I’m wondering why it is that I can see the votes for questions 1 and 3 but cannot see the votes for questions 2 and 4?
I don’t have kids because due to my wife’s medical condition there is more than enough stress in my life and adding a kid into the mix would be bad for everyone most particularly the kid. If this were not the case, then yes I might have had a kid or two, but I don’t feel as though my life is particularly lacking.
We have two cats which I am glad to have mainly because I like cats. This has nothing to do with my having or not having kids. My wife has a desire to nurture things, be they roses or cats She sometimes jokes that our cats our surrogate kids, so the pets probably does fill some of her desire to nurture that could be filled with children but she clearly recognizes that her relationship with our pets is not at all the same as a relationship between parent and child, but will also say that this level of responsibility is about all that we can handle right now.
So:
- Agree
- Disagree
- Agree
- Disagree
Indeed. And what’s being posited seems to be a conversation that’s even less plausible than your example:
“Honey, let’s decide whether we’re going to have children, or whether we’re going to have pets.”
“I’d really like to nuture something; but I don’t have a clear opinion whether to nuture children, or pets, or maybe just my car (see other thread). And I don’t see any real difference between nuturing children and pets; either would fill the same place in my life. So what do you think?”
“I’d like to get a couple of cats. So, if we get cats then that means we won’t have any children.”
– the mind boggles. I have serious trouble imagining any actual human couple having that conversation.
Okay, time to look at this topic again. 
I did that on purpose. I wanted to capture people who have felt the desire to care for something new, and also specifically people who might not really desire children, but feel they have a duty to have children.
~Max
Please note that comments #7-25 were posted in a previous topic and merged into this one. You are, of course, free to post without voting. I just want to point out that when those people say they voted “disagree with premise” that was an actual option in a previous poll. The old poll let you vote “N/A or disagree with premise”, the current poll does not.
This shouldn’t prevent you from answering any current poll questions.
~Max
But those two categories are so DIFFERENT. I understand that you want to conflate them. What i don’t understand is WHY you want to conflate them.
Also, i can imagine someone who really wants to nurture something, but doesn’t want a child, getting a pet to satisfy their desire to nurture. (Not choosing to get a pet instead of a child, but feeling a lack, after choosing not to have a child, and turning to a puppy to help satisfy their nurturing desires.) But i really can’t imagine someone feeling a duty to have children and thinking they can discharge that duty by having pets. Not even if they can’t have children for some excellent reason, like being sterile and having major medical issues that render them unable to care for children. No one sane is going to think having a pet discharges their obligation to rear a child.
See my previous post to wolfpup.
This shouldn’t impede your ability to vote, if you want to vote in the poll.
If you do vote, it means your answer to question 4 should be “Disagree”.
~Max
I did vote “no” in the fourth poll. But i wonder how one can possibly interpret the results of these polls, given the wife range of meanings they might have.
So, the take home message seems to be that the pope ain’t too bright?
Here are a few ways to rewrite the question I had in mind when writing the polls.
Do some people adopt pets, in part, to trigger the same maternal/paternal emotional responses children normally trigger?
Do some people adopt pets to fill a void that is normally occupied by children?
Is there any sense in which it makes sense to say “pets take the place of children” when discussing the spiritual importance of parenthood? (this one ties in to the Pope’s speech)
I’ve found that asking the last question directly is problematic. I’m guessing “nothing can take the place of children”, and the rest of the question is put to one side.
~Max
I like those questions better. I would say
Yes. I didn’t, but i believe some people do that.
Yes, especially empty-nesters and people who don’t feel they are yet in a position to have children.
No. That’s ridiculous.
IMHO all three questions are equivalent.
~Max
Imo, your opinion is off-the-wall crazy.
The first two are cases where a person decides not to have kids, and then gets pets as a sort of consolation prize. I’m on a diet, i can’t eat a big slice of cake, but i can eat this little chocolate cookie. Maybe because i am vain, maybe because i have diabetes and the cake will put me in shock. But i decided not to have the cake, and would make that decision whether or not I can turn to the cookie.
The third sounds like there is some moral or spiritual equivalence between having pets and having children.
Pets can take the place of children as something to trigger maternal/paternal emotional responses. (so can a garden or a car, for other stereotypes)
Pets can take the place of children as something to fill an emotional or spiritual void.
You agreed with these two senses in which it makes sense to say pets take the place of children.
~Max
Or he’s blinded by his hatred of dogs or something.
And this is where a like/thumbs up would be nice to have
Bolding mine, anyone that feels it’s their DUTY to have children will not be a fit parent.
I did not. First, there’s a vast gulf between an emotional and a spiritual void. Second, when discussing the “spiritual importance of Parenthood” one is discussing obligations, not desires. And see my answer above about the difference between pets filling obligations and pets satisfying desires.
You are correct. So what?
~Max
amen.