No. The person does not need to convince themselves that their pet is human. That may be the conclusion you’ve reached but it’s not the argument being made. The person need not have any kind of expectations of the target in order to establish the same kind bond.
Wouldn’t this would mean the bond doesn’t exist with severely developmentally disabled children too?
Sorry Maureen, but this seems unclear to me. First you were talking about the “special bond” of parents with their own biological children, which it seems reasonable to say is different from other kinds of emotional ties.
But now The PCapeman is asking a question that also seems quite reasonable, namely, can the emotional tie formed with a pet be similar to that formed with a non-biological child?
And you kind of seem to be ducking the main point of the question by falling back on obvious facts about the difference in species and consequently in developmental expectations, etc. Yeah, we all know that cats and dogs are not going to grow up and go off to college. But that’s not the question. The question seems to be, can one care as deeply about, and be as emotionally attached to, a pet as a non-biological human child? If not, why not?
My dog is more important to me than your child is. Deal with it.
On the other hand, my child is more important to me than you and your dog put together. Deal with it.
this is a complete misreading of this thread–the degree of importance to individuals irrelevant. It’s the attitude that a person should find that your pet is AS important as any child that I am arguing against.
PCapeman --some parents DO experience a bonding problem with severely autistic and handicapped children. That is one reason these conditions are so painful.
I would hope so. AFAIK, you don’t know my children. Why should they be important to you at all?
Not at all. A child’s development is very much wrapped up in parenting and how we care for them. We change and grow as our child does, and that deepens that bond between parent and child. The more active we are in our childrens’ lives, the stronger the bond. Since it is not possible for the animal to develop beyond a certain point, our relationship with that animal cannot grow beyond that point. My relationship with my son is different than it was five years ago, and will be different still five years from now.
Done and done.
Thanks, el, I was just about to post that. 
PCapeman, while severely handicapped children are limited in their growth potential, they still have milestones and growth that they are able to attain, even if that growth is simply complex sentences. And certainly, parents of those children feel a great deal of pain and in most cases guilt (unfounded, as they wouldn’t wish a disease such as autism on their own child, no one is that much of a monster) that their child won’t develop normally.
Yes, I’m sure this is true. But this thread is discussing possibilities. I’m trying to understand the argument that it is impossible for a person to bond with a pet in any way that approaches the bond with human children.
What does all this have to do with whether or not the bond can exist in the first place?
If you are saying that the experience of parenting a human child is significantly different than sharing life with a pet, then I’m with you. If you are saying that complex bonds develop with more complex interactions, then again, I’m with you. Somehow that doesn’t seem to be the argument here.
These then seem to be two different types of bonds that you say parents can have with children (in the first case, only biological children) but pet owners can’t have with pets. The first is genetic, and the second depends on developmental potential.
In that case, I’m left kind of wondering: what is the bond that pet owners have with their pets? You said back in post #74 that you didn’t disagree that pet owners could “love [pets] as much” as parents love children. But if the bond that we call “love” in the case of children is mostly based on factors that can’t be present in the case of pets—i.e., genetic relationship and/or developmental “change and growth”—then how is it possible to compare the strength of the bonds in the two cases? What does it mean to say that one can “love a pet just as much” as a parent loves a child?
Hmmm. This is turning out to be philosophically deeper than I expected.
Why there isn’t room for more than one point of view? Why would someone else care about another’s opposing point of view? How does their opinion e(a? – dammit I can’t ever keep those straight no matter how hard I try)ffect what you believe? You don’t need their approval or validation. If you love the object of your affection that much, fuck everyone else.
Why would anyone be ashamed to say the reason they have pets is because they are lonely? Why can’t a parent possibly acknowledge that they feel differently about one offspring over another? [Note: No one has said that in this thread, I’ve just heard many folks vehemently deny the possibility and yet, in my own experience with my step-brothers, this was the furtherest thing from the truth.] Does anyone else’s reasons matter? Is one better than another? If you have children because that’s the natural progression of things for you, doesn’t really make a difference once they’re already here. Just in how you treat/raise them.
And if we disapprove, why must the ones we’re opposite to be deranged or idiotic or whatever? I can feel that way about a family that has 9 kids, but I’d never voice that to them or anyone who shares that outlook. If they solicited me for it, I might. If not, I’d only vent to those close to me who wouldn’t mind or simply ‘tsk, tsk’ to myself. It’s none of my business. Why MUST we pass judgment??
