(PETS vs. KIDS)can pets really replace kids in a relationship??????

[Jenn! 918]

I almost got my cat a $3,000-dollar surgery last week. Luckily he didn't need it. But it seems obvious to me that it was worth doing. I wasn't going to spend it on starving children. My cats are part of my family and I treat them as such. If I had a child and the cat and child both needed surgery, I'd spend the money on the child. But I'd probably borrow money to get the cat surgery too.

I don't see why anyone has a problem with people who see their pets as more valuable than you may. Live and let live.

Honestly, don't you have a problem with people who see their pets as less "valuable" than you do?

And it's because it really gets my goat that there are people out there who see their pet's existence as more important than *any* human's. I just think it's a sad testament. Just being honest here. I could tell you that I don't give a ####### that people value animal life more than human life, but that would be false.

[Sister Fracas 5]

Before spending a huge amount of money on treatment for a pet, I'd seriously have to consider whether or not the pet's life was going to be significantly better, or whether I was doing it for MY sake. I had a cat who had to go through 3 years of treatment for chronic renal failure. It was expensive. However, she thrived and thrived and had a great 3 years. She was able to handle the treatments and didn't get stressed by doctor's visits, etc. That was her personality. If the treatment had made her stressed, unhappy, or anything else negative, I wouldn't have done it because I wouldn't have been adding to the quality of her life at all, but rather taking away from it. One of my cats right now, I believe would be that kind of cat. It's an individual thing and thankfully our pets can live only until they are suffering and we can do the humane thing by NOT allowing them to suffer anymore. But there are people who just decide, for example, that because their child is allergic, they must put the animal down. That I find repulsive.

[Alex+R 0]

I almost got my cat a $3,000-dollar surgery last week. Luckily he didn't need it. But it seems obvious to me that it was worth doing. I wasn't going to spend it on starving children. My cats are part of my family and I treat them as such. If I had a child and the cat and child both needed surgery, I'd spend the money on the child. But I'd probably borrow money to get the cat surgery too.

I don't see why anyone has a problem with people who see their pets as more valuable than you may. Live and let live.

Honestly, don't you have a problem with people who see their pets as less "valuable" than you do?

And it's because it really gets my goat that there are people out there who see their pet's existence as more important than *any* human's. I just think it's a sad testament. Just being honest here. I could tell you that I don't give a ####### that people value animal life more than human life, but that would be false.

I don't think I understand your logic.

Valuing your pet, who you know inside and out, over some people you don't know (i.e. paying for your pet's surgery over donating half your estate to African charities) is not putting animal life over human life in general. I just don't see how you can rank them. They're different. They're separate. And what you're asking of me is against human nature. What I think you are saying is that it irritates you when people put animal life over human preference, not human life. Taking a pill is not that big a deal (if it were then I would also rehome the pet). A man that doesn't like pets has a preference, not a life-threatening condition. If living with a cat would kill my loved one, I would rehome my pet.

I'm against treating pets like humans (dressing them up, buying them bullsh!t they don't need, etc.) but they're part of my family.

That's why I have a problem with people who just give them away when someone comes into their life (like a man) who doesn't want pets. I heard about a woman who got a new man and released her cats into Central Park in January. #######?

[Sister Fracas 5]

I almost got my cat a $3,000-dollar surgery last week. Luckily he didn't need it. But it seems obvious to me that it was worth doing. I wasn't going to spend it on starving children. My cats are part of my family and I treat them as such. If I had a child and the cat and child both needed surgery, I'd spend the money on the child. But I'd probably borrow money to get the cat surgery too.

I don't see why anyone has a problem with people who see their pets as more valuable than you may. Live and let live.

Honestly, don't you have a problem with people who see their pets as less "valuable" than you do?

And it's because it really gets my goat that there are people out there who see their pet's existence as more important than *any* human's. I just think it's a sad testament. Just being honest here. I could tell you that I don't give a ####### that people value animal life more than human life, but that would be false.

Seriously, do you really know anyone who would put their pet before their spouse, parent, child? I don't.

