My purebred brachy dog isn't a rescue. It's very difficult to acquire the breed of dog we own through rescues. The middle ground you say we should be on doesn't apply to me: you've made a continuous thread of arguments that what my family did was unethical, and I'm challenging you about that.

Clearly, you don't believe my family was obligated to acquire a second dog.

Clearly, you don't believe my brachycephalic dog should be put down. You concede here that whatever suffering my dog endures due to its genetic defects, they don't make its life unbearable.

Thus, you implicitly concede that my dog obtains benefits from being alive.

I agree, my dog does not obtain all the benefits that a well-cared-for mixed breed dog of good health would obtain.

But since the alternative to the dog we have is not "a healthier dog", but in fact "no dog at all", I am still having trouble reaching the ethical problem you claim exists with these dogs. Some benefit is better than no benefit at all.