• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Do you think kids should be micro-chipped?

I'm not a parent, but if I was, I don't think I'd want to know where my teenagers were all the time. Ignorance is bliss, I imagine.

Also, crazy overprotective parents would become a nuisance to the police. "Oh my god little Johnny is late for tea! Look, he's in the bad part of town! He's been KIDNAPPED!!!"

As for protecting kids from abduction or worse, like someone said, it would surely only increase demand in human trafficking or put kids in poorer countries more at risk.

I may change my mind though if I'm ever a parent.
 
Cflaguy said:
devil's advocate...
We also put our pets to sleep when they're in pain. But not our loved ones. But that is a different debate.
As I said, I believe you're damned if you do, damned if ya don't.
Click to expand...


Call me evil... cheap... or that I see a BIG difference between animals and humans.

I would rather put an animal down over costly surgeries etc because it is a dog (or whatever) and that is a lot of money.

I have a dog who has had cancer for 4+ years. The doctors wanted more tests amputation, radiation etc.. We said no. We have not told the dog she has cancer... she is still the most happy pet I have ever seen. I will not go through the treatments and truth be told... the last dog we "put to sleep" was done "old school farm style".


Man these are easy to get into and like climbing a mountain of rice. The harder you try... the more tired you are... and you still remain in the same place.

Cheers all... this could really be a fun and spirited topic... they usually branch off in to 1000 different topics and thoughts. Usually they do not end up too well.
 
Emanon...

the devil's advocate was not part of the debate over whether we should put down our loved ones. That part was just an afterthought. I loved the debate over human euthanasia when I was in school. I'm actually against it. Some countries do practice it. And you would be surprised how many folks are for it. Then again, things are different in your own backyard. I don't know how I would act if my parents were in terrible pain; haven't had to deal with that. If I had my way, none of us ever would.
 
I'm thinking kids should be locked in their rooms until they turn 18 and then asked to leave.....or....we could microsize them as Dean suggested....yeah, that works for me.....
 
Roy Munson said:
I think we should work on the technology to micro-size kids. They could easily be kept individually in Sterilite tubs on aspen. This would minimize sibling rivalry, and allow for careful monitoring of health. How many of you parents have encountered a random regurge in your home's hallway, but could not tell from which child it was expelled? :sidestep:
Click to expand...

lol, excellent idea!!
 
Cflaguy said:
Would I microchip my child. I don't know, haven't come to that bridge yet. We chip our pets. We also put our pets to sleep when they're in pain. But not our loved ones. But that is a different debate.
As I said, I believe you're damned if you do, damned if ya don't.
Click to expand...

My pets ARE my loved ones.
We put them to sleep BECAUSE we love them.
I don't know how relevant that is to the microchip debate, but I just had to say that. Sorry. That is probably contradictory, but I never said I would chip my pets. I don't agree with microchipping animals, either.
 
Why don't you believe in microchipping your pets? I know if somehow my pets were seperated from me, that a simple scan can track me down. Both my dogs are chipped. If you plan to show your dogs, OFA requires microchipping now before approving.
 
MegF. said:
Why don't you believe in microchipping your pets? I know if somehow my pets were seperated from me, that a simple scan can track me down. Both my dogs are chipped. If you plan to show your dogs, OFA requires microchipping now before approving.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure to be honest, Meg. I just hate the idea of inserting something under my pet's skin. I don't believe we have the right to mess about with other living creatures in this way.
I know everyone will probably point out to me that we neuter animals, keep them in boxes, make new genetic colours, etc etc, and I'm aware that my opinion probably doesn't make sense, but it IS my opinion and it isn't going to change.
All I have to add is that my animals are my children (I'm not much of a people person) and if I wouldn't microchip a child, I wouldn't microchip my cat.
 
Plissken my apologies...

