Go to I WRITE, THEREFORE I AM
- Add a comment
- Go to Should love for an animal be considered "less than" love for a human child?
very good points...
I believe one can become attached to an animal just as much as a human. For some, especially some older folks who don't have family left and whatnot, an animal, whether it be a dog, cat, bird... is all they have. I can imagine the devastation they would feel if something were to happen to that special pet.
posted by
kushie
on March 9, 2006 at 9:36 AM
| link to this | reply
hiii
I can realte very well to your experience..we had a tom cat & we i mean my brother sister & me..all of us treated him like our sibling.....anyone can be your child..your pets or your plants...when the creator loves everybeing..why cant we do the same with same intensity...and pets are sometimes better than children..because they wont insult you...or send you to old age homes...i respect animals more than some of the people.
posted by
abhilasha
on March 9, 2006 at 12:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Quirky
I have both kids and pets. Somedays I love my pets more, they frustrate me less than the non-furry animals that roam my house, generally arguing over anything and everything. I'm also the person who missed school for a few days when my dog died, and had a puppy that went EVERYWHERE with me prior to children. You're so right, No one can judge your experience, and dismiss it since it's different than their own. You are as much of a mom as I, you experience as much unconditional love as any other parent would. There are days, especially lately that furry children may have been a better route for me too, but eBay won't let you sell them on the bad days. (Probably a good thing, I'd miss the non-furry animals I call kids)
Thanks for the post.
posted by
LifeByLisa
on March 7, 2006 at 10:31 AM
| link to this | reply
Dennison
Your arguments are cogent and well thought out. However, I have watched dogs remain loyal until they died of starvation and disease. The ones you speak of were never loved to begin with. It is this way with children.
Survival is the name of the game in nature. That is true. But, I have also witnessed with my own eyes that treating an animal with kindness- even the one who wants to attack- will immediately change the situation.
I'd say that to project defensiveness onto animals makes it just as real as projecting love.
Cheers, my friend. Always a pleasure with you.
posted by
avant-garde
on March 7, 2006 at 6:18 AM
| link to this | reply
And Lastly, Avant...
If reading my post didn't clarify this issue for you then let me end by saying that you're right. Elephants will devestate their environment when faced with a shrinking food source. Yet, that very fact illustrates my point perfectly! Animals make no conscious decision to preserve what they have left. Animals have no provable ability to say, "Hey, if we keep breeding and eating like this then we'll eventually run out of food!" They have no ability to change their breeding habits to preserve their environment. They just go on eating in the name of self preservation. Rats will even kill one another when the food supply dwindles. Heck, humanity barely has the ability to rationally decide what is best for its environment and what is not. We are destroying this planet and we know that we're destroying this planet, yet we go on destroying this planet. (And yes, you and I contribute to that destruction just by mere dint of our reading and writing blogs. Are blogs necessary for our survival? No. Have we destroyed a bit of the environment through the electricity we've needed to debate this non life-sustaining issue? Yes.)
You see, you attribute noble ideals to animals which really do not apply. Animals do not know love. Animals only know survival. They will kill their own offspring if doing so ensured their own self preservation.
You want desperately to attribute the noble of idea of love to your dog because you "love" your dog. But your dog will leave you at its very first opportunity if you ever stopped feeding it, stroking it, keeping its puny mind occupied. Dogs don't love their masters. Dogs simply react to the fact that their masters provide all they need to thrive.
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on March 7, 2006 at 4:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Avant...
Read my recent Blogit post which inspired this post.
That will answer your questions.
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on March 7, 2006 at 3:43 AM
| link to this | reply
Dennison
You're dead wrong about the elephants, my friend. The destruction they have wrought on forests is a DIRECT result of our impinging their territory, and culling practices of the government.
As far as pestilence goes, is it not a very natural cycle for one species to become populous, then die out? Would this not prove the theory of evolution?
My comments were not meant to be abrasive. Do you have children? Are you in the trenches day in and day out? Have you rescued stray animals? Have you seen with your own eyes the depth of gratitude they never forget?
posted by
avant-garde
on March 7, 2006 at 3:40 AM
| link to this | reply
Avant...
Listen, I'm really sorry to burst your bubble here, but you couldn't be more wrong about animals.
Have you ever seen the way elephants will devastate a forest by over grazing? Have you ever seen the way locusts will eat their way across a countryside? Have you ever seen rats killing one another over food? (They do!) Have you seen the way the human immuno virus (HIV) destroys its host? Speaking of killing, some animals fight to the death just to have sex. Meanwhile, the black widow spider eats her mate after copulation. Are these really the best paradigms for humanity to follow?
So, without straying too far afield (pardon that) I content that animals do, indeed, squander their environment, and we see it all the time. From the tiniest microorganisms to the largest of land mammals, animals do destroy the very environment which keeps them alive in great numbers.
