Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i have no problem with people who choose to have animals and not children. i dont want to sound that way. i have no problem with people loving their pets a lot. its just some people take it too far.
Take my wife and I...We've been trying unsuccessfully for three years to conceive. We have two dogs that we consider family and would likely take out a sizable loan if one of them needed extensive surgery.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking 10s of thousands of dollars but I'd feel totally comfortable taking out a few grand or more if my dogs needed it.
If some of you think that's weird my wife and I will gladly take your baby for you so our dogs can take the back burner and your minds can be set at ease.
While I was growing up, my family took pets very seriously. In my view, when you adopt a pet, you are agreeing to a big responsibility. The pet can't take care of itself. If a particular medical procedure is expensive, then that was the choice I agreed to. I wouldn't adopt a pet if I couldn't afford it. That said, we've always listened to the advice of the vet and I think it's wrong to keep a dog or cat alive and in pain just because the owner can't let go.
Quite bluntly, any question about MY pet would be purely hypothetical. I have arranged my life in such a way that I can remain emotionally functional without a lifeline to a pet.
A pet is merely an animal, and I have parts of several of those in my freezer, all of which, at some point in time, could have won the heart of a human willing to embrace them.
While I was growing up, my family took pets very seriously. In my view, when you adopt a pet, you are agreeing to a big responsibility. The pet can't take care of itself. If a particular medical procedure is expensive, then that was the choice I agreed to. I wouldn't adopt a pet if I couldn't afford it. That said, we've always listened to the advice of the vet and I think it's wrong to keep a dog or cat alive and in pain just because the owner can't let go.
You do not enter into some unspoken blank check agreement for medical expenses when one takes on a pet. If this was the case, the mentally stable would not own pets. As long as preventive medical care/vaccines are given, and no pain endured, you are taking care of your pet.
You do not enter into some unspoken blank check agreement for medical expenses when one takes on a pet. If this was the case, the mentally stable would not own pets. As long as preventive medical care/vaccines are given, and no pain endured, you are taking care of your pet.
Exactly. Your commitment to your pet is to provide it a loving, caring home when it is in your possession. You provide it food, shelter and whatever vaccines it might need. If it comes down with a particular ailment that is extremely expensive, you need to make a sound financial decision. IT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE to go into significant amounts of debt for an ANIMAL.
Of course "significant amount of debt" is a relative term. For one that could only be $500. For another it could be $5000.
Honestly this could be one of the weirdest debates I've ever taken part in. Who really cares if a pet owner wants to spend the money they work hard earning on the care of their pet? It's not like they are taking out a mortgage they can't afford or having kids when they are already financially dependent on the government.
I mean, I feel like some of us are criticizing people for loving their pet too much or something. How's that a bad thing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.