In the post I addressed you the part about the animals was not really intended for the paragraph above. The parallel I was trying to draw, in a roudabout way, was how sometimes, we (the human race) treat our pets better than we do people or ourselves. It was not intended to you personally.

Like I said, I liked the debate when I was in school. And just to jab a little more (LOL :) ). You said we put them to sleep because we love them; why wouldn't that apply to people?
 
Cflaguy said:
The parallel I was trying to draw, in a roudabout way, was how sometimes, we (the human race) treat our pets better than we do people or ourselves.
Click to expand...
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU THERE!!!

Cflaguy said:
It was not intended to you personally.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know... no worries!!!

All is well!!!
 
Plissken, I completely respect your feelings about it, but I feel microchipping is no more of a problem than vaccinating your children. It doesn't change anything genetically and all it does is give an added resource to find my animals if their tags come off and heaven forbid, they get lost. Animals are animals though, not humans and as such have no way of communicating with anyone as even a young child could. I would do anything to make sure my animals are as safe as can be. My cats are not microchipped as they are never let outdoors.
 
Roy Munson said:
... encountered a random regurge in your home's hallway, but could not tell from which child it was expelled?
Click to expand...

Oh, great! I suppose now you're going to tell me if I miniaturize any two-legged offspring, I shouldn't co-habitate them. That's going to seriously curb the number I can keep! :grin01:

As for microchipping kids (and I have no two-leggers by choice), I don't believe I would. I believe parents do the best they can or have interest in doing - sadly, not enough interest in some cases. Beyond that, the kid needs to figure things out.

It's a dangerous world out there - a small part of why I have no children myself. But Darwinism would dictate the most protective parents will have the greatest success in raising offspring to adulthood, thus (theoretically) resulting in the continuation of the line of protective parents and the dying out of lines that were less attentive.

It may sound harsh, but I find life easier to understand if I distill it down to the most basic components. Btw, I personally believe anyone who kidnaps, harms or abuses children (or any creature dependent upon another for protection) should be dealt with in ways most people don't want to think about.

And Plissken, my critters are my kids, too. They're by far and away easier to understand most of the time.
 
MegF. said:
Plissken, I completely respect your feelings about it, but I feel microchipping is no more of a problem than vaccinating your children. It doesn't change anything genetically and all it does is give an added resource to find my animals if their tags come off and heaven forbid, they get lost. Animals are animals though, not humans and as such have no way of communicating with anyone as even a young child could. I would do anything to make sure my animals are as safe as can be. My cats are not microchipped as they are never let outdoors.
Click to expand...

I respect your feelings on the subject too, Meg, but I have to disagree with you here. Animals are perfectly capable of communicating with us. I feel I am able to read my animals perfectly well and know when they are asking me for something. I've also worked with young children, and I have to say I found it very hard to know what they wanted and why. For me, in some ways, I communicate better with animals than with people.

I know animals are not humans, but I feel it is a good idea not to forget that humans are animals, too. I daresay plenty of people will disagree with me here, but I do not think animals are less important than us, and I do not think we are "better" because of our intelligence. Sure, we might have the capability for more thought, etc, than other animals, but when we put it to bad use what is its benefit? Maybe we're smarter than sheep or whatever but they aren't the ones hacking down the rainforests. If we are going to decide importance based on intelligence, does that mean that stupid people (for want of a better word) are inferior to smart people? That they don't have the same rights or should be looked down upon?

Cflaguy said:
In the post I addressed you the part about the animals was not really intended for the paragraph above. The parallel I was trying to draw, in a roudabout way, was how sometimes, we (the human race) treat our pets better than we do people or ourselves. It was not intended to you personally.
Click to expand...

I realise that, but thank you for saying it. I'm sorry, I just feel very strongly about this subject I guess.

Cflaguy said:
Like I said, I liked the debate when I was in school. And just to jab a little more (LOL ). You said we put them to sleep because we love them; why wouldn't that apply to people?
Click to expand...

