands of functional explanation in biology made it ultimately untenable. Science, the analogy between animals and men, and common sense called for a continuity which metaphysics and theology denied.
-------------------------------------------


I'm taking a chance by putting Descartes before the horse....

Sirrahbed --


I understand she is a part of your family and all.. but she was way harsh in how she expressed some of her opinions. I can't even respond to the thing about animals not having souls... I find that amazingly ironic and shocking to see on a Pet-Loving forum.

If she's able to dish such harshness out, she should be able to learn and recieve such as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sirrahbed
You may not like her or what she says, but that is no reason to say things that sound angry and make her sad. I feel that some of you were rather harsh to her.

Do any of you want to knowingly hurt someone with your words??

---

Yes! I agree... I did think a few people were rather harsh. I think somethimes people forget to be polite here. I read and re-read all of my posts looking for anything that might be insulting. Sometimes I am successful and sometimes I'm not.

Devon, I am sorry that you are insulted. I think that it is admirable that you feel as stronlgly as you do. Whether you are right or wrong is something we'll never ever know. Religion has been argued for centuries and nobody has ever come up with the exact right answer.

this has been an interesting thread and I hate to see it digress now. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by trayi52
I want to say one thing about wheather animals have souls, an whether they go to heaven, and thats if God don't let our pets go with us to heaven, then it would be such a dull and unhappy place for me.

---

This thread has gone haywire - but while it still lives -I want to comment on this because we just talked about this (I started it in fact) on Cat General. I am a Christian and believe in the Bible. The scriptures are not really very clear about what heaven is like. But, God DID say it would be perfect and without sin. I read nowhere that says animals do *not* have souls. That is an interpretation. I read they are living things and were created separately from inamimate objects and on a separate day. I understand they do not need to have forgiveness from sin or salvation, so in that sense they would not have the same soul that a human has - but they are not like trees and rocks, etc. (pretty much like Pops said) I have every reason to believe I will be surrounded by many animals in heaven. They were created for our happiness. Why, if God created them for our happiness or earth, would they not be with us in heaven?? I believe they WILL be there! It is something I have been thinking about all week! I suppose some Christians would argue it would not be MY animals, but I choose to believe it will be. The Bible is not clear. We'll know when we get there and it will be *PERFECT*.