Shocking revelations about SOs

luckya23 · December 2014

PrettyGirlLost said:

SBmini said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

emmaaa said:

I LOVE our pets. We have 3 dogs and a cat. We rent a house now and it was very important to us that we found a place to take our animals with us. We aren't in the best financial situation with FI in college working part time and me being the main provider with a lower income job (I will never make a ton of money), but we would go without eating to feed our pets.

With that being said, we don't have children. We were able to find a house without pet rent or deposits. We are able to afford groceries for ourselves. As much as I love my pets, I know that if there were children involved my thinking would change. If we weren't able to find a place to live because of our pets and we had to move for a job, we would do what we had to. Maybe find temporary housing first and then get them back. Or adopt them into a farm home because they live the country. Sometimes sacrifices need to be made.

A lot of animal rights activists say that you wouldn't give away your baby because of a new job or because you had to move or because you dog didn't like your baby. But that is like comparing apples and oranges. Pets are not equal to humans. They just aren't.

For people like you, they are not. For others they are.

I know people who have children and pets and they would never give up either- seriously there is no scenario where they would give up their dogs/cats. And some of these people have been through some shit.

There are always solutions, but what works for one person or what one person is willing to do in a particular situation is not the same for everyone.

I'm sorry, but if you think that a furry mammal who you bought at a store and will have for 8-20 years is the equivalent to your own flesh and blood whom your bore into this world. Then you have issues. They are not equal. If a cat mauls my kid, the cat is out. I don't care that the cat acted instinctively or the child unknowingly provoked it. I would never be able to trust that animal again.

No, actually I don't have issues. I'm very well balanced and I have a deep respect for all life, especially the lives of those whom are at the mercy of others- animals, children, the elderly, the disabled.

But thanks for the unsolicited diagnosis and insulting several people on this board who value their pets, and all life, equally or with the same love as they do their children and families.

I'm not going to get into this discussion, yet again, especially not with a person whom obviously has zero respect for other people's opinions.

You can do whatever you want with your pets, no one was actually judging you.

And P.S- I don't buy pets from stores, I rescue them from shelters or rescue organizations in an attempt to keep them from being euthanized because some asshole non-furry mammal dumped them off. Human beings, who are just animals BTW, do some awful fucking shit to animals. It disgusts me.

Rehoming a pet is not the same as killing the animal. Get over yourself, that is absolutely not what I was saying. If my house is on fire, sorry dog, but I'm saving my baby first. And anyone who struggles with what living being they want saved first in that scenario is missing the bigger picture.

********************

You have a lot of scenarios that put puppy last, so why not just move in with MIL while it's still at an adoptable age?

ETF boxes - maybe they are there now? I was on mobile.

Anyway, to expand on my point, why come here like you had the moral high ground over DH and then when people agree with you, say well there are plenty of reasons that I *would* get rid of my pet!

We agreed with what we thought you were saying in the beginning, that pets are a commitment, not a convenience - and now we are the ones with the problem???

loveislouder · December 2014

Shocking revelation: My FI knows all the words to every Backstreet Boys song.

princessleia22 · December 2014

DH and I don't have human children (and don't plan to), but very much consider our dogs to be our kids. Luckily we both feel that way. Honestly, if moving cross country meant giving away our dogs, we wouldn't move, no matter how great of an opportunity we passed up. If there were a fire in my home, I don't think I could leave without the dogs... same with DH. Maybe that makes us crazy, but we made a commitment to these adorable fuzzy creatures. They depend on us to take care of them and I have no intention to betray their trust or abandon them. And I have bonded with them so deeply that I would make major sacrifices for them, if needed.

