That’s the thing with breeders-they think it’s “sad” when the rest of us aren’t like them and can’t fathom that we’re perfectly happy that way. It’s not a waste of time, love and money if you are amply rewarded in return.
No. People who do not want children should not have children, period. And having children is not some kind of “service.”
I’m not a pet person in the slightest (okay, I am rather fond of our guinea pigs) but this attitude really bugs me.
Just don’t call your pets “furkids” and we’re all good.
It’s not “wasting.” I’m one of these who has pets but not kids–I don’t want kids. I don’t care what anyone thinks–I would be a terrible parent. Not that I’d be mean to the kid or not give them what they need, but I would hate and resent every minute of that lifestyle. I like having cats because they’re affectionate and loving but they’re not human. They don’t talk. They have needs and desires but they’re for the most part simple and easy to fulfill. They don’t whine, they don’t bring home the Martian Death Flu from preschool (and even if they did, they couldn’t pass it on to me), they don’t need college funds, and if you want to go out for the evening or even overnight, you can leave them home and they’re fine.
I really don’t see why giving affection to animals is “wasting” it. In my case, my cats are not siphoning off the love and affection I would otherwise shower upon some hypothetical brood of kids.
My point is that there are enough people out there- be they children, sick, elderly or special needs people, who need love, companionship and affection, and it always kind of annoys me when people dote on their animals (who don’t even really understand, I’m convinced) instead of doing something that actually makes the world a better place.
I mean, if they have kids, volunteer, and also dote on a dog, then fine, more power to them.
But if they’re single yuppies who dote on a dog AS IF IT WAS THEIR CHILD, and don’t do anything to help other people, then I tend to think they should rethink their priorities.
So no one who loves a pet ever does anything to help other people at all? You’ve got some weird perspectives.
You do know that animals themselves help people, right? They are not just a blight on the earth.
How do you think vets keep track of which animals belongs to whom?
Our boy cat just hawked up something that greatly resembles the OP (the post, not the poster.)( I have zero issues with grude. I have several issues with this thread.)
I can get behind this. At least, it passes muster for a MPSIMS posting.
Using “parent” to describe the human side of this typical relationship is obnoxious and cloying. “Owner” doesn’t get it, either - too utilitarian and mercenary. It is a kind of partnership. It’s not symmetrical but there are contributions on both sides. I am certain my pets feel affection for me, and I feel it for them, and we cooperate in various ways. We have friendships across species. I am sure we both feel a kind of mutual understanding (though it is fun to speculate how our understandings mismatch one another).
I also think humans, as a collective species, has some kind of ethical obligation toward species that we have intentionally adapted to life around us. My fellow humans may take this or leave it.
I’m a dog owner…and his servant (I feed, wash, walk, and take care of him). I love it.
**
Grude** grief?
I have no problem with people who refer to their pets as family members, what I do take issue with are those horrible people who dress up their little pets (usually lap dogs) in outfits and barrettes. I see that shit and just want to scoop up the poor little pooch and rescue them from their horrid little existence of being a dress up doll for their sick owners.
Why do we spend exorbitant amounts of money trying to save preemie babies, or babies born with severe handicaps? There are lots of babies and kids who are in the foster system just waiting for a family to love them. And, after all, it just takes a year to have another baby yourself, in most cases.
Neither pets nor children are identical units, easily replaced by another of the same type. If a person can go out and get another pet and consider that the new pet is just like the old pet…that person should not have pets. If a person can view one child as just the same as another one, that person should not have children.
Now, I’m against prolonging the life of a pet who is suffering. The hardest decision to make about a pet is whether and when to put it down. You don’t want to deprive the pet of enjoyable life (and you don’t want to deprive yourself of the pet’s company), but you don’t want the pet to suffer without any hope of it getting better, either.
For some longhaired dogs, the barrettes are actually functional. The alternative is to either let the hair fall into the dog’s eyes, and possibly irritate them, or to clip the hair quite short, and keep it clipped short. Personally, I prefer to keep the hair clipped quite short, but drawing the hair up into one or two topknots works quite well. Usually, the hair is held with rubber bands, and then bows or barrettes cover up the rubber bands.
By writing down the name of the owner?
Wow. There seems to be a lot of animolosity in this thread.
runs away before bad pun hits…
I’ve seen prescriptions for PetName OwnerLastName on them.
Yes my vet does that - and the cats are referred to that way at the vet’s too - I’ll be waiting to pay a bill after a visit and the girl at front will yell back “Have you got the bill made out yet for Baby PickleSniffer?” It’s kinda funny - startled me the first time I heard it and realized my cats had a last name. 
I wish people would quit “birthing” children and just go back to bearing them.
I keep fish. I can’t even tell my neon tetras apart, does this mean I shouldn’t have pets? 
But yeah- unless you’re keeping (most) fish/stick insects/identical lab mice, they’re not all the same, and anyone who’s looked after an animal knows it. Even some fish have distinct personalities, never mind dogs. Humans aren’t interchangeable for a lot of animals either- though one of our dogs was a slut who was anyone’s for a biscuit, our other one hated it when we went away, regardless of how nice the dog sitter was.
Incidently I do refer to myself as mother of my fish, but only because it amuses me, and I don’t generally say it in public. I occasionally claim to be mother of my pot plants too- is that even worse?
This post cracks me up. I agree with you that caring for a pet and caring for a child are completely different things. I don’t think it is possible to equate them, except on the most superficial levels. I also agree with you that calling yourself “pet mommy” or “pet daddy” or “furkids” or “furbaby” are ridiculously cutesy and it sounds pathetic (but what you do in the privacy of your own home is your business). I also think computer usernames like “KayleighsDad” or “MommaofTwo” are ridiculously cutesy and kinda pathetic too - but you know what they say about opinions 
But your post is comedy gold! The first half goes on about how caring for a pet and caring for a child are vastly different things. The second half then rants about all these couples who dote on their animals and who should dote on children instead. Umm, are they similar things, are are they vastly different things? Because if they are vastly different, then doing one has nothing to do with doing the other. And if they’re very similar, then what on earth did you mean in the first half of your post? Hilarious. ‘Having pets is NOTHING like having children. But if you love your pets, that same time, money and love that you spend on your pets should be redirected for use on children, not pets, because that PetTime, PetMoney & PetLove are adequate as ChildTime, ChildMoney & ChildLove. Even though they are NOTHING alike’