Pets are not the same as babies

[marymary1975]

This seems odd to me, too. Asking for a boat and money to keep it in a slip would just be a property division issue. Why would a dog be different?

A dig is different because a boat holds a resale value. Money kept also has a monetary value. If o go and try to sell a boat privately in the market I can get money out of it. If I try to go and sell a regular dog for $10k no one is going to buy it from me. For a court it would be a complete waste of time. And no you cannot get custody of a dog because dogs are not humans. Picture the situation as someone asking for custody of a vacuum cleaner or a blender. In the eyes of a court it would be the same thing.

 

[EasterJoy]

A dig is different because a boat holds a resale value. Money kept also has a monetary value. If o go and try to sell a boat privately in the market I can get money out of it. If I try to go and sell a regular dog for $10k no one is going to buy it from me. For a court it would be a complete waste of time. And no you cannot get custody of a dog because dogs are not humans. Picture the situation as someone asking for custody of a vacuum cleaner or a blender. In the eyes of a court it would be the same thing.

I would guess that it is less a matter of the judge thinking that there is property and there are persons and nothing in-between or that something held to have great value by exactly two people in the world does not have “real” value, and more a matter of the judge thinking the poor mutt who has had to share a house with these two morons has suffered enough already!

 

[Ejperchenough]

In some ways, pets are better than kids:

You don’t have to buy them clothes every year as they grow.
You can feed them the same thing everyday.
You don’t have to pay for an education.
You can leave them alone all day.
You don’t have to worry about hanging with the wrong crowd.
You don’t have to buy them a cell phone.
They’ll never ask to borrow the car.
If they misbehave you can lock them in the basement.
If they get pregnant you can sell your “grandchildren.”

Maybe you and I won’t pay for an education but my friend’s dog has been going to school since he was a puppy. The last I heard a couple of months ago was that he goes to 2 schools one for obedience and some other skills and the other for hunting skills.

 

[EasterJoy]

In some ways, pets are better than kids:

You don’t have to buy them clothes every year as they grow.
You can feed them the same thing everyday.
You don’t have to pay for an education.
You can leave them alone all day.
You don’t have to worry about hanging with the wrong crowd.
You don’t have to buy them a cell phone.
They’ll never ask to borrow the car.
If they misbehave you can lock them in the basement.
If they get pregnant you can sell your “grandchildren.”

There is no need to worry about pet “grandchildren,” since most pets ought to be spayed or neutered. Let’s hope no one ever went into family life with a “what’s in it for me” attitude.

If you look at it like that, after all, what is really great is to attract birds to your back yard.
No vet bills, no sitter ever needed, they find their own food if you forget, they take their own exercise, they don’t wreck your flower beds, and so on.

Of course, if you don’t have anyone in your own house that depends on you to feed them, cloth them, look after them when they are sick, visit them when they are imprisoned, and so on, such that love puts you at the disposal of their needs, then your baptismal vows will drive you out to find some poor soul who will fit the bill, right?

 

[marymary1975]

I would guess that it is less a matter of the judge thinking that there is property and there are persons and nothing in-between or that something held to have great value by exactly two people in the world does not have “real” value, and more a matter of the judge thinking the poor mutt who has had to share a house with these two morons has suffered enough already!

Hahahahaha
I think I agree! The best interest of the dog is to free the dog from a pair of idiots hahahaha

 

[Et_Cetera]

That’s quite a mean way of saying what you are saying.

There’s a difference between being mean and being direct. It seems like 99% of the people on this forum are obsessed with how everyone else lives their lives. It’s like people can’t accept that not everyone wants to live the same way. Not everyone wants to have children, live in a small town, stay at home, etc. Some people like living in the city and getting a dog. Seriously, how much of this forum consists of people obsessing over the different ways that people choose to live? “My cousin does this, my niece just moved here, my son’s friend is going to X college instead of Y college.” It’s constant. I sometimes think this obsession comes from a bit of disappointment or boredom with one’s own life.

So you talk about your kids and your friends talks about her dog? Big deal. She listened to you go on about your kids…so return the favor and listen to your friend talk about her new poodle. I’m really not trying to come off as mean. It’s just this constant need to dissect everyone else’s non-Catholic life that is really tiring and oftentimes arrogant. There are other religions and systems of belief. You’re not going to change the whole world, so live your life how you see fit and respect the differences of others.