But, even then, I can't really say there would never be a scenario where I would give them up. About 4 years ago I had a cat. He broke his tooth and needed to have it extracted, which would cost $800. At the time DH and I were both out of work and struggling to even feed ourselves. We certainly didn't have that kind of money for his surgery. We applied for some programs to help pay for it and tried to do what we could, but couldn't come up with the money. At the time, we seriously debated if it would be best to give him away to someone that could take care of him and could afford the surgery. I couldn't imagine giving him up after having him 10 years, but he was in pain and I couldn't help him. If I needed to give him away for him to get help, then maybe it would be best. But, the vet had put him on a round antibiotics, which helped and seemed to eliminate the pain. It was a few months before he started showing symptoms of pain again, by which time I was working again. Work situation was still unstable and we didn't have much money. I called around and found a new sympathetic vet that was willing to do things much cheaper, didn't charge us for office visits and gave us all meds at cost. Unfortunately, he didn't heal afterward (resulting in several more visits & tests, which vet did not charge us for) and a couple months later we discovered that he had tumors in his jaw and he had to be put down. But, if we hadn't found someone willing to help us in that situation, I think we probably would have tried to find him a new home with someone that was better able to take care of him during that time. So, even with as much as I love my pets, I think I would still be willing to give them up if I really wasn't able to take care of them properly and it was the best for them. But, I would do everything in my power to help them myself first.

ashley8918 · December 2014

Honestly, people who call their pets their "kids" or "furbabies" (fucking gag to that word) get the world's biggest eye roll from me. Pets just do not = people. Ever. But, I recognize that that is an opinion and in no way means that someone has "issues".

Now, if anyone here is having some sort of weird romantic relationship with their cat, I will be glad to pull out my armchair psychiatry degree and diagnose you with "issues".

ETA: Stupid thing posted before I was done.

PrettyGirlLost · December 2014

Attachment parents and women who breastfeed children that can speak and have teeth get the biggest eye roll from me.

ashley8918 · December 2014

PrettyGirlLost said:

Attachment parents and women who breastfeed children that can speak and have teeth get the biggest eye roll from me.

Alas, an opinion that I can't argue with!

themosthappy91 · December 2014

Honest question to those of you who, for whatever reason, say you would be unwilling to give up your pets in any circumstances, what would you actually and specifically do if you had a child who was debilitatingly allergic to your pet? I don't mean that snarkily, I'm honestly curious.

So to make everything clear, the scenario is this: your child is allergic to your pet. As others have already stated, I happen to know from personal experience (not my own, but someone close to me) that virtually no allergy medicine is safe for infants, and those that are have relatively severe side effects. Separating the child and pet is not realistic because it would be too difficult to ensure your baby wasn't exposed to the hair and particularly the dander that gets in the air- plus there's the fact that it would significantly decrease the quality of life for both the pet and the child to confine their entire existence to a small space. And even if you considered that a temporary solution until the child was old enough to safely take allergy medication, take into account that with a moderate to severe allergy even on medication your child could never be entirely comfortable living with a pet. What would you do? And furthermore, I guess what I'm getting at is, how many of you have actively decided you won't have children partly or entirely because of the fact that this scenario is a possibility? No judgment, just curious.

Also want to reiterate what someone else said in this thread, just for emphasis- no mammal is hypoallergenic. It's not the hair that people are mostly allergic to, but the dander- so even short-hair breeds of cats and dogs can not be considered entirely hypoallergenic. This is a misconception that bothers me and that I suspect has led to many abandoned pets due to owners who didn't realize that this is the case.

climbingsingle · December 2014

themosthappy91 said:

Honest question to those of you who, for whatever reason, say you would be unwilling to give up your pets in any circumstances, what would you actually and specifically do if you had a child who was debilitatingly allergic to your pet? I don't mean that snarkily, I'm honestly curious.

So to make everything clear, the scenario is this: your child is allergic to your pet. As others have already stated, I happen to know from personal experience (not my own, but someone close to me) that virtually no allergy medicine is safe for infants, and those that are have relatively severe side effects. Separating the child and pet is not realistic because it would be too difficult to ensure your baby wasn't exposed to the hair and particularly the dander that gets in the air- plus there's the fact that it would significantly decrease the quality of life for both the pet and the child to confine their entire existence to a small space. And even if you considered that a temporary solution until the child was old enough to safely take allergy medication, take into account that with a moderate to severe allergy even on medication your child could never be entirely comfortable living with a pet. What would you do? And furthermore, I guess what I'm getting at is, how many of you have actively decided you won't have children partly or entirely because of the fact that this scenario is a possibility? No judgment, just curious.

