This item text has been erased.

95 responses total.

I did not give up my cat or my dog when the baby arrived.

Nor did the though even occur to me.

If I had a baby, I'm sure I'd consider giving it up for a cat....

I'll give parents trying to protect their newborn baby a lot of slack.  
A lot of people don't do very well at protecting their kids.

A baby is enormously, incomparably, more important than a cat.

I don't give people slack when they lash out in ignorance, which is what this
couple has done.  They're not hurting the cat to protect their child, they're
hurting the cat for no reason, except that they couldn't be bothered to find
out that cats are harmless to babies.

It makes no more sense than turfing out an older kid when you have a baby.

Well, sure, older siblings kill infants with much more frequency than cats
do. Joe's got a point, maybe pregnant people should start giving up their
older kids for adoption...

In fact, it would be -- how did John put it -- reprehensible? -- not to!

Heh.

I am not going to dump all over these people for a mistake.  They were wrong
and they should learn from it.  Their first act should be to take the cat
back.  

To be fair to jep, I dont think he really likes cats much in the first 
place so he might not really get why everyone is so upset. I think it 
is because some of us have cats or used to have cats and see them more 
as a member of the family. I dont think any of us would be upset to 
learn that the family had taken its pig to the slaughterhouse because 
they were worried it would hurt their new baby and figured they could 
eat lots of pork while waiting for the baby to be born (kill two birds 
with one stone)

Still, I cant get past the idea that a cat is a member of the family 
and shouldnt be rejected like that. Maybe it *is* because I am an 
eldest sibling and have rejection issues from when my younger siblings 
were born. You know, the new baby comes and the older kid gets a little 
neglected. I have to admit that I see parents who would toss a cat out 
of the house in favor of a new baby to be the type of parents would 
*really* neglect an older child in favor of a new baby since clearly 
they are type to not consider anything but the new baby. Of course they 
wouldnt make the older child leave but I'll bet the older child would 
hear a lot of "I dont have time for you, I have to take care of the 
baby" and "you're old enough to take care of yourself, I have to take 
care of the baby" 

So, I figure that this couple is either like John and just doesnt see 
cats as members of the family in which case, they probably shouldnt 
have gotten a cat in the first place but whats done is done and giving 
the cat to Tim was probably a good choice OR they *are* the types to 
give the old heave ho to a member of the family because a new baby is 
coming because it happens to be a cat. If they have another baby, 
they'll probably give a symbolic heave ho to the older one. And *that* 
is why my opinion of this couple is so low. 

I'm so amused that many of you seem to condemn these parents just 
because they did something that you wouldn't do or didn't think about 
doing. They made a mistake, sure.  But it was because they were 
concerned for the welfare of their child. And since their first 
responsibility is to their child, why are people giving them the 
busineness?  How many people go through that "first-time parents" 
syndrome and go overboard to make sure their children are safe and 
healthy?  There are a lot worse people in the world, and while I think 
they went a little silly, this level of condemnation is rather 
ridiculous.  

Why are you getting so upset that we are being critical of a couple of 
people who will not be effected at all by our criticism? Do you think 
it is ok to discard family pets on a whim?

Really?  People treat animals as disposeable.  I know it first hand, as the
previous tenant in my townhouse moved out, taking her two dogs, but not her
two unfixed cats.  I had to round them up - the female being visibly pregnant
- and take them to the shelter where the female was promptly put down.  

Granted, this couple found a home, blah blah blah - it's for their baby that
isn't even there yet, blah blah blah.  Grow up.  When you have a cat -
especially a cat that old - or a dog for that matter - when you get pregnant,
you don't just say, "Oh, we'll just get rid of the cat."  How absolutely
fucking callous is that?  I don't prize animals above humans - but I surely
prize my cats over many humans.  

(re 9)

Or maybe--despite the assumptions here to the contrary--they have 
genuine reason to believe that the cat may pose a danger to the baby 
(perhaps it's getting progressively meaner and more aggressive and 
unpredictable in its old age), and they're not just acting on the old 
wives tale re baby smothering.  Having had the cat for 15 years, no 
doubt they know a little something about cats in general and theirs in 
particular.

