Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Choosing Pets Over Children?

Do Americans love pets too much?
This bitter diatribe begins with the "extreme" story about parents who shockingly fail to have their dog killed after he accidentally strangled their child. Apparently, refusing to exact an eye for an eye for an accident is a symptom of how America has lost its priorities.

The bizarre rant continues by citing statistics of the increasing childfree, who are clearly foregoing parenthood in favor of having dogs. I know what's why I chose not to have children. After all, no one has ever had both. (except the author) or neither.

Sanity returns a bit in the Letters to The Editor, where readers write:
Love and compassion can be freely and generously offered to both animals and humans
and tell tales of infertility soothed by the love of a pet. Hopefully, Mr. Bauer is at this moment pledging not to write his articles at 3AM the night before they are due, when awakened by a barking dog. I can think of no other explanation for his rambling logic.

Technorati Tag:


Sun Runner said...

the perception that animals are nicer and more enjoyable

In my experience, they usually are. I'll take the company of my cats or dog over 99.99% of the people I encounter on a daily basis.

Anonymous said...

I agree! I'm a dog lover who also happens to not have children. I don't think of my pets as a replacement for a child. They're pets, and I adore them, but it's not that big of a mystery to me that it's way different than having kids. You don't have to be a parent to know that! And it does piss me off that because I don't have kids I'm viewed (by some) as a crazy pet lady or something. Excuse me for not neglecting my pet!

The only reason I wish pets could actually be considered baby-replacements is so you could bring your dog into restaurants or stores with you. I know it's not realistic, but since it's getting harder to leave them in the car with the world getting hotter, it would be nice to have another option besides leaving them home alone.