Also want to reiterate what someone else said in this thread, just for emphasis- no mammal is hypoallergenic. It's not the hair that people are mostly allergic to, but the dander- so even short-hair breeds of cats and dogs can not be considered entirely hypoallergenic. This is a misconception that bothers me and that I suspect has led to many abandoned pets due to owners who didn't realize that this is the case.

I guess re-homing the child isn't an option, huh?

PrettyGirlLost · December 2014

ClimbingBrideNY said:

themosthappy91 said:

Honest question to those of you who, for whatever reason, say you would be unwilling to give up your pets in any circumstances, what would you actually and specifically do if you had a child who was debilitatingly allergic to your pet? I don't mean that snarkily, I'm honestly curious.

So to make everything clear, the scenario is this: your child is allergic to your pet. As others have already stated, I happen to know from personal experience (not my own, but someone close to me) that virtually no allergy medicine is safe for infants, and those that are have relatively severe side effects. Separating the child and pet is not realistic because it would be too difficult to ensure your baby wasn't exposed to the hair and particularly the dander that gets in the air- plus there's the fact that it would significantly decrease the quality of life for both the pet and the child to confine their entire existence to a small space. And even if you considered that a temporary solution until the child was old enough to safely take allergy medication, take into account that with a moderate to severe allergy even on medication your child could never be entirely comfortable living with a pet. What would you do? And furthermore, I guess what I'm getting at is, how many of you have actively decided you won't have children partly or entirely because of the fact that this scenario is a possibility? No judgment, just curious.

Also want to reiterate what someone else said in this thread, just for emphasis- no mammal is hypoallergenic. It's not the hair that people are mostly allergic to, but the dander- so even short-hair breeds of cats and dogs can not be considered entirely hypoallergenic. This is a misconception that bothers me and that I suspect has led to many abandoned pets due to owners who didn't realize that this is the case.

I guess re-homing the child isn't an option, huh?

In Nebraska it is:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/14/nebraska.safe.haven/

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26887181/ns/us_news-life/t/father-abandons-kids-under-safe-haven-law/#.VIhdMcmTVcg

sarahufl · December 2014

ashley8918 said:

Honestly, people who call their pets their "kids" or "furbabies" (fucking gag to that word) get the world's biggest eye roll from me. Pets just do not = people. Ever. But, I recognize that that is an opinion and in no way means that someone has "issues".

Now, if anyone here is having some sort of weird romantic relationship with their cat, I will be glad to pull out my armchair psychiatry degree and diagnose you with "issues".

ETA: Stupid thing posted before I was done.

I cannot stand this term.

doeydo · December 2014

themosthappy91 said:

Honest question to those of you who, for whatever reason, say you would be unwilling to give up your pets in any circumstances, what would you actually and specifically do if you had a child who was debilitatingly allergic to your pet? I don't mean that snarkily, I'm honestly curious.

So to make everything clear, the scenario is this: your child is allergic to your pet. As others have already stated, I happen to know from personal experience (not my own, but someone close to me) that virtually no allergy medicine is safe for infants, and those that are have relatively severe side effects. Separating the child and pet is not realistic because it would be too difficult to ensure your baby wasn't exposed to the hair and particularly the dander that gets in the air- plus there's the fact that it would significantly decrease the quality of life for both the pet and the child to confine their entire existence to a small space. And even if you considered that a temporary solution until the child was old enough to safely take allergy medication, take into account that with a moderate to severe allergy even on medication your child could never be entirely comfortable living with a pet. What would you do? And furthermore, I guess what I'm getting at is, how many of you have actively decided you won't have children partly or entirely because of the fact that this scenario is a possibility? No judgment, just curious.

Also want to reiterate what someone else said in this thread, just for emphasis- no mammal is hypoallergenic. It's not the hair that people are mostly allergic to, but the dander- so even short-hair breeds of cats and dogs can not be considered entirely hypoallergenic. This is a misconception that bothers me and that I suspect has led to many abandoned pets due to owners who didn't realize that this is the case.

