I do not think it is either/or children or pets. Only those who have limited
capacity for love would say so. My human children are special to me, but I
also acknowledge the sacredness of the pets we have and have an obligation to
show them love and compassion as the Savior's blood was shed for them too.
To those who have pets, there is something just that more special about your
flesh and blood. To those with children, any mother can coo over her own but
what about loving all creatures with divine love?
Neither, if you don't want 'em. You don't need anybody's
approval or permission to live the life you want.
I worry about our society in general when children are not a large part of the
equation. We get "concerned" citizens who want to tell parents how to
raise their children, but have none of their own. We find intolerant adults who
openly shun those who bring children into public places because they are simply
not used to how children behave or are uncomfortable around them. One of the
most refreshing things about moving from Washington State to Utah was the number
of playgrounds and facilities dedicated to children, rather than pets (where
there were more dog parks than playgrounds), and having five kids was pretty
normal, rather than a complete novelty among my coworkers.
The proper answer is this -- have both. Have a reasonable number of children
(2-3) and a reasonable number of pets (a cat and a dog). AND teach the children
to properly care for the pets. That's the best of all worlds.
There is absolutely nothing.....literally nothing.....that compares to a
baby/child/person in your family. True, it is not always possible or
appropriate for everyone, but the idea of being able to have only a child or a
pet and seeing someone chose the pet....wow, that doesn't even compute.
Go Pope Go! I couldn't agree more. Anyone who thinks that a pet is a
substitute or an alternative to a child.....isn't really thinking!