ionnsaigh wrote:Very interesting,
The problem lies with the mother in the first instance. I feel that the term used by the animal rights body, rejection is wholly inappropriate. The mother either won't, or can't, feed her offspring, for whatever reason. The term rejection fits more comfortably with won't than can't. In other words the deed is easier to do, when there is some minor blame attached.
Motherhood appears universal in all mammals, in that both bear and human share common functions when feeding their young. In humans however- would one describe- a mother who chooses to bottle feed her baby as being in some way negligent, and that the baby would fail to function because it lacked mothers milk. The answer is a resounding no.
These so called animal rights campaigners have failed to impress, yet here I am a lover of animals, a vegan, someone who cares about the rights of all animals, I wouldn't go near any of them without a bargepole. Their campaign is seriously misguided when one considers the need for scientific investigation, in order that the highest animal- mankind- can overcome disease and death.
Poor, poor, delusional Ionnsaigh, what makes you think that a child of any species is not rejected by choice. There have always been babies abandoned on doorsteps, in bins, in carrier bags etc. Not because the mother can't feed them, not because she is in poverty but in a lot of cases because she does not have the maternal instinct needed to bond with her offspring. In short, the hormones don't kick in. Because a creature gives birth, only technically makes it a mother or, in the case of seahorses, a father. You really need to read some more and get off Al Jazeera TV

There’s no place like home.......