What's more, you claim that your pet teaches you unconditional love? Ha! What a joke. Try not feeding your dog for a few days and see just how "conditional" that canine love for you really is. Your dog would likely run off to the neighbor's house for food in a New York minute and begin "loving" the neighbor based on the condition that they continue feeding him.
Pets don't "love" us unconditionally. Pets merely befriend us for the benefits they reap under our care. You've confused a symbiotic relationship with love.
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on March 7, 2006 at 3:23 AM
| link to this | reply
Quirky,
While our little Ollie, could never replace one of our children, he does help in their absence. We all--our grown sons, our granddaughter as well as the extended family, a fiance, and a girlfriend--view him as a part of our family. To us it as Roger Caras once said..."Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole." We love him and he is a member of our family. Blessings...
posted by
ms_bradrock
on March 7, 2006 at 12:55 AM
| link to this | reply
posted by
_dave_says_ack_
on March 7, 2006 at 12:53 AM
| link to this | reply
Quirkyalone
I think that perhaps the quote from the Bible might put it in perspective, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man would lay down his life for a friend." One never knows what one would really do in an emergency, but I do believe that at any time in my life I would have/still would give my life for my children. If a person would give their life for their pet, wouldn't that be the same degree of love?
posted by
TAPS.
on March 6, 2006 at 8:05 PM
| link to this | reply
Dennison
I just read your comment and I agree that kids are far more demanding, and take more time and commitment.
Having said that, it still doesn't take away the fact that animals teach humans unconditional love. They teach perseverence, forgiveness, and do not waste a single minute complaining- despite their irresponsible owners.
I would daresay that we can learn many things from the animals around us. They do not squalor their environment, for instance. They are endlessly patient with their own young. I think that these simple lessons add to our appreciation for them.
I've never owned cats, but I do adore them.
posted by
avant-garde
on March 6, 2006 at 6:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Quirky
One of them is pit-bull. And, another is half-lab and half pit-bull. I can assure you that an unstable pit-bull has no place around kids. The stable ones bear the burden for the horrors that the unstable ones foster.
posted by
avant-garde
on March 6, 2006 at 5:56 PM
| link to this | reply
Quirky
I have four dogs and three kids. They are ALL my children, and I love them all the same.
posted by
avant-garde
on March 6, 2006 at 5:53 PM
| link to this | reply
I can't say "less than".
Of course not, I run the Pet Museum. But I will say "different than".
People who have human babies need human-baby love. (Though, alas, as I watch my friends' kids grow older, I see those friends crumple with disappointment under the love and fulfillment they don't get in return. Not always. But unsettlingly often.) People with pet babies need pet-baby love. There IS a difference in love needs.
Now before anybody goes taking my head off, let me point out that as the oldest in a large family, I have my fair share of nieceage and nephewage. Do I adore them? Most of them. (A couple are not so adorable.) Would I throw myself in front of a sniper's bullet for them? Of course I would. (Thing is -- I think I'd do that -- without thinking -- for Zozo, too.) Even the suboptimal ones.
Am I happy and fulfilled serving their every little sippy cup need? No; I feel like I'm strangling; but I do it, because I love them and they need to know grownups will be there and take care of them and be good role models. Great parent material, eh?
posted by
curator
on March 6, 2006 at 3:43 PM
| link to this | reply
everyone is different...
But... I felt the exact same way as you until my nieces were born. Our dogs and my cat (who was with me for 14 years at that point), got locked into a room when the baby was crawling around. My niece's safety came first. I loved my cat very much and still haven't gotten another (he's been gone over a year)... but the love of your own flesh and blood child is different... for most.
It doesn't mean that I'd leave the animals behind in a hurricane... I don't think I'd ever have the heart to do that. But when deciding which to save first in a fire, the child would be first. If I couldn't carry them all at once, I'd go back into the fire for the animals second...
I can't help but think you'd react the same way. You never really know until you're in the situation...
sorry for the long comment.
posted by
-blackcat
on March 6, 2006 at 3:00 PM
| link to this | reply
You're All Invited To Read My Earlier Post...
about the toddler who officials euthanized because it mauled a family pit bull.
I'll let Quirky retrieve and post my permalink here. I've already intruded once on her blog. I refuse to do it again.
I will say this, though, my post puts the issue of pet love into far clearer perspective than an emotional love letter does.
And please don't get the wrong idea about me here. I have two cats that just entertain the devil out of me. I'd have a dog if my HOA would allow it. So I'm not some completely unaware, petless creton.
I just don't think that it's reality to compare the love for a child with the love for a pet. And I don't think that caring for pets comes anywhere close to the responsibilities of raising healthy, happy, productive children.
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on March 6, 2006 at 2:29 PM
| link to this | reply