 

[Allegra]

Because a dog is not a child. You correctly mentioned that animals are just property and as property they usually hold very very little value. You cannot ask for “custody” of a dog, because they are not human and their value is so low that for a Court it would be ridiculous to include it as valuable property. Houses as well as cars hold a monetary value. If you sell them you will get considerable money for them. Hiw much money would you get fir the private sale of a dog? Not much. So that is where the difference lies. They Are treated on the same way as any non valuable property.

I’ve heard of courts dealing with other objects of sentimental value before. Requiring one party to hand over irreplaceable photographs or family heirlooms that probably have relatively little value and that sort of thing. I would think it would be fairly normal to consider pets in the division of property in a divorce.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I’ve heard of courts dealing with other objects of sentimental value before. Requiring one party to hand over irreplaceable photographs or family heirlooms that probably have relatively little value and that sort of thing. I would think it would be fairly normal to consider pets in the division of property in a divorce.

Maybe it varies between states.

When my brother got divorced, he fought hard for custody/possession (whatever you want to call it) of his dog. It was negotiated just like everything else they had.

 

[rayne89]

That there is a difference between pets and babies…

There are a certain segment of people that do take the pet thing to far. I had an acquaintance lament all over facebook how people with children don’t understand how her dogs were her children and when she had to put her dog to sleep its was just the same as a parent whose child dies.
I thought to myself “Say that to my mother and you may not be left standing.” My sister died at 21 of cancer. The fact is any one that is that over the top will not hear you anyway. A person who actually thinks an animal and a child are equal is unbalanced and really not reachable.

 

[Allegra]

There are a certain segment of people that do take the pet thing to far. I had an acquaintance lament all over facebook how people with children don’t understand how her dogs were her children and when she had to put her dog to sleep its was just the same as a parent whose child dies.
I thought to myself “Say that to my mother and you may not be left standing.” My sister died at 21 of cancer. The fact is any one that is that over the top will not hear you anyway. A person who actually thinks an animal and a child are equal is unbalanced and really not reachable.

People who say those things usually don’t have children, so you can’t really blame them for not knowing what it’s like to lose one. It’s sort of a silly thing to say, but if you read between the lines a little bit, what they’re saying is that this is the saddest thing they’ve ever experienced, so it’s probably fair just to let it go.

 

[Hobbes42]

I know a lot of people who weren’t blessed with children. Instead, many have dogs. I think a lot of it is that dogs are a creature they can take care of and will always depend on them.

Please go easy on dog lovers, there are some very lonely people who would be totally lost without their furry friend.

There will always be people who abuse things, I am certain the majority of pet lovers are aware that animal doesn’t equate to human.

 

[CatholicSheila]

People who say those things usually don’t have children, so you can’t really blame them for not knowing what it’s like to lose one. It’s sort of a silly thing to say, but if you read between the lines a little bit, what they’re saying is that this is the saddest thing they’ve ever experienced, so it’s probably fair just to let it go.

I agree that it may be the worse loss they’ve expected but to compare it to losing a child is ridiculious.

I have a cat and no children. I love my cat and would be devastated if I was to lose her. Yet, it would be in no way comparable to a parent losing a child.

I wonder if such thinking is caused by our abortion heavy culture. Too many people already thinking that the loss of a child is not only not a sad thing, but something to be celebrated. In that context, yes losing a dog in comparable for those who are pro-choice. It is a very sad statement about our society.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

People who say those things usually don’t have children, so you can’t really blame them for not knowing what it’s like to lose one. It’s sort of a silly thing to say, but if you read between the lines a little bit, what they’re saying is that this is the saddest thing they’ve ever experienced, so it’s probably fair just to let it go.

You don’t have to have had a child die to know better than to sound like an idiot. I do feel bad for a society that has seemed to have lost the meaning of children, parenthood, and ultimately marriage.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Interesting, I have met people that clearly view animals as equals to humans. There are plenty of people out there that spend fortunes on their pets as well. I don’t think misplaced value on animals is as rare as some people are suggesting.