Off to Children's Aid Society we go, because the kid is getting adopted by some lovely couple that are same sex or just have fertility issues or a single parent.

doeydo · December 2014

I just don't understand the attitude of "this does not equal that EVERRRR". Um, so how does it affect you in any way what I believe of the value of a creature's life to be? And who the fuck are you to decide that humans are so mighty? Sorry, but generally speaking, humans are sucky.

princessleia22 · December 2014

ashley8918 said:

Honestly, people who call their pets their "kids" or "furbabies" (fucking gag to that word) get the world's biggest eye roll from me. Pets just do not = people. Ever. But, I recognize that that is an opinion and in no way means that someone has "issues".

Now, if anyone here is having some sort of weird romantic relationship with their cat, I will be glad to pull out my armchair psychiatry degree and diagnose you with "issues".

ETA: Stupid thing posted before I was done.

First, I agree that the term "furbabies" sucks.

As far as pets vs. kids, who's to say you can't bond with an animal to the same extent you would with a kid? If you use the "you didn't give birth to it" argument, what about people that adopt kids? Are they less attached and more apt to give up their adopted children because they didn't birth them? Maybe so, maybe not, but either way it doesn't mean it isn't a highly meaningful attachment. And, yes, it may not be the same since they aren't human, but they are still living creatures. Sometimes animals are able to show more humanity than some creepy, psycho humans out there in this world. And for those of us that can't have human kids, this attachment to our pets is all we have. And my dogs are unconditionally loyal and loving toward me in a way that deserves to have that same level of loyalty in return. Plus, both my dogs were rescued from abusive homes, and they deserve to have a home filled with respect, kindness, and loyalty toward them.

PrettyGirlLost · December 2014

I don't mind the term furbabies. It's as harmless as all of the stupid baby talk nicknames that people use with their children and spouses.

It seems to fan the flames of the Mommy Wars though, and I roll my eyes hard at all of that bullshit too.

climbingsingle · December 2014

I too find "furbabies" annoying.

ashley8918 · December 2014

princessleia22 said:

ashley8918 said:

Honestly, people who call their pets their "kids" or "furbabies" (fucking gag to that word) get the world's biggest eye roll from me. Pets just do not = people. Ever. But, I recognize that that is an opinion and in no way means that someone has "issues".

Now, if anyone here is having some sort of weird romantic relationship with their cat, I will be glad to pull out my armchair psychiatry degree and diagnose you with "issues".

ETA: Stupid thing posted before I was done.

First, I agree that the term "furbabies" sucks.
As far as pets vs. kids, who's to say you can't bond with an animal to the same extent you would with a kid? If you use the "you didn't give birth to it" argument, what about people that adopt kids? Are they less attached and more apt to give up their adopted children because they didn't birth them? Maybe so, maybe not, but either way it doesn't mean it isn't a highly meaningful attachment. And, yes, it may not be the same since they aren't human, but they are still living creatures. Sometimes animals are able to show more humanity than some creepy, psycho humans out there in this world. And for those of us that can't have human kids, this attachment to our pets is all we have. And my dogs are unconditionally loyal and loving toward me in a way that deserves to have that same level of loyalty in return. Plus, both my dogs were rescued from abusive homes, and they deserve to have a home filled with respect, kindness, and loyalty toward them.

I didn't say that you (general you) can't, nor am I trying to imply it. I personally can't, and thus can't understand it. Much in the same way that I can't understand why people enjoy eating fish. I think it smells, has weird texture, and is gross as hell. You might not, and that's okay.

Do I find people considering their pets as children to be ridiculous? Yep. But you (and others) don't, and that's okay too.

ashley8918 · December 2014

doeydo said:

I just don't understand the attitude of "this does not equal that EVERRRR". Um, so how does it affect you in any way what I believe of the value of a creature's life to be? And who the fuck are you to decide that humans are so mighty? Sorry, but generally speaking, humans are sucky.

It doesn't. I don't believe that I ever said it did.

Why does my opinion (which is what it is; it's not an "attitude") affect YOU in any way? I am of the opinion that valuing a pet in the same way that you would a human is silly. So?