And I say this as someone with long experience as a cat/dog owner and a 
parent of small children.  I've had pets that are fine for a single 
fella, but which would most certainly be problematic if children were 
about.

Sure, that is a possibility. But if the cat is really that dangerous, 
they might have been better off putting it to sleep since it would 
likely be *more* dangerous when stressed out which the move obviously 
will do. 

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

The way I see it, the cat was there first. :) And I've always made it 
clear to any potential suitors that the cat and I are a package deal.

Yes, the parents are being ignorant and selfish, and probably weren't 
attached to the cat if they're just casually getting rid of it. They're 
doing the 'find it a good home' bit to make themselves feel 
better. "Oh, we're such compassionate people, look how we didn't toss 
it on the street! Love us!".

My brother and his wife have 2 dogs and 2 cats, and did not even 
discuss getting rid of them when she got pregnant. My nephew is almost 
2 now, and the cats have not even hissed at him. 

A few months ago my nephew walked up to one of the dogs while it was 
sleeping and tried to pet him. The dog was startled and nipped at him, 
probably before it realized what she'd done. Nephew wasn't hurt. My 
sister in law flipped out, saying she was going to give the dog away. 
Of course it wasn't HER dog she was upset with... a boxer that I've 
seen growl at my nephew before. Her dog could chew my nephew's nipple 
clean off, but since it was my brother's dog, she was happy to get rid 
of it. Then she finally realized no one would take an older dog.

Here's the deal, though... she wasn't watching the kid when he got 
nipped by the dog. It never occurred to her to never leave a kid alone 
with a dog. My nephew has actually crawled out of the house and into 
the yard because she wasn't paying attention or watching him. So again, 
it's not the animals. It's the idiots who "own" them.

She also said she couldn't wait until my brother's cats died. Gah, I 
hate that woman. 

This response has been erased.

resp:11 / resp:15  The situation sucks, no matter how one looks at it. 
I do think this couple is acting foolishly, but I can understand the 
reasoning behind it, however irrational.  I feel sorry for them that 
they felt this was a decision they had to make.  None of you can make 
anymore assumptions as to what they were thinking than I can.

I'm not upset, but rather puzzled that there seems to be this inability 
to understand where these new parents are coming from. This seems to be 
a judgemental squabble built on emotion and condemnation with very 
little attempt to consider other aspects of the situation.  The tone of 
some of these post wavers between superior to bitter and hostile.  I am 
not taking this nearly as personally.  I am not the one presuming that 
because of this, they are going to treat their older children as 
throwaways when their next arrival comes along. I'm also curious as to 
how you arrived at the question that I possibly think pets are 
disposable, slynne.  Nothing I have said has been an advocation 
of "discarding a family pet on a whim."  

I have my problems with pet owners, and although I do believe that this 
couple made a foolish choice (which I have stated several times) based 
upon faulty information and/or advice from the similarly misinformed, 
The fact that they are trying to make the situation as palateable as 
possible for the cat should not be ignored, but it is.  I'm more 
concerned with the individuals who get animals as presents for their 
kids and then come to find out the kid's allergic, so they dump it out 
into a field somewhere.  I have more of a problem with folks who get 
pets when they know they can't afford to take care of them at all, and 
the poor animal gets sick from some some illness/disease that was 
completely preventable.  I don't feel that a blanket condemnation is at 
all fair.  

This response has been erased.

Need I say it again? None of us can make really accurate assumptions as 
to what they were thinking.  Absolute determinations as to what they 
decided and why is beneath you.

This response has been erased.

Just confused . . . as usual. 

No.

Know since of humour. 

I don't want you to concede something if you don't agree that it is the 
case.

What's wrong with me conveiving?

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

Just playing with words again. Ignore me.

