If someone owns a piece of string and thinks it is their pet, we call them mad.
If someone has a child and thinks it is their pet, we call them mad (and probably abusive).
If someone owns a pet and thinks it is theit child, I think we should call that person mad.
I don’t think the OP is pitting anyone for the names they call their pets, but is pitting the small number of people who end up unable to recognise what is appropriate for the quality of attachment that can be formed between a human and an animal from the quality of attachment that can be formed between a parent and their child. It seems to me a sickness to confuse the two.
But I’m not. I have a couch and the dog likes to lay on it. The dog sheds. I point this out to guests. Just as if someone spilled ice cream all over it, I’d point that out to them, too. The couch isn’t exclusive for the dog, it’s just where she likes to sit when she wants to sit on a piece of furniture. Just like I have my favorite chair I like to sit in.
Oh, well. No it isn’t. Read it again. I didn’t say they don’t love those kids as much. Or care for them as well or better, or feel committed to them. I said they don’t have the biological tie to them that natural parents have to their children.
Met children? Yes. I have one of my own and helped raise a stepson. I’ve also been teaching since 1985. Did some coaching. Worked in residential treatment with kids for a while, too. So, yes, I have met children.
Yeah, I read it again. Same response. According to your story, an adoptive parent would have not gone tearing out of the parking lot when her child was in danger because she doesn’t have a biological tie to that child.
No. And just as my coworker will never get it, even if I spent all day explaining it, you won’t either. You want to be offended, go right ahead, honey. See it as something it isn’t.
Incidentally, I do have step-children that I’ve helped raise since they were very small. I love them to death, worry for them, share their father’s pride in the wonderful women they’ve become. But honestly, there is a bond I have with my own two that I will never share with my older girls. Because I didn’t give birth to them. You can go ahead and refuse to see the science behind that if you want; plenty of people choose to do so. I don’t see it as a lack on my part or theirs. It’s just the way human chemistry works.
Yeah, back away when you can’t explain yourself, that’s fine. According to your analogy, non-biological parents cannot have the same relationship with a child as a biological parent. I called you on it, and you’re backing away. There was no offense taken. I think you’re the one who’s getting defensive.
Can you show us some support for your theory that adoptive parents lack something biological parents have other than a few more common genes? Is it they lack something on average or all the time?
You’re still missing something. It is “my pets are My kids”. Not that their pets ARE kids, or are equivalent to kids. They are talking about how the pets, in their life, not in general, fulfill that particular type of relationship in their life.
And again, what different people spend their OWN hard-earned money on (whether a dog or a home theatre), is a seperate issue. It could be a 1967 mustang (as someone noted earlier), or a big vet bill.
Unless your view is that everyone should live with the bare minimum of that which is needed to survive, and donate all other money to kids, then it has nothing to do with how much people love their pets.
No one is trying to define the concept of either “pet” or “kid”.
We’re not saying that the statement “my pets are my kids” means that pet is a metophor for kid, or vice versa. It is the whole statement that is the metaphor. They are not saying that “kid=pet interchangeably”.
You seem to keep missing the “my” part of the statement “My animals are My kids”. That statement does NOT define the values of pets and animals. It merely illustrates how one person feels about their own pets in their own life.
Then the difference you’re talking about here isn’t really a “kids vs. pets” difference. Rather, it’s a “biological offspring vs. not biological offspring” difference.
Actually, I don’t think Maureen is “backing away” from this issue: she’s standing by her statement that she thinks the biological tie makes a qualitatatively different sort of bond, in a way that people who aren’t biological parents can’t understand.
However, ISTM that in that case, if it’s appropriate to say “My [adopted] children are my kids”, it’s equally appropriate to say “My pets are my kids”. If “kidhood” is determined by the genetic tie of having physically created them rather than about what species they are, then only biological children “count”.
I think the issue is more along the lines of “anybody who would spend himself into impoverishment over a pet/1967 Mustang/home theater system when there are better uses for the money is a fool.” Better uses for the money might include things like making some kid’s life better, or donating it to an animal shelter, or putting it in the bank to provide for one’s old age, or many other possibilities.
I like guns. I’d say that a guy who impoverished himself to buy one of the tiny handful of .45 Lugers is an idiot.
I like motorcycles. I’d say a guy who impoverished himself to buy a Harley is an idiot.
And so on.
I must admit, as a dog owner, i tend to anthropomorphize my dog. Granted, Buddy is not human, but interacts with us in so many human-like ways. That said, he is always there for me, listens patiently, and never gets mad. He contents himslef with a bowl of dogfood, walks in the park, and chasing squirrels. In short, he’s a good friend and companion. the really interesting thing-he is VERY protective of me-when we go to the beach, he will take my wrist in his mouth, and tow mw out of the water 9if I go in over my head). tell me THAT isn’t human!
Sure. Just by googling, I get this site (very pro-adoption) which states:
Again, I am not saying adoptive parents love their children less. And in some cases, natural parents are people who should never have children, ever. But I don’t understand the refusal to acknowledge that a biological bond exists between a parent and a child. Why is it an attack?
I don’t think that’s the case at all. That’s where the communication breaks down. It doesn’t make them “count” less. It just means the bond is something that is developed, that you put a conscious effort into, instead of naturally there from the word go.
Maureen, you already know I like and respect you, but I think you have wandered into dangerous territory.
My kids are my Biological kids. One of my friends at work has two adopted kids. Two cute little girls slightly older than my daughter. On 9/11 we both had the same reaction. Leave work and go get our kids and be with our family. Thankfully the CEO had the same reaction and sent everyone home overriding our GM at the time.
In all honesty, she is more attentive to her non-bio kids than I am to my Bio kids. Of course, I will claim this is the difference between a mother and a father.
I have seen her race out of here when her daughter had to be sent home from school after getting hurt on the playground. My wife generally does the rescue work in the family.
I do not see the lesser tie even though it is not a biological tie.
Maybe you can try to explain it to us.
You made the throwaway comment “I’m sorry you’re lonely” waay back in post #34.
Sailboat called you on it. “This comes across as a dismissive personal attack”
Your response to that was “There is no win or lose here–it’s a difference of opinion.”
This is where I called bullshit. The original comment was dismissive and rude. You don’t get to insult someone and then go “oh hey, just a difference of opinion”.