Sometimes I think you argue solely for the sake of arguing because you enjoy it so much.
That is a correct statement.
This argument assumes that family #2 would have adopted a pet from a shelter in the first place, and secondly that they would have chosen a pet that would not have been adopted by a subsequent family and thus euthanized.
If family #2 is willing to adopt a pet from family #1, that would indicate that they are willing to forgo the one thing that buying a puppy offers over adopting a dog: the childhood of the dog. If family #2 didn't adopt the dog from family #1 they might have bought a dog, but if they are willing to not have a puppy, adoption is more likely.
As to your second point, it doesn't matter; the same argument can be applied down the line. Let us say that there are 100 families willing to adopt a dog, and there are 101 dogs in animal shelters. Family #87 adopts a dog from a family outside either group, rather than adopting from the shelter. Even if Family #88 would adopt the dog from the shelter that family #87 would adopt, at the end of the day there are two extra dogs instead of one.
The number of animals that are euthanized in shelters is a sad statistic, but there is little way to change it except to urge people to adopt from shelters and to neuter/spay as many animals as possible.
Exactly. Adopting from poor families does not change that statistic at all (unless the poor family would be forced to give up the animal to a shelter regardless, in which case one is merely cutting out the middle man).
And if they can't pay for that, then the animal would die eventually as well. Or what if the dog gets hit by a car, and the family takes him to an emergency animal clinic but can't pay the bill?
Would you agree that potential death is better than certain death? And that comparatively, a less certain death is better than a more certain death?
If so, a simple comparison of such rates should suffice. If a dog is in a shelter, how long will it have until it is put down? Let us say 1 year (which as far as I am aware, is a ludicrously generous supposition). If a dog is with a family that cannot afford proper medical treatment, how long until it dies of lack of medical care? A 3 year old lab could probably live another 4 years without any serious health problems. Do you find any of these numbers (though they are just uneducated estimates) offensive?
If not, then the comparison should speak for itself. A dog in a loving family, regardless of medical care, is better off than a dog in a shelter. It might not be the optimal state, but at its worst it is better than a shelter at its worst.
The choice is even more clear when you consider if the first family's pet was an old dog. The number of likely medical problems that dog will encounter that could potentially be fatal if veterinary care is not pursued is enormous.
Pishaw. Older dogs are always harder to adopt than younger dogs. Surrendering an older dog is more likely to result in a shortened lifespan because a loving capable family will logically go for a younger, healthier dog.
However, as has happened before, it appears that we both understand the foundations on which we are basis our arguments but are disagreeing on the significance. In this case it is, interestingly, revealing something about our natures, rather than the issue. You appear to be more willing to take risks than I am. I'd say the potential benefits of a family giving up their dog are outweighed by the risks, whereas you seem to be taking the opposite stance