Everyone keeps reiterating the same thing.  How is what I'm saying any 
different?  The only reason why this items is continuing is because 
we're all repeating ourselves.  I seem to see where all of you are 
coming from, and I agree up to a certain point.  I can't be any 
clearer, you will just have to forgive me.  And I'd prefer not to be 
lied to.  If you don't agree, I'd respect your argument a whole lot 
more than if you lied and said you did.

This response has been erased.

We had two cats when John was born, and didn't get rid of them or put 
them outside or anything.  *I* don't think cats are dangerous to 
babies.  I do think if you have the slightest inclination that your cat 
might be dangerous to your baby, you obviously have to get rid of the 
cat.  There's no option and should be no hesitation.

I am not a cat lover like many others here.  I've liked a few cats 
(such as the ones we had when John was born) and been pretty attached 
to one of them, but that wouldn't have made me hesitate if I'd had any 
concerns for my baby son.  It wouldn't affect me *how* much other 
people objected.  If I thought he might have been in danger, the cat 
would have been out of there.  I don't think anyone else could do 
differently under those circumstances.

This response has been erased.

If you are tired of arguing, it's very simple:  don't.

re#15 - ok. But what is the difference between a pig raised as a pet 
and one raised for meat? 

re#19 - Right. I think a lot of people here are simply saying that it 
is wrong to abandon an animal unless one has a very good reason, that 
one should not abandon pets on a whim. I do understand why people would 
choose a new baby over a cat *if* there was a valid reason to do such a 
thing. There are valid reasons but none have been presented here. 

Of course, no one here knows exactly why the particular couple who gave 
the cat to Tim are abandoning their cat but think of the possible 
reasons. 1) They worry that the cat will hurt the baby -This is a not a 
good reason because cats dont hurt babies and only a small amount of 
research would have let them know this. 2) They are getting rid of the 
cat because they figure it will be too much to look after both a baby 
and cat - This is not a good reason because one has a responsibility to 
an animal when one adopts one and it isnt ok to just decide that one 
doesnt want to take care of it anymore. 3) There is actually something 
dangerous about the cat - If this is the case, they should have 
mentioned something to Tim so he could make sure he found a home for it 
with no kids. 

Anyhow, the odds are that they are giving this cat up on a whim 
although of course we have no way to know for sure. We can only base 
our opinion on the information we have. You dont seem to understand why 
some of us have a problem with this so it calls into question your 
opinion of giving up pets on a whim. That is why I asked. 

The argument that we should not be critical of their decision because 
they could have left in in a field is kind of like saying someone 
shouldnt be criticized for breaking into a house because they chose not 
to kill the owners while they were there. The fact is that I *do* 
recognize that giving the animal to Tim is not the worst possible 
choice they could have made. It is much better than taking it to the 
local shelter or (worse) dumping it in a field. In fact, the only 
penalty I think they deserve for this action is having a bunch of 
strangers judge them for it. Hardly a harsh penalty when one considers 
that they are very unlikely even to know of our discussion. This 
conversation is not hurting these people. It would be different if 
their names were entered here but they werent. For all practical 
purposes this is a *hypothetical* couple. 

But even if they were to see this discussion, I think it would be a 
good thing. I think it is perfectly OK for people to let other people 
know what their moral code is. You dont even seem to really disagree 
that giving the cat up is wrong. You only seem to have a problem that 
some of us are expressing that thought. What is that? Do you have some 
sort of emotional issue with people verbalizing how they feel others 
*should* act?

I know a guy who ate a cat once. 

Do not.

If I had a problem with it, I would say so.  That you can depend upon.  
I never said I didn't have a problem with what they did - so don't even 
go there.   I said a had a problem with the seeming unwillingness for a 
good portion of people not to understand someone else's situation. How 
hard is that for someone to understand? 

The latter assertions about one's right to state their moral code . . . 
where the hell are we going with this?  Did I once state that anyone 
had no right to their opinion or the right to give their opinion?  As 
for questions as to my emotional "issues" as you called them, that was 
more than insulting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss