Maureen: Of course I missed your last post before mine.
Weird. I’ve seen people get upset for all kinds of reasons, but who knew so many people harboured so much bitterness for folks who love animals? 
shrug I love my kitty and call him my baby. Do I think I gave birth to him? Uh, that’s a negative. I also don’t think my friend Kayt is actually a famous musician when I tell her she’s a rock star. I also don’t labour under the impression that I am an infant feline when my husband calls me “Kitten”. Intelligent adults are usually able to make the distinction between someone saying “My pets are my kids” and a crazy person who would actually believe such a thing. Duh.
As far as finanically, I would spend every available cent if my kitty needed it. It’s my money. Anyone who doesn’t like it? Can suck it.
Define “every available cent.” When you start defaulting on bills and/or declare bankruptcy because of what you spent on kitty, everybody else eats the costs in terms of things like higher interest rates.
:rolleyes:
Yes, saying the bond is not the same is TOTALLY bitterness against people who love animals. I love my cat and our new puppy. Does that mean I hate myself? Um, no. It does mean I’m able to distinguish between them and children. And for (at least me) the last time: nobody is saying you don’t or shouldn’t love your pets! Just that there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed. As I stated in another thread, taking them to get their pics taken with Santa Claus crosses that line. As does insisting that everyone else recognize and treat your pet the same way we would any child.
The same, of course, holds true for people who default on their debts because they overspent on 1967 Mustangs, etc.
Dr. Leon doesn’t provide any support for that statement either. Is this lack an absolute? Or could the extreme adoptive parent at one end have this magical bond whereas a biological parent at the other end does not? Just askin’.
I think What Exit? may have hit on an important point. Is this bond strictly a maternal one? What about the biological fathers vs. adoptive fathers? Is there less of a bond there too?
It sounds like you’re on the edge of making a scientific statement. Is the science there?
Does that make you flattasperated or exattered?
Quantifying love and how much is acceptible is about the stupidest, most fascist activity I can think of.
And how very “great chain of being” these threads are. Very concerned with establishing the proper rankings in God’s scheme. News break: God doesn’t exist. People are animals.
It isn’t “magical.” It’s biological. Is it just maternal? I don’t know. This site states:
Um, did I mention you specifically? I purposely made a broad statement because I didn’t want each and every person to get their panties in a bunch, but apparently that didn’t work.
I couldn’t agree with you more, in this statement:
“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,” Maureen would seem to imply that fathers can’t have the same bond with their children as mothers at all, becuase they did not give birth to them. Do biological fathers have the same connection to their children as mothers do?
(And I’d like to acknowledge that Maureen did not back away, but at the time I posted that, it appeared that she was trying to. She and I posted at the same time, and in her post she explained herself better. My apologies.)
Both. 
Here’s a thought: pet owners see their pets as extensions of themselves, so that criticism (not even, more like lack of accolades for) of said pet is perceived as criticism of or lack of approval for the person. It’s a natural inclination–just like matters of taste and other choices that are out for public view. The pet is a reflection on you and as such, since we pamper ourselves to a great extent these days, the inclination is to share that with animals. For some, that’s fine. For others, that crosses a line.
There are many parents of which the same could be said re their kids and their lack of ego boundaries. And no-one here is excusing them or defending them. So why the vehemence re pets? Some are responsible owners, some are not, some are batshit insane and some should never be near any living thing–same holds for parents.
IMO, it’s weird to refer to your own mother as Fido’s grandmother. YMMV. I don’t want to be subjected to someone going on and on about their pet, just like it is mind numbingly boring to listen to someone rave about their kid.
Just as I am not comfortable in a home where kids are allowed to run wild and interrupt adults etc, so am I uncomfortable in a house where animals are allowed that degree license. I doubt anyone here would disagree with that.
As to my comment about I am sorry you are lonely etc–that was not made snidely at all. Take it at face value and don’t read into it a criticism or judgement.
I hold by my opinion that no matter how much you love your pet and try to replicate the bond of human to human, it is not possible because the pet is not human. If a child and a dog are in a burnig building-which do you save? Neither is “yours”. The relationships are not equal or equitable, so why the insistance on calling one by the other’s “title”?
I admit that I approached this topic from a male perspective and that may be an important factor. However, my quick reading of the linked article doesn’t really seem to reveal the bond either. Consider the animal that miscarries and then adopts the orphan of another mother. It seems to me the observed behaviours are just as likely to occur.
I don’t really know. I’m trying to look for a cite that speaks to paternal biological bonding as well, but so far I’m coming up empty.
(And I’d like to acknowledge that Maureen did not back away, but at the time I posted that, it appeared that she was trying to. She and I posted at the same time, and in her post she explained herself better. My apologies.)
[/QUOTE]
Not a problem. Really, I’m not trying to insult pet people. I thought I was just pointing out a simple statement of acknowledged scientific fact.
I think you find this tendency more with people who do not have children of their own. I had a co-worker, no children, who spent thousands of dollars on her dog’s health.
OTOH, when our dear German shepherd got cancer and we were told it would cost thousands of dollars for treatment and even then, there was no guarantee it would help, we made the very painful (but really obvious) decision to have him put to sleep. We have two children and I couldn’t justify the cost. I will never put a pet above my children, no matter how much the animal is loved and cherished.
Unless one is taking money away from their child’s health and well-being to care for a pet, I don’t care how they spend their money. If they want to refer to it as their “baby” so what. But if their child is suffering at the expense of the pet, I would be very put out.
Including any number of natural parents. You should, I think, spend more time around foster children. It will give you all new insight into the “love” and “caring” parents have for their biological children.
And you should spend some time going back over my posts where I specifically said that I am in no way saying adoptive parents love their children less than natural parents.
My cats are my girls. I wonder if it’s ok with the OP that I call them that.
Well, there’s the “don’t like” that is the person who doesn’t enjoy anything about animals of any kind and can’t relate on a compassionate level. Someone who doesn’t see animals in general in a good light.
And then there’s the “don’t like” that is the animal torturer, beater, killer type. The type of person that has sociopathic tendencies.
I look at both types with a suspicious eye. Obviously one is scarier than the other.
You really should read my post again and, this time, bring along your comprehension skills.