Your Pet is Not Your Child

It started innocently. First, there were dog houses, doggie doors and cute little pet toys. Once upon a time, the vermin you pay someone to get rid of may have been your pet's chew toy. Then, dogs needed coats. I always thought dogs came with convenient coats of their very own. Now, dogs are carried about in large purses. They wear jewelry, they have beds, they have outfits, life insurance policies, birthday parties, and the little thing Paris Hilton toted around even wore shoes. I could go on, but it may be obvious where this is headed. Animals are pets and not children, siblings or lovers (for those of us who are more mainstream).

I am not merely opining here. Pet-lovers themselves prove this point, perhaps without even realizing. Consider the following.

Pet clothing proves that Fido and Heathcliff are nothing more to you than property. If you are dressing your pet in an array of garments you are doing so because you like it and you are exercising your right to do as you will with your belongings, much like putting bumper stickers on a car. You may say, my dog likes wearing clothes. That argument is dimwitted and deserves no attention. While we dress our children, who may well prefer to be naked, we at least dress them according to standards for human beings. If a person put a dog collar on a baby, that would make us uncomfortable. If a person saddled a child, we would find that strangely abusive. However, putting clothes that are essentially of a human ilk on an animal is no different than dressing a G.I. Joe action figure in Barbie clothes. The point it, it is done for the pleasure of the owner and not the animal.

Along the same lines, neutering your pet is a clear show of an owner handling his property. The owner takes consideration of his or her wants and wishes rather than the animal's. Which person would actually consider spaying or neutering his newborn? The reason people 'fix' their pets is obvious, it makes sense, it may even be necessary so far as the pet population is concerned, but if you are starting to recognize the difference between a child and a pet, congratulations. Also, I'm sure there are some who wish they could have fixed their children but the legal ramifications of taking that action would be awfully bad. If you are drawing a distinction between children and pets based on things like, self-control, decision-making capabilities and such, I applaud you.

Finally, the downright inarguable evidence that pets are property is found in the act of putting them 'to sleep.' I am referring to a specific situation that often results in putting pets to sleep - that is when the family pet has a disease or condition that can be treated but is just too expensive. I don't know how many people pull the plug on their family members when the hospital bill is too high, but I'm sure it happens from time to time. I would guess that in either case it is not done callously. Nevertheless, people generally fight for the lives of other people. Lots of Americans are in debt right now because of medical costs. Still, doing surgery on the dog that is old and worn out anyway is probably not worth the cost. Rather like repairing that old, beat up car.

The argument here is simply this: animals are pets. We love them, we enjoy their company, and they are like good friends. But they are not people and should not be treated as such.