If you were of the opinion that, say, red hair was ugly (I have red hair); guess how much I would be affected by that? Not at all.

FiancB · December 2014

I love animals, and I've gone to extremes to keep them. When I went back to school and had to live in the dorms for a term, I boarded my ferret which cost a ridiculous amount considering she's a ferret, but 5 years later I still have her.

When we adopted our puppy he got extremely sick the same night and we took him to the emergency vet and several other vets over the course of a few days. I did fight H a bit on that one, but he came around and knew neither of us would be okay with not treating him and letting him go, while we tried to keep it to a dull roar by trying fluids before x rays and finding a clinic that was waaaay cheaper than the emergency one.

Buuut no. They aren't children. When I moved in H's cockatiel decided she hated my guts. Birds are apparently really territorial like that. So she now lives with his parents. She was miserable and so was I. His parents also have a Kayeek (sp?) that is one mean son of a bitch that will likely outlive them and we've discussed the possibility of eventually inheriting him and agreed there's no way. He hates everyone but H's dad. He will probably end up at a reputable bird rescue.

Also currently trying to sell my horse as I haven't had the time to devote to her and horses are really expensive to have just sitting around. I would never just dump her at an auction or something like that and will sit on her until the right home comes along. I will also have a buy back clause in her sales contract, meaning if the buyer chooses to sell her they have to offer her to me first, because I would love to have her back in like 4 years when things calm the fuck down. A hoarse is also classified as livestock, not a pet, making things a little different even though I think of her as a pet and family member.

The thing that frightens me about equating animals to people is that it's not always in the animal's best interest. For example, I truly believe that euthanasia is kinder to do sooner than later (hell, same can be said for people). I do not think it's kind to make an animal go through, say, leukemia treatment when they can't understand what's going on. I would guess that most of the more extreme people adopt a "save the life no matter what" approach which is not always the kindest thing for everyone involved.

PrettyGirlLost · December 2014

FiancB said:

I love animals, and I've gone to extremes to keep them. When I went back to school and had to live in the dorms for a term, I boarded my ferret which cost a ridiculous amount considering she's a ferret, but 5 years later I still have her.

When we adopted our puppy he got extremely sick the same night and we took him to the emergency vet and several other vets over the course of a few days. I did fight H a bit on that one, but he came around and knew neither of us would be okay with not treating him and letting him go, while we tried to keep it to a dull roar by trying fluids before x rays and finding a clinic that was waaaay cheaper than the emergency one.

Buuut no. They aren't children. When I moved in H's cockatiel decided she hated my guts. Birds are apparently really territorial like that. So she now lives with his parents. She was miserable and so was I. His parents also have a Kayeek (sp?) that is one mean son of a bitch that will likely outlive them and we've discussed the possibility of eventually inheriting him and agreed there's no way. He hates everyone but H's dad. He will probably end up at a reputable bird rescue.

Also currently trying to sell my horse as I haven't had the time to devote to her and horses are really expensive to have just sitting around. I would never just dump her at an auction or something like that and will sit on her until the right home comes along. I will also have a buy back clause in her sales contract, meaning if the buyer chooses to sell her they have to offer her to me first, because I would love to have her back in like 4 years when things calm the fuck down. A hoarse is also classified as livestock, not a pet, making things a little different even though I think of her as a pet and family member.

The thing that frightens me about equating animals to people is that it's not always in the animal's best interest. For example, I truly believe that euthanasia is kinder to do sooner than later (hell, same can be said for people). I do not think it's kind to make an animal go through, say, leukemia treatment when they can't understand what's going on. I would guess that most of the more extreme people adopt a "save the life no matter what" approach which is not always the kindest thing for everyone involved.

No, I don't find this to be true at all.

The most responsible pet owners I know are able to make the hard decision to seek euthanasia when that is truly the most humane option left. They also know when re-homing is the best option for all involved, and they go through no-kill shelters, rescues, or carefully vet potential new owners themselves. . . just like you are doing with your horse.

