Lissa, sorry, I wasn’t going to ask, but I think it is relevent. Do you have children?
No, because it’s not evidence that everyone feels the same way. Emotions are not standard-issue. People’s expereices may vary widely.
I don’t believe that’s a fair assertion of my position.* EMOTION*, or the physical sensations of love are biochemical in origin. Love itself, as a concept, is an intensely complicated and socially adapted as well as involving higher reasoning. The EMOTION of love is what I’m talking about. It defies logic and reason-- it’s applied to people who don’t deserve it, and yes, I believe, to animals.
In my very first post on this subject, I mentioned teenage girls. Those of you who once were one, think back to your “first love”, the one who likely broke your heart at some point. Do you remember the intensity of the feelings? In some cases, they’re more intense than those that adults feel because whereas adults have learned to control their emotions, some teenage girls give them free reign.
Now, would anyone lable a teenage romance of “true love?” No. Likely, we’d tell both parties that they’ll feel differently in the future and caution them against making life-changing mistakes like getting married or having a baby. We know that the relationship is unlikely to last and is probably more due to raging hormones and infatuation than the kind of love that builds a family. But that does not change the fact that the teenagers are experiencing very intense emotions. They are feeling love in its emotional form.
Adults make the same mistakes with love. Women sometimes love men who are abusive, either physically or emotionally, or men who are casually cruel in being indifferent to their feelings. We don’t accept the excuse, “But I love him!” from women who stay in these circumstances because we feel that love doesn’t allow for abuse. Love in its SOCIAL sense does not, but in its EMOTIONAL sense, it can.
The emotional aspects and social aspects of love are intertwined, but one is not necessarily dependant on the other. Just as a woman can love an abusive man, a person can also make a rational decision to stay in a marriage once all of the “fire” has gone based on feelings of respect and affection.
Lastly, I repeat that love has not always been in the same form as it is today. Our intense emotional attatchment to our children might have appeared to be a little distrubing to people of a few hundred years ago, who held themselves in check because it was likely some of their children would die. How is this emotional restraint any different than what some people do with their pets? Some people’s experience is based more on the social aspect: “It’s just a dog” or “The cat will likely die before I do, so I can’t let myself get too attatched.” Others’s experiences are based more on the emotional aspect of love.
Thus, due to the fact that love is so flexible on many different levels, my postion is that loving a pet as much as others love a baby is most certainly possible. It would seem to me that the burden of proof would lie on those who are willing to categorically state that it is not.
I disagree that it’s in any way relevantl.* My* emotions are not what is being debated. In fact, I don’t think I mentioned my personal feelings about my pets at all.
I’ve explained why I feel that it’s possible. I would like to understand why others think that it’s impossible. Personal anecdotes aside, I still am not to clear about it.
Fair enough, I suppose. Even if there were a lot of anecdotes, it’s not going to be proof.
I think that most parties have admitted it might be possible, with the minor caveat that those who do so are severely psychologically disturbed, etc. 
My opinions on this matter are because I believe that there is a specific chemical/psychological attachment that a parent develops with their child on contact. On hears of it anecdotally quite a lot; ‘After 30 hours of agonizing labor they handed me my messy, wrinkly, squalling child and I instantly fell in love.’ Perhaps the people who looked at their child and said ‘meh, throw it back’ are merely not letting their voices be heard, and I’m therefore being swayed by a skewed set of information. But there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that parents by and large automatically care about their kids. The ongoing survival of our species, for one. (I hear that a newborn kid is a pain in the butt to keep alive. Why would anyone bother?)
This instant connection may not occur in all parents, I suppose, but it sure as heck doesn’t occur with the cat. Additional experiences with the cat/child may add or remove affection, but the kid still gets that head start, which by all the accounts that reflect it at all is a fairly massive one.
That’s my take on it, anyway.
In my experience, not only as much, but for up to 5-10 minutes longer! 