Cats, dogs, and human children all fall into the same category of “mammals”. Cats, dogs, human children, and fungi all fall into the same category of “multicellular organisms.” Cats, dogs, human children, fungi, businesses, ideas all fall into the same category of “things that can be nutured.” That has nothing to do with wanting or not wanting to raise a human child.
Of course it is unacceptable. As John Carpenter showed, you have to ᴍᴀʀʀʏ ᴀɴᴅ ʀᴇᴘʀᴏᴅᴜᴄᴇ
I also vote category error. I like to nurture things. I have nurtured houseplants, i have nurtured plans, i have nurtured models, and yes, I’ve nurtured both kids and pets. I’m currently nurturing a whole world in Minecraft.
But i didn’t have kids, or acquire pets, because i wanted to nurture something. I had kids because i like having family and decided that if i wanted to continue to have family i ought to create the next generation. And i acquired pets because i like having pets around.
And i certainly don’t think anyone has an obligation to nurture. And if someone has a desire to nurture, i don’t see how it can possibly be my place to tell them what the right object of their nurturing drive should be.
I find it plausible that somewhere on earth, an infertile couple has gotten a dog to try to fulfill the role that they wanted a child to play in their lives. I don’t find it plausible that couples are sitting around thinking “we should nurture something. Should we have kids? Nah, let’s just get a dog!”
But if anyone out there is choosing to adopt a shelter pet instead of making another human, I think that’s a very moral choice.
Totally agree with all the above. I did not vote. ISTM that @Max_S has posed a set of choices crafted to create his desired conclusion about the relationship between two lifestyle choices that, in reality, have no relationship. You can want children. You can want pets. You can want both, or you can want neither.
I think the confusion arises because pets can be wonderful companions, they can alleviate loneliness and be a source of joy, and the love we lavish on our pets and that we perceive in return can even contribute to a longer life. But pets are not children and children are not pets, and there is no meaningful basis for discussing them as alternatives.
I have children. I wanted children. I currently live with my family’s pets, but have none of my own. I’ve had pets in the past, probably will again. They were never child substitutes, I abhor the caring aspects of petcare and I just like the company, the more independent the pet, the better. I like pets as either friends or workers.
However, I personally know (and am related to some) people who have sublimated their childcaring instincts into their pets. They freely admit to it. So it does happen. Not all pet ownership is sublimated child nurturing, but some is.
I disagreed all the way through.
I never wanted kids. I have no kids. I have zero regrets.
I DO want animals in my life, and I have them. Lots of them. I don’t keep them to fulfill a need to nurture something, they are here because I like their companionship. I enjoy riding my horse. I enjoy training and competing my dogs. I enjoy watching and interacting with the goats and the cats. I basically like most animals better than most people.
I have kids, never wanted them. Turns out I really love them but prior to their existence I was happily child free.
If someone prefers tending their houseful of houseplants or fur babies rather than having kids, more power to them. Ain’t none of my business.
I think the poll questions are very odd in saying “a desire or duty”. I feel a desire for chocolate. I feel a duty to clean my dirty dishes. They seem like such different things.
I think if you’d split the polls, and had one set with “desire” and the other with “duty” i would likely have answered them differently.
The questions felt a bit bait-and-switchy.
Love and nurturing is implied to be coupled with fatherly / motherly instincts and then, e.g., question 3 asks whether some people adopt pets out of a desire to nurture or a motherly/fatherly desire.
But I want to be very clear that, IMO, the desire to love or nurture is very often nothing to do with a desire to be a parent.
So I guess I could answer “Agree” but I am concerned about how this poll is going to be interpreted.
Finally, the phrasing of the thread title is weird. Every behaviour is acceptable by default – a reason need to be presented for why something should not be accepted.
I think the OP probably meant something like “Can raising pets be a good substitute for having children?”
Possibly so, though I also suspect that the question is inspired by the recent statement by Pope Francis, in which the pope criticized people who opt for having pets instead of having children:
But did they decide not to have children because they thought that pets could do this?
This thread is coming out of the discussion in the thread on that subject.
Some did (the two of my friends I’d characterize as “crazy cat ladies” have outright said things like “Why would I have kids? I have my cats.”), some went the pet route after their kids had grown up, others, I plain don’t know.
I’m not at all sure that that quote means that the cats were the reason for the decision, and not an excuse they were making after the fact. But you obviously know them better than I do.
Most of the people I know who have cats have/had some of the cats simultanously with their children.
Sure. And I have said things like “No sugar thanks, I’m sweet enough already”. If someone genuinely doesn’t have children because they have cats, then they have very little understanding of what raising a child is like. I think it’s much more likely that they don’t have children because reasons and the comment about cats is a throw away remark designed to deflect further questioning.
A cat would be more appropriate as a replacement flatmate rather than a child, it’s not like you look after them much.
The whole nurture part of the question is very odd. I’m 26 years married. My Wife and I take care of each other as I would expect a loving couple to do. I don’t nurture her though. I have no need to take care of someone, or thing. Nor does she.
We never had kids. Don’t want 'em. Uh, uh, no way.
We do have dogs because we like dogs, and frankly like them better than people. We take great care of each other and our dogs, but it’s not from some desire to ‘nurture’.
My Wife and I don’t argue, nor do we yell at the dogs or even have to scold the dogs. The worst the dogs might get is ‘go lay down’.
If something is more important to my Wife than it is to me, then the choice is up to her. And visa versa. It’s simple.
The poll was impossible to answer.
Or they have perfect understanding of what raising a child may be like, having known someone who lost a child to disease.
Right? But then they aren’t having children because they don’t want to risk losing the child. The reason still isn’t because they have cats.
“Honey, let’s have children.”
“Oh no, we couldn’t possibly have children, we have cats.”
“True, I hadn’t thought of that, because we have cats, we can’t have children.”
This is not a conversation rational people have.
Correct.