My belief that humans aren't any more or less important than other animal doesn't mean I'd prolong a pet's suffering just to avoid my own.

climbingsingle · December 2014

FiancB said:

I love animals, and I've gone to extremes to keep them. When I went back to school and had to live in the dorms for a term, I boarded my ferret which cost a ridiculous amount considering she's a ferret, but 5 years later I still have her.

When we adopted our puppy he got extremely sick the same night and we took him to the emergency vet and several other vets over the course of a few days. I did fight H a bit on that one, but he came around and knew neither of us would be okay with not treating him and letting him go, while we tried to keep it to a dull roar by trying fluids before x rays and finding a clinic that was waaaay cheaper than the emergency one.

Buuut no. They aren't children. When I moved in H's cockatiel decided she hated my guts. Birds are apparently really territorial like that. So she now lives with his parents. She was miserable and so was I. His parents also have a Kayeek (sp?) that is one mean son of a bitch that will likely outlive them and we've discussed the possibility of eventually inheriting him and agreed there's no way. He hates everyone but H's dad. He will probably end up at a reputable bird rescue.

Also currently trying to sell my horse as I haven't had the time to devote to her and horses are really expensive to have just sitting around. I would never just dump her at an auction or something like that and will sit on her until the right home comes along. I will also have a buy back clause in her sales contract, meaning if the buyer chooses to sell her they have to offer her to me first, because I would love to have her back in like 4 years when things calm the fuck down. A hoarse is also classified as livestock, not a pet, making things a little different even though I think of her as a pet and family member.

The thing that frightens me about equating animals to people is that it's not always in the animal's best interest. For example, I truly believe that euthanasia is kinder to do sooner than later (hell, same can be said for people). I do not think it's kind to make an animal go through, say, leukemia treatment when they can't understand what's going on. I would guess that most of the more extreme people adopt a "save the life no matter what" approach which is not always the kindest thing for everyone involved.

I completely agree with you to the bolded. I would never let my dog suffer through something painful. If she's in pain and had a very poor quality of life, I wouldn't prolong that.

sarawifenow · December 2014

PrettyGirlLost said:

FiancB said:

I love animals, and I've gone to extremes to keep them. When I went back to school and had to live in the dorms for a term, I boarded my ferret which cost a ridiculous amount considering she's a ferret, but 5 years later I still have her.

When we adopted our puppy he got extremely sick the same night and we took him to the emergency vet and several other vets over the course of a few days. I did fight H a bit on that one, but he came around and knew neither of us would be okay with not treating him and letting him go, while we tried to keep it to a dull roar by trying fluids before x rays and finding a clinic that was waaaay cheaper than the emergency one.

Buuut no. They aren't children. When I moved in H's cockatiel decided she hated my guts. Birds are apparently really territorial like that. So she now lives with his parents. She was miserable and so was I. His parents also have a Kayeek (sp?) that is one mean son of a bitch that will likely outlive them and we've discussed the possibility of eventually inheriting him and agreed there's no way. He hates everyone but H's dad. He will probably end up at a reputable bird rescue.

Also currently trying to sell my horse as I haven't had the time to devote to her and horses are really expensive to have just sitting around. I would never just dump her at an auction or something like that and will sit on her until the right home comes along. I will also have a buy back clause in her sales contract, meaning if the buyer chooses to sell her they have to offer her to me first, because I would love to have her back in like 4 years when things calm the fuck down. A hoarse is also classified as livestock, not a pet, making things a little different even though I think of her as a pet and family member.

The thing that frightens me about equating animals to people is that it's not always in the animal's best interest. For example, I truly believe that euthanasia is kinder to do sooner than later (hell, same can be said for people). I do not think it's kind to make an animal go through, say, leukemia treatment when they can't understand what's going on. I would guess that most of the more extreme people adopt a "save the life no matter what" approach which is not always the kindest thing for everyone involved.

No, I don't find this to be true at all.

The most responsible pet owners I know are able to make the hard decision to seek euthanasia when that is truly the most humane option left. They also know when re-homing is the best option for all involved, and they go through no-kill shelters, rescues, or carefully vet potential new owners themselves. . . just like you are doing with your horse.