To clarify, I suppose I’m somewhere in the middle of this. No children (nor will there ever be, due to not wanting any, possible genetic defects and zero biological desire), but one puppy and a cat. I call myself their mama. I put a sweater on the Chihuahua type because he gets insanely cold. However, there is no accessorization. He stays alone when I work. They’re both made to behave. I’d spend what money wasn’t earmarked for other equally important things (like rent) to do any necessary medical treatments. I’d do even more for real live human people, because I’d feel as much of an obligation to do what I could within my reasonable boundaries. I get “Mother’s Day” cards from my ‘babies.’ I’d rush into a burning building and rescue (if possible) the human first and then the animal. Or both at the same time if I could. I would have an animal put down rather than see it suffer. Of course, I feel the same way about people. Pets and kids shouldn’t run amok and be spoiled to the detriment of learning proper behavior to get along in the world.
::: shrug :::
This seems like it should be such a non-issue if everyone realized it’s not all about you (generally speaking) and allowed other folks to live (and talk) as they see fit. Unless there is genuine abuse, your perception of the matter means squat. So pet owners, don’t take it as an indictment that you love your little ones any less when others don’t think you should equate humans and animals. Assume it’s their own issues and go on about your life. Parents, see the equation for what it is… something that means a lot (or the world, for whatever reason) to them. It doesn’t change your relationship one iota or make it any less special than you shape it to be. No one can know another’s motivation without them supplying it. So back off and give up on figuring it out. Just let it be. No matter what that is.
What ever happened to live and let live?
[All of this is my humble thoughts, for me, myself and I only. I realize that there can never be an all-inclusive absolute to fit everyone and every situation. Please apply aptly.]
In that case, you should have been able to see very well where LHOD came from when making his smart aleck comment regarding “see:kids”.
If you didn’t, then you need to get your sarcas-o-meter fixed.
Lemme try an analogy, since the explanation didn’t work. Can you have the same kind of bond with a goldfish that you have with a dog? If not, why?
I guess because in a very literal sense, your children are your future and your immortality. In all probability, they will outlive you and they carry with them the sum and total of everything you’ve taught them and all the experiences you shared and apply that knowledge throughout their lives. It’s a direct reflection of how you raised them and the values you instill in them.
In all probability, you will outlive your pet, and while that pet may love you back and recognize you, they’re not going to remember the very first time you took them swimming and your future is not invested in that pet.
Yeah, it is.
Some of you desperately need operations to remove the sticks firmly lodged in your butts.
Yes, some pet owners dress their animals in clothes, wheel them around in baby carriages, drag them along to social events, bequeath their estates to them, and generally sniff at the notion that FuzzySnookums and MisterStinkyBreath are anything other than human. Personally I’ve never seen anyone like this outside a cartoon, but if you actually find one of these folks in real life, I can understand being put off by all the twee-ness.
But conflating that miniscule set of pet owners with the majority of people who love their pets and call 'em “my kids” is like grouping people who buy stuffed bears 'caues they’re cute together with the tiny set of those who buy stuffed bears 'cause they wanna fuck 'em.
This whole argument reminds me of the moral indignation expressed by those enraged tightasses who insisted that the phrase “happy holidays” somehow devalued the meaning of Christmsas, that it was an insult to the increasingly victimized Christian faith.
Get the fuck over it. If you’re so hypersensitive and proprietary about parenthood that you’re actually outraged by someone affectionately calling his or her cats “my babies” … well, it ain’t the pet owner who has issues.
I love your posts and agree with your opinions and thoughts most of the time. But in this case, I’d have to say I agree with the “opposing team” so to speak.
The person who brought up the comment regarding foster kids, I believe was trying to ask or comment upon the following:
If it were a scientific “fact” that the biological bond between a birth parent and a child created this intense sense of urgency for the child’s care, then why don’t all “natural” parents exhibit this trait, if it’s supposed to be natural, scientific and indisputable?
The above is partly argument, and partly question. It’s not meant to be snarky at all.
I take it you’ve never heard of people taking their goldfish for a walk.
I could not agree more.
If I want to lavish love on my pets and refer to them as my kids, I fucking for sure will do it , and I don’t have to ask anyone’s permission.
The words that are most like fingernails on a chalkboard to me are “it’s just an animal” :mad: . I personally don’t like kids, but you don’t hear me saying “it’s just a kid, you can have another one.” Each one of my dogs is an individual , unable to be replaced.
Get over yourself Trunk, and all the rest of you who think loving a pet is somehow morally deficit.
Is this a whoosh? I haven’t, but I take it you understand my analogy?
Wow. Thanks. 
As I said, I think maternal instinct varies in degrees, to the point of some women having none at all. But the vast majority of women do have a natural maternal instinct. I think those that don’t are a very small minority. I think people are looking for absolutes, and when it comes to human behavior and development, there simply are none.