I think Bo is a cute First Dog. But animal rights groups are picking nits (like everyone else). They think the Obamas should have chosen a dog from an animal shelter, rather than a purebred dog from a breeder.

So I’ve been toying with ideas about family choice and the pro-choice view. 

Animal rights groups tend to occupy the political left (though there are plenty of us in the middle and even on the right horrified by the conditions in factory farming). Those animal rights activists would probably be pro-choice–if you don’t want a baby, choose abortion. Your family is your personal business.

Now, the Obamas very deliberately chose Bo. They could have gone to the local dog pound, but didn’t. Their family, their decision.

Actually, you could think of Bo as a dog that had been given up for adoption. Bo didn’t work out with his original owners, so they returned him to the breeder. So in an analogous sense, the Obamas were rescuing an unwanted child. But that apparently doesn’t count with the PETA people.

Let’s play with this some more. Should we criticize parents who give birth to a child, when so many children are awaiting adoption? Many children languish in orphanages and the foster care system, just as untold thousands of cats and dogs sit in animal shelters. 

Maybe we should criticize the Obamas for giving birth to Malia and Sasha, rather than adopting children. How terribly selfish of them. What kind of example does that set for other Americans? How can they encourage adoption, when they themselves chose differently?

In their own families, do those animal rights people adopt children rather than having their own biological children? That would be consistent with their values. 

Or do they, indeed, birth their own children (at least the ones they don’t abort), but only adopt when it comes to pets? Are pets worth rescuing, but not children? 

These are just ideas I’m toying with as I search for something profound to say. I’ll find it eventually.