I couldn’t agree more about this being more widespread than suggested. In fact, there was a report a few months ago that said the number one expense in homes in America today (including cars, mortgage, education, etc.) is pets. When we had dogs, we loved them dearly. However, we knew there was a huge difference between the animals and our kids. I’ve met lots of people who can’t or have trouble making that distinction. If you need some firsthand experience with this, look up the nearest boutique pet supply shop and spend an afternoon in there browsing.

As far as the notion that these people who equate pets with people are generally pro-life regarding their pets but decidedly un-pro-life when regarding people, at least among the people I know I can’t think of a single one who doesn’t fit this stereotype. When my mother-in-law was in the hospital a year or so ago for a routine procedure, my wife’s one friend misunderstood us when we told her she hadn’t regained consciousness (she’d just come out of surgery). She was quite eager to tell my wife to have them pull the plug. Later that same year she spent several tens of thousands of dollars keeping her cancer-riddled, 14-year-old, deaf and blind dog alive.

 

[marymary1975]

Maybe it varies between states.

When my brother got divorced, he fought hard for custody/possession (whatever you want to call it) of his dog. It was negotiated just like everything else they had.

You bring a good point too. It can and does vary between states. For example on the same line there are states in which you can mention your pets in a will and you can name PETA as beneficiaries in Trust and leave money and properties to pets. In MA is strictly forbidden so people get to see these news of dogs and cats inheriting all this money and can’t understand why they cannot leave everything to their pets.

But I also note you mention the dog was “negotiated.” I’m the real world most of a divorce is negotiated between the attorneys. The attorneys between themselves negotiate the vast majority of the stuff and prepare between themselves an agreement that gets approved by the judge. Only the big stuff -children, house usually - is what gets presented to the Court to decide. So yes I can totally see including the dog in the usual negotiation between the attorneys but filing a Motion and going in front of the Judge and going to probation to prepare a visitation schedule for a dog and having the judge to rule over a visitation schedule for a dog and a monetary amount being paid monthly towards the dog… I don’t think that happen. The judge probably would have cursed at the attorney for idiot and sanction everybody for making him or her lose time.

 

[Ejperchenough]

There’s a difference between being mean and being direct. It seems like 99% of the people on this forum are obsessed with how everyone else lives their lives. It’s like people can’t accept that not everyone wants to live the same way. Not everyone wants to have children, live in a small town, stay at home, etc. Some people like living in the city and getting a dog. Seriously, how much of this forum consists of people obsessing over the different ways that people choose to live? “My cousin does this, my niece just moved here, my son’s friend is going to X college instead of Y college.” It’s constant. I sometimes think this obsession comes from a bit of disappointment or boredom with one’s own life.

So you talk about your kids and your friends talks about her dog? Big deal. She listened to you go on about your kids…so return the favor and listen to your friend talk about her new poodle. I’m really not trying to come off as mean. It’s just this constant need to dissect everyone else’s non-Catholic life that is really tiring and oftentimes arrogant. There are other religions and systems of belief. You’re not going to change the whole world, so live your life how you see fit and respect the differences of others.

I’m not obsessed about my colleagues life. I don’t really care what anyone does or doesn’t. It’s not my business.

No my dear, I have listened to her go on about her dog, yes my mistake, perhaps too charitable, and then she remembers that there are other things besides her dog and she asks me about my child. And whatever I answer she goes, " ah don’t worry he’ll get over it, I had the same problem with ‘roger’.

So my question was should I say something or no? And I’ve gotten my answer. Thank you.

 

[Ejperchenough]

There are a certain segment of people that do take the pet thing to far. I had an acquaintance lament all over facebook how people with children don’t understand how her dogs were her children and when she had to put her dog to sleep its was just the same as a parent whose child dies.
I thought to myself “Say that to my mother and you may not be left standing.” My sister died at 21 of cancer. The fact is any one that is that over the top will not hear you anyway. A person who actually thinks an animal and a child are equal is unbalanced and really not reachable.

Yes exactly.

 

[Friedlander79]

My cats are my babies .

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My cats are my babies .

How is that possible?

 

[Ejperchenough]

My cats are my babies .

We are talking about 2 kinds of people:

Those that call their pets babies, which is their own endearing term and nobody’s business, and

Those that think their pets are like human babies and hence the two, that is human babies and animals, are the same.