Dogs vs Children

I have both and I agree that dogs are less stressful to take care of and require less of a lifestyle change, which is why I suppose a lot of people don't want children.  Someone who works full time can own a dog and not miss work, but you can't exactly leave a toddler at home in a crate with a bone to chew on. 

In fairness, the small-dog thing is probably just as much due to the tiny housing spaces as a desire to cart an accessory-dog around, at least for some people. 

I am a single woman with a good job and two fur children (1 cat & 1 dog).   That being said:
 
I can't take my "kids" to restaurants, most parks, baseball games, the mall, on an airplane, etc. etc. etc.  Also the government looks at my ets as "property" and the only rights they have is to "look" healthy and well treated by an ACO. When I go away for business I can't get reimbursed the money it costs to board my pets.  If I need to take my dog to daycare there is no government subsidy to pay for her care.  She is JUST a dog.
 
However a 18 y/o unmarried, uneducated, unemployed woman can have a baby and she gets money and food.  I made a choice NOT to have children...yet I am paying for this person's choice to be unprepared to even think about having children.
 
In college I had a professor tell us (this was an Animal Science class) the horse is the cheap part....the cost of the care is what is so expensive.  He was SOOOO right...the same thing could be said for children....this is one of the reasons why I don't have any.

Wow nice discussion guys! []

I don't think it's weird that people would choose to have a dog instead of children- I think having a pet of any kind (but perhaps especially dog) allows people to fulfill the urges to nurture/care for another being, without less of the responsibility of having to produce a productive, well functioning member of human society (and all the other things that go along with it). I think having pets instead of kids certainly would help with the overpopulation/poor parenting problem that's present today

It is sad that the dogs are paying the price, though- especially since Japan seems to have a fascination with little cute accessories. Perhaps the surge in pet dogs will motivate people/the government to start education on animal welfare/responsible dog ownership?

I treat them with the same amount of love and attention I would a child, but it's not the same.

 
No they are an improvement.  To some people at least.  Which is why some people view them as a replacement.  A replacement doesn't have to be identical it just has to have the same amount of meaning to the person.  In that regard my animals are replacements for children.  I never want children and I expend all the energy, money, and time I would use for a child on animals.  Don't see how that makes stating them as a replacement negative.
 
The fact we're becoming quite overpopulated did cross my mind as a major if indirect reason alot of people aren't having children.  We don't need more people.  Generally species tend to balance themselves out or they start to die off in greater amounts.  More space and food equals more offspring and less space and food equals less offspring.  Society seems to be steadily changing to match that.

To me, kids are a level of commitment I'm not ready for, but animals do get as much care and affection and the rest as a kid would were I to become a mum. I remember I harboured this desire to have a chinchilla (despite the fact you can't get them in Australia) but when I learnt they can live for 22 years I was like "Argh! I don't want that kind of commitment! It'd be like having a kid!". But then, I'd be delighted if my dog lived for 22 years, so it's not really like that.

I never understood the child substitute thing until I raised Kit. He was so young when I got him he couldn't walk very well and he had no teeth. He smelt like a baby and he acted like a baby and he pushed all my maternal buttons. It completely snuck up on me. He's most surely my baby. I'm proud of him when he puts on muscle mass, I think he's beautiful whenever he shows off his pretty hare legs and the power in them, I just about swoon when he does a graceful, 4ft leap, and I get all proud of him when he stands up for himself and tells his living companions to get out of his face. He can do no wrong in my eyes, and even when I'm annoyed with him, I love him to bits. Having said all that, he's a hare and his needs have to be fulfilled or he won't put on muscle mass or make gorgeous leaps or do a lap of the house at a hundred miles an hour. So he's my baby, but I'm under no delusions that he's human in any way, and part of being his surrogate mum is making sure he grows up and can fend for himself as much as possible.

Sometimes I think those that have dogs as surrogate children want them to stay babies the rest of their lives so they can be mothers the rest of their lives. I think that's where the delusion is. A good mum lets their kids grow up, and is still their mum even when they're adults. Wanting to deny that of another creature is very selfish.