In some cases, it DOES apply to people. Have you never heard of someone deciding to have their loved ones taken off life support or whatever, knowing that they are suffering? What about when people help their loved ones to die with euthanasia? I'm not getting in to whether or not I agree with these concepts, because that's a whole other discussion, but we DO put people to sleep. Maybe we don't think of it the same way, but it's pretty much the same thing, in my eyes at least.
 
Being taken off life support

is different. People on life support are already dead. The machine is keeping them alive. Those who assist loved ones in suicide are committing a crime. I'm talking about legal human euthanasia.

And BTW, thanx for the debate. Reminds of my school days. Except we are both being civil about it. :)
 
Cflaguy said:
is different. People on life support are already dead. The machine is keeping them alive. Those who assist loved ones in suicide are committing a crime. I'm talking about legal human euthanasia.

And BTW, thanx for the debate. Reminds of my school days. Except we are both being civil about it. :)
Click to expand...

Lol I do like a good debate ;)

Someone on life support is, technically, alive. Maybe they aren't concious, but they are ALIVE. People that choose to have them taken off when there is even a 1% chance they may one day wake up? That is putting a human to sleep, in my opinion. They are a living person. They don't become an object.
 
Usually the survival/recovery chances are pretty thoroughly investigated before the life support is switched off. Certainly if there is going to be harvesting for transplants involved the tests for braindeath are as conclusive as possible
 
Plissken said:
Someone on life support is, technically, alive. ... People that choose to have them taken off when there is even a 1% chance they may one day wake up? That is putting a human to sleep, in my opinion. ...
Click to expand...

Using a Living Will, making that decision in advance, and letting my family & doctor know my choice is how I avoided putting any loved ones in that position. I don't want to be technically alive - the idea just gives me the shivers.

The downside to the Living Will is a family member can choose to ignore it and refuse to withdraw life support. That makes choosing a health proxy doubly important. My husband couldn't do it (he wants to stay plugged in until there's a cure for whatever put him out), so I asked a sister.
 
I'm not even going into go into my stance on microchipping other than to say that I'm against it (whether it's for GPS or other purposes).


What worries me is that there's a bunch of lunatics sitting in some room in Washington, all with their own agendas that in no way represent their constituents, willing to recite entire cookbooks just to drag their heels on decision making processes when they can't agree with one another...and these are the same out-of-touch people who will be voting on these types of philosophical issues on OUR BEHALF.

Scary.


EDITED TO ADD: This is not me bashing our current administration. While I'm no fan of Bush, my statement here goes for any president or administration regardless of party affiliation. I'm actually about one of the least politically motivated people you will ever meet, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing how corrupt and dysfunctional the system is and can be. IMO, of course. :)
 
Plissken said:
Animals are perfectly capable of communicating with us. I feel I am able to read my animals perfectly well and know when they are asking me for something.
Click to expand...
I think she was talking about the fact that an animal cannot tell you its home address, the name of its owner, the owner's phone number.

The purpose of chipping an animal is not to "control" the animal by tracking its whereabouts at all times, it is to help recover it if it is lost or stolen. The animal in no way "suffers" by being chipped.

There is no scenario where the government would be spying on dogs or cats in order to oppress the pet population and try to take away their rights to freedom of religion, to petition the government, suffrage, or other rights that are not "animal" rights... for the simple reason that animals do not deal with those types of abstract political/societal concepts.

Humans are animals, but animals are not humans and do not form nor participate in the types of unnatural societies that we do. IMO, comparing chipping people versus pets is completely absurd.
 
Plisskin: YOU may be able to communicate with your animals, as I can. I read my animals perfectly well. However, the stranger on the street that finds my stray dog who's lost it's collar can not ask....where do you live? My dog can not tell them. The microchip can!

Zach: If the government wants to sit in an office and track my dogs running around the ranch and my home....more power to 'em! :)

Geez Chuck...I just realized you already said just what I said here....you're too darn quick for me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top