My belief that humans aren't any more or less important than other animal doesn't mean I'd prolong a pet's suffering just to avoid my own.

This. So much this.

themosthappy91 · December 2014

doeydo said:

themosthappy91 said:

Honest question to those of you who, for whatever reason, say you would be unwilling to give up your pets in any circumstances, what would you actually and specifically do if you had a child who was debilitatingly allergic to your pet? I don't mean that snarkily, I'm honestly curious.

So to make everything clear, the scenario is this: your child is allergic to your pet. As others have already stated, I happen to know from personal experience (not my own, but someone close to me) that virtually no allergy medicine is safe for infants, and those that are have relatively severe side effects. Separating the child and pet is not realistic because it would be too difficult to ensure your baby wasn't exposed to the hair and particularly the dander that gets in the air- plus there's the fact that it would significantly decrease the quality of life for both the pet and the child to confine their entire existence to a small space. And even if you considered that a temporary solution until the child was old enough to safely take allergy medication, take into account that with a moderate to severe allergy even on medication your child could never be entirely comfortable living with a pet. What would you do? And furthermore, I guess what I'm getting at is, how many of you have actively decided you won't have children partly or entirely because of the fact that this scenario is a possibility? No judgment, just curious.

Also want to reiterate what someone else said in this thread, just for emphasis- no mammal is hypoallergenic. It's not the hair that people are mostly allergic to, but the dander- so even short-hair breeds of cats and dogs can not be considered entirely hypoallergenic. This is a misconception that bothers me and that I suspect has led to many abandoned pets due to owners who didn't realize that this is the case.

Off to Children's Aid Society we go, because the kid is getting adopted by some lovely couple that are same sex or just have fertility issues or a single parent.

I can't tell if you're being serious? Again, intending no disrespect.

luckya23 · December 2014

themosthappy91 said:

themosthappy91 said:

Honest question to those of you who, for whatever reason, say you would be unwilling to give up your pets in any circumstances, what would you actually and specifically do if you had a child who was debilitatingly allergic to your pet? I don't mean that snarkily, I'm honestly curious.

So to make everything clear, the scenario is this: your child is allergic to your pet. As others have already stated, I happen to know from personal experience (not my own, but someone close to me) that virtually no allergy medicine is safe for infants, and those that are have relatively severe side effects. Separating the child and pet is not realistic because it would be too difficult to ensure your baby wasn't exposed to the hair and particularly the dander that gets in the air- plus there's the fact that it would significantly decrease the quality of life for both the pet and the child to confine their entire existence to a small space. And even if you considered that a temporary solution until the child was old enough to safely take allergy medication, take into account that with a moderate to severe allergy even on medication your child could never be entirely comfortable living with a pet. What would you do? And furthermore, I guess what I'm getting at is, how many of you have actively decided you won't have children partly or entirely because of the fact that this scenario is a possibility? No judgment, just curious.

Also want to reiterate what someone else said in this thread, just for emphasis- no mammal is hypoallergenic. It's not the hair that people are mostly allergic to, but the dander- so even short-hair breeds of cats and dogs can not be considered entirely hypoallergenic. This is a misconception that bothers me and that I suspect has led to many abandoned pets due to owners who didn't realize that this is the case.

Off to Children's Aid Society we go, because the kid is getting adopted by some lovely couple that are same sex or just have fertility issues or a single parent.
I can't tell if you're being serious? Again, intending no disrespect.

A lot of people, including Doey I believe, don't want or intend to have children, so it's a non-issue.

It's also a far-fetched scenario, and an "I'll weigh my options when and if it was ever actually necessary" thing.

themosthappy91 · December 2014

luckya23 said:

themosthappy91 said:

doeydo said:

themosthappy91 said:

Honest question to those of you who, for whatever reason, say you would be unwilling to give up your pets in any circumstances, what would you actually and specifically do if you had a child who was debilitatingly allergic to your pet? I don't mean that snarkily, I'm honestly curious.

