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.

response 17 of 95:

Jul 23 15:27 UTC 2002

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. 

response 19 of 95:

Jul 23 15:33 UTC 2002

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.  

response 21 of 95:

Jul 23 15:52 UTC 2002

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.

response 23 of 95:

Jul 23 16:02 UTC 2002

Just confused . . . as usual. 

response 25 of 95:

Jul 23 16:07 UTC 2002

Know since of humour. 

response 27 of 95:

Jul 23 16:09 UTC 2002

What's wrong with me conveiving?

response 31 of 95:

Jul 23 16:19 UTC 2002

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.

response 33 of 95:

Jul 23 16:25 UTC 2002

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.

response 35 of 95:

Jul 23 16:28 UTC 2002

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