I feed my Rott very well and we have five human kids but I catch two hints here:
Baby breeders < dog people
Purebreds < rescue dogs
Folks want a mutt fine God love em
I am breed specific and have no shame buying what I want for 45 years now and counting
Alsatians
Dobies
American Bulldogs
Giant schnauzers
Pit bulls
Three Rottweilers
We live in a pagan culture now where we are judged by how we treat animals more than each other
yes we are a pagan country....animals and plants and even the ground ranks higher for protection than humans...infact, I think there is a good number of people who are HAPPY when other humans are killed enmasse....more earth for them....
It does indeed read like a deliberately crafted tale written to make the army of liberal spinsters say “They should have made the baby live outside instead of the dog”.
Mrs. AV
It’s not either/or, it’s both/and. Treat your kids right and treat your dogs right. It’s part of good stewardship.
They didn’t treat their dog right, and I wouldn’t be surprised that when the novelty of a new baby wears off, they’ll have a nanny hired to raise Junior.
This is a great observation!
This is pure conjecture on my part but I'm assuming the dog was put outside out of fear that it might attack or harm the baby. If the fear was legit, then the couple should have gotten the dog adopted into a new home. I know that my wife did not want a dog in the house when our children were small. I disagreed with that but waited for the children to get older before getting a dog, as I did not want to deal with a situation like this, where the dog would be forced by my wife to live outdoors.
I grew up with dogs and cats since I was a baby and I think it's healthy for children to have pets around. But others evidently disagree.