So to make everything clear, the scenario is this: your child is allergic to your pet. As others have already stated, I happen to know from personal experience (not my own, but someone close to me) that virtually no allergy medicine is safe for infants, and those that are have relatively severe side effects. Separating the child and pet is not realistic because it would be too difficult to ensure your baby wasn't exposed to the hair and particularly the dander that gets in the air- plus there's the fact that it would significantly decrease the quality of life for both the pet and the child to confine their entire existence to a small space. And even if you considered that a temporary solution until the child was old enough to safely take allergy medication, take into account that with a moderate to severe allergy even on medication your child could never be entirely comfortable living with a pet. What would you do? And furthermore, I guess what I'm getting at is, how many of you have actively decided you won't have children partly or entirely because of the fact that this scenario is a possibility? No judgment, just curious.

Also want to reiterate what someone else said in this thread, just for emphasis- no mammal is hypoallergenic. It's not the hair that people are mostly allergic to, but the dander- so even short-hair breeds of cats and dogs can not be considered entirely hypoallergenic. This is a misconception that bothers me and that I suspect has led to many abandoned pets due to owners who didn't realize that this is the case.

Off to Children's Aid Society we go, because the kid is getting adopted by some lovely couple that are same sex or just have fertility issues or a single parent.
I can't tell if you're being serious? Again, intending no disrespect.

A lot of people, including Doey I believe, donwant or intend to have children, so it's a non-issue.

It's also a far-fetched scenario, and an "I'll weigh my options when and if it was ever actually necessary" thing.

Ah yeah, obviously my question was intended for people who haven't ruled out having kids. I guess I'm just very curious about what those of you who feel that way would do if that were to happen to you.

Fran1985 · December 2014

I know we are getting into like serious discussions but I need to share my shocking discovery.

My husband BITES INTO STRING CHEESE. He eats like its just regular cheese. I was horrified and maybe I shouldn't have asked but I had to know. So I said I need you to explain to me how you would eat a kit kat.

And it was what I suspected. He said he would bite into the whole thing instead of breaking off each piece. You think you know a person you know?

sarawifenow · December 2014

Fran1985 said:

I know we are getting into like serious discussions but I need to share my shocking discovery.

My husband BITES INTO STRING CHEESE. He eats like its just regular cheese. I was horrified and maybe I shouldn't have asked but I had to know. So I said I need you to explain to me how you would eat a kit kat.

And it was what I suspected. He said he would bite into the whole thing instead of breaking off each piece. You think you know a person you know?

Dear God no!

Maggie0829 · December 2014

sarawifenow said:

Fran1985 said:

I know we are getting into like serious discussions but I need to share my shocking discovery.

My husband BITES INTO STRING CHEESE. He eats like its just regular cheese. I was horrified and maybe I shouldn't have asked but I had to know. So I said I need you to explain to me how you would eat a kit kat.

And it was what I suspected. He said he would bite into the whole thing instead of breaking off each piece. You think you know a person you know?

Dear God no!

Maggie0829 · December 2014

Maggie0829 said:

sarawifenow said:

Fran1985 said:

I know we are getting into like serious discussions but I need to share my shocking discovery.

My husband BITES INTO STRING CHEESE. He eats like its just regular cheese. I was horrified and maybe I shouldn't have asked but I had to know. So I said I need you to explain to me how you would eat a kit kat.

And it was what I suspected. He said he would bite into the whole thing instead of breaking off each piece. You think you know a person you know?

Dear God no!

Take 2...

ETA: Oh and my H bites into string cheese too. It makes me sad. It is called STRING cheese for a reason!

abbyj700 · December 2014

Fran1985 said:

I know we are getting into like serious discussions but I need to share my shocking discovery.

My husband BITES INTO STRING CHEESE. He eats like its just regular cheese. I was horrified and maybe I shouldn't have asked but I had to know. So I said I need you to explain to me how you would eat a kit kat.

And it was what I suspected. He said he would bite into the whole thing instead of breaking off each piece. You think you know a person you know?

I'm pretty sure H does too....what is wrong with our men????

sarawifenow · December 2014

Shocking revelations about SOs

Re: Shocking revelations about SOs

Choose Another Board

Search Boards