The problem with the wise, educated woman choosing to not have children is that the unwise, uneducated woman will continue to have many and that is what the world will be populated with.  I know that is a broad generalization but I choose to not have kids, yet my cousin had 4 and they all live with her sister or her mom, not her.  So what are these kids going to learn?  It's a repeating sequence for most people.  18 year old has a kid, that kid grows up and at 18 has a kid or two, those kids grow up and maybe they have kids at 16 now...

and I'm not saying that all kids born to educated women grow up to be great citizens.  But if the welfare mom keeps popping out kids because it means more money for her cigarettes and booze, what are her kids going to learn?  Back in college, I knew a young woman with a child that in order to receive food stamps or some such, she had to go get her Depo shot every three months.  Once she had the document saying she'd had it done, she could collect her welfare.  I think this is a great idea personally.  But the kid's first word was beer.  And they all thought it was funny that he would go around the room at 2 years of age and drink out of people's beer cans.  [>:]  Not a class act IMO.

I hate it when people view dogs as "child replacements". I don't have kids, and my dogs are NOT a replacement for them. I have them because I like dogs.

 
 
Exactly........I have a hard time being around young children for a long time.......I don't have the patience for that, and I am glad that I realize that and not load myself up with kids and then go crazy.

ORIGINAL: tashakota

The problem with the wise, educated woman choosing to not have children is that the unwise, uneducated woman will continue to have many and that is what the world will be populated with.

Have you seen the movie Idiocracy? It's based on this idea. It's a comedy (a hilarious one!), but it's also very sad at the same time.

The problem with the wise, educated woman choosing to not have children is that the unwise, uneducated woman will continue to have many and that is what the world will be populated with.

 
I can't recall or find the exact source, but someone once did a study tracking families over generations. The families who invested a lot of resources in one or two children generally ended up over time having more descendants than families that had a lot of children that didn't get much investment per child.

The problem with the wise, educated woman choosing to not have children is that the unwise, uneducated woman will continue to have many and that is what the world will be populated with

 
I live in the land of "educated" & working Moms, wealthy families, and let me tell you how much I hate the kids around here. They're totally oblivious to everything going on around them, they ride their bicycles in the street and don't move when there's a car right up on them, they're RUDE, they think they should have everything handed to them on a silver platter... Then you run into the kids who probably come from Illegal parents, and they're polite, they're aware of what's going on around them, they're humble, and just infinitely more pleasant to be around than the kids from most of the wealthier families. And yes, a lot of their parents are probably dirt poor. They're probably on welfare and food stamps. We probably all pay for a lot of their food and clothes. They might have 7 brothers and sisters. Is that really so bad?

While I might think it's absurd, I do believe that you have a right to have as many children as you want SO LONG AS YOU CAN AFFORD TO CARE FOR THEM.
 
I don't care if you are raising the next Bill Gates, Jesus Christ or President of the United States -- if you are depending on the government to provide for your basic needs, STOP HAVING CHILDREN.  Seems pretty easy to me.
 
If someone couldn't afford to care for their dog properly would you not say that they probably shouldn't get another one?  What's the difference?

ORIGINAL: chelsea_b

The problem with the wise, educated woman choosing to not have children is that the unwise, uneducated woman will continue to have many and that is what the world will be populated with

And yes, a lot of their parents are probably dirt poor. They're probably on welfare and food stamps. We probably all pay for a lot of their food and clothes. They might have 7 brothers and sisters. Is that really so bad?

Well yes, because crazy as this sounds, I don't particularly enjoy paying for other peoples' children.  I don't ask anyone else to pay for any members of my family and we don't have children right now partly because we don't want to have to spend the extra money on kids..

A friend of mine (who incidently has one of the most obnoxious groups of children I know) gets government assistance and owns 2 and a half horses.

Well I have both too, although I had my child first and then when she was grown and able to take care of herself pretty much - that's when I got the dog.  Each required a tremendous amount of money, energy, and time to raise in a way that I think they can make a positive contribution to society both now and in the future.  I do however kind of think of both of them as my "babies".
 
 
But I agree - you shouldn't have kids, dogs, plants, or anything if you can't afford to put the time, energy, money, and everything else it takes to support them 100%.
 
 
Deb W.

Well yes, because crazy as this sounds, I don't particularly enjoy paying for other peoples' children.

 
I'd rather pay for food and clothes for kids than a needless, uber expensive war, or $100+ hammers for the White House. [8|][]