|
Grex > Pets > #48: What do I do with my cat, now that I'm getting a real baby? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
mynxcat
|
|
What do I do with my cat, now that I'm getting a real baby?
| 
Jul 22 22:28 UTC 2002 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 95 responses total. |
ric
|
|
response 1 of 95:
|
Jul 23 00:31 UTC 2002 |
I did not give up my cat or my dog when the baby arrived.
Nor did the though even occur to me.
|
other
|
|
response 2 of 95:
|
Jul 23 02:59 UTC 2002 |
If I had a baby, I'm sure I'd consider giving it up for a cat....
|
jep
|
|
response 3 of 95:
|
Jul 23 03:02 UTC 2002 |
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.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 4 of 95:
|
Jul 23 03:08 UTC 2002 |
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.
|
brighn
|
|
response 5 of 95:
|
Jul 23 03:46 UTC 2002 |
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...
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 6 of 95:
|
Jul 23 04:19 UTC 2002 |
In fact, it would be -- how did John put it -- reprehensible? -- not to!
|
brighn
|
|
response 7 of 95:
|
Jul 23 13:47 UTC 2002 |
Heh.
|
bru
|
|
response 8 of 95:
|
Jul 23 14:16 UTC 2002 |
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.
|
slynne
|
|
response 9 of 95:
|
Jul 23 14:29 UTC 2002 |
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.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 10 of 95:
|
Jul 23 14:37 UTC 2002 |
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.
|
slynne
|
|
response 11 of 95:
|
Jul 23 14:44 UTC 2002 |
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?
|
edina
|
|
response 12 of 95:
|
Jul 23 14:45 UTC 2002 |
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.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 13 of 95:
|
Jul 23 14:47 UTC 2002 |
(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.
|
slynne
|
|
response 14 of 95:
|
Jul 23 14:56 UTC 2002 |
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.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 15 of 95:
|
Jul 23 14:58 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|