[Alex+R 0]

Before spending a huge amount of money on treatment for a pet, I'd seriously have to consider whether or not the pet's life was going to be significantly better, or whether I was doing it for MY sake. I had a cat who had to go through 3 years of treatment for chronic renal failure. It was expensive. However, she thrived and thrived and had a great 3 years. She was able to handle the treatments and didn't get stressed by doctor's visits, etc. That was her personality. If the treatment had made her stressed, unhappy, or anything else negative, I wouldn't have done it because I wouldn't have been adding to the quality of her life at all, but rather taking away from it. One of my cats right now, I believe would be that kind of cat. It's an individual thing and thankfully our pets can live only until they are suffering and we can do the humane thing by NOT allowing them to suffer anymore. But there are people who just decide, for example, that because their child is allergic, they must put the animal down. That I find repulsive.

to everything. Some people put pets down because they want to move to an apartment that doesn't allow them. Sorry, you adopted the pet--deal with it.

And I agree about not using surgery to prolong a dying animal's life if they wouldn't be happy in that time. In our case, the cat is 15 months old and ate a piece of string and might have needed to have that extracted so it didn't kill him. He would have been fine afterward. (Luckily he finally barfed it all up.)

Seriously, do you really know anyone who would put their pet before their spouse, parent, child? I don't.

Agreed. I don't know what is being referred to.

Edited April 14, 2008 by Alex+R

[Jenn! 918]

I'm not talking about human "preference", i.e. whims, and for the record, I would absolutely not euthanise an animal over allergies.

In the hypothetical situation that a person must choose between saving the life of his pet and the life of a stranger, I know there are many people who would choose their pet.

Let's just agree to disagree. I don't think we can come to any agreement on this. And it upsets me.

I almost got my cat a $3,000-dollar surgery last week. Luckily he didn't need it. But it seems obvious to me that it was worth doing. I wasn't going to spend it on starving children. My cats are part of my family and I treat them as such. If I had a child and the cat and child both needed surgery, I'd spend the money on the child. But I'd probably borrow money to get the cat surgery too.

I don't see why anyone has a problem with people who see their pets as more valuable than you may. Live and let live.

Honestly, don't you have a problem with people who see their pets as less "valuable" than you do?

And it's because it really gets my goat that there are people out there who see their pet's existence as more important than *any* human's. I just think it's a sad testament. Just being honest here. I could tell you that I don't give a ####### that people value animal life more than human life, but that would be false.

Seriously, do you really know anyone who would put their pet before their spouse, parent, child? I don't.

That's not what I said.

[Alex+R 0]

You really think there are people out there who would save a dog over a specific human, even a stranger?

Animal rights philosophers talk about that scenario all the time. Those who say you should see a dog and a human as equals have had to explain why it is that people in that scenario would always choose the human. It comes off as kind of BS though, because in truth, saving the human is our instinct.

Do you have an example you are thinking about especially?

I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I guess I just don't get what you're saying, and really want to. This is a subject that interests me.

[Sister Fracas 5]

to everything. Some people put pets down because they want to move to an apartment that doesn't allow them. Sorry, you adopted the pet--deal with it.

And I agree about not using surgery to prolong a dying animal's life if they wouldn't be happy in that time. In our case, the cat is 15 months old and ate a piece of string and might have needed to have that extracted so it didn't kill him. He would have been fine afterward. (Luckily he finally barfed it all up.)

Good kitty! LOL whew!

As for taking a pill, hubster does it. He has pretty mild allergies and it was something we discussed before we got the kitties. He'd done it in the past and we agreed that as long as the kitties didn't sleep in the bedroom, we could get them. He takes about 2 -3 antihistamines A WEEK, and he loves them every bit as much as I do. Had he had worse allergies, we never would have got them. I would have volunteered at a cat shelter instead, to get my cat fix, which I'm going to start doing again anyway...lol.

[Jenn! 918]

You really think there are people out there who would save a dog over a specific human, even a stranger?

Animal rights philosophers talk about that scenario all the time. Those who say you should see a dog and a human as equals have had to explain why it is that people in that scenario would always choose the human. It comes off as kind of BS though, because in truth, saving the human is our instinct.

Do you have an example you are thinking about especially?

No, I don't. Maybe sometimes I take some people's exaggerated statements about how they feel about animals vs. humans to heart. Maybe they say one thing, but when it comes down to it, they would do another.

[Sister Fracas 5]

You really think there are people out there who would save a dog over a specific human, even a stranger?

Animal rights philosophers talk about that scenario all the time. Those who say you should see a dog and a human as equals have had to explain why it is that people in that scenario would always choose the human. It comes off as kind of BS though, because in truth, saving the human is our instinct.

Do you have an example you are thinking about especially?

No, I don't. Maybe sometimes I take some people's exaggerated statements about how they feel about animals vs. humans to heart. Maybe they say one thing, but when it comes down to it, they would do another.

sure, it's easy to joke about how animals are more behaved, don't have to send to college, would rather have pet than teen etc.

[Alex+R 0]

I hope they're exaggerating, Jenn, because I'm with you on that one. Choosing an animal over our own species would be, in a word, bizarre.

[Ban Hammer 13,641]

i'm in agreement with alex over this.

[Caladan 19]

I almost got my cat a $3,000-dollar surgery last week. Luckily he didn't need it. But it seems obvious to me that it was worth doing. I wasn't going to spend it on starving children. My cats are part of my family and I treat them as such. If I had a child and the cat and child both needed surgery, I'd spend the money on the child. But I'd probably borrow money to get the cat surgery too.

I don't see why anyone has a problem with people who see their pets as more valuable than you may. Live and let live.

Dude, I'm not looking to ban pet surgeries, just to nurse a private pet (har har) peeve. If you have $3,000 to spend on a cat surgery, hey, it's your money.

The question is where one draws the line for moral obligations. Take a surgery. I don't think there's a moral obligation when adopting a pet, to pay for $3,000 surgeries. I do think one incurs, however, when adopting a child (or having one), a moral obligation to give the child medical care should she need it. We can prosecute parents for failing to do that, and we as a society also provide health care for the indigent in the case where the parents aren't able to provide it.

I think it is immoral to euthanize a cat because the new fantastic apartment doesn't allow them, but I don't have a problem with re-homing the cat with a good friend. This doesn't work with children.

A glib way to put this is that I don't think we need universal health care for cats. A more serious way is that I find it hard to take people seriously who say 'our pets are like children to us.' My immediate intuitive response is 'you can't really mean that.'

[Sister Fracas 5]

A more serious way is that I find it hard to take people seriously who say 'our pets are like children to us.' My immediate intuitive response is 'you can't really mean that.'

Hubster and I may be slightly guilty of this, but we DO mean it in a joking way, but also, not entirely. Let me explain.... When people ask if/when we are having kids, my standard line is to say "we have two cats, that's enough". And that IS precisely what I mean. They are all the responsibility we want. We don't want to be parents of children. We want to be able to do the things we want to, when we want to, and we just never had urges to bring other human beings into this world. So cats are enough. No, they are REALLY like children, but because they are all we've got, ok....they are our babies. No, they obiously don't get treated the way a human baby would and we don't dress them up, carry pictures around in our wallets, or trot them around in strollers the way people do with those little dogs. WHAT the hell is up with that anyway??? Pooch in a stroller?????? Anywhooo...I dunno if that makes sense.

For the record, I don't understand people who get a pet first before making a commitment to have a child. HUH??? We know someone who is doing that. That's CRAZY!

[DeadPoolX 9]

I've had two dogs in my life. Both of them I considered members of my family and loved them as my "brothers." In fact, I referred to them as my brothers too. I also have a human brother and he too called our dogs his brothers. We played with them, spent lots of time with them, and if they were sick or needed some sort of operation (which happened as they got much older), the money was spent. Vet bills even when the dogs were young and healthy were quite expensive, but it was considered worth it -- these two dogs were members of our family. When they died, it was an extremely sad event for us. Even though it was expected, it was still hard to deal with at the time.

Despite what I wrote above -- and how much I loved those two dogs -- I would not have chosen their lives above the lives of the human members of my family. Maybe that seems contradictatory in some way, to state that the dogs were considerd "members of the my family" and yet, somehow not quite valued the same as the humans. But it's true. If at all possible, I would've done whatever I could for them, but if there was a choice between my dogs and my (human) brother or my parents or wife today, the dogs would lose without question.

Perhaps that's a complicated family situation, but that's how I see it: animals can be close members of your family, but not hold the same exact status as the humans.