How Much is that Baby in the Window?

It's a political year, and that's always a danger for a writer. The temptation of course is to exert whatever influence I have in favor of my own (probably not so mysterious) political beliefs.

But I restrain myself to writing letters, signing petitions, making campaign contributions and voting.

Anything else is inappropriate, I think. I do my real work, my proselytizing, in my writing. And if you're reading along, chances are you're in sympathy to the majority of the causes dearest to my heart. But that doesn't mean you're a captive audience or that I am allowed to harrangue you with my political and social views.

So I do try to avoid The Debate.

But I saw a post today where someone innocently mentioned how they resent the term "owned" when it comes to pets. Now...I'm sympathetic to this. Those of us who have loved a dog or a cat consider that creature to be a beloved family member. "Owned" doesn't begin to capture the affection we feel.

But when we try to make the argument that we don't "own" a dog or a cat, that they are equal, we trivilize the battle of humans for equality. Because while an animal has the right to our protection and love and care, an animal is not a functioning member of society. An animal bears no responsibilities. We do not expect it to educate itself, to vote, to bear arms, to...well, let it suffice to say that when we try to make the argument that we cannot "own" animals, that animals are just the same as people, we insult and degrade the battle of those humans who have fought (and continue to fight) for equality in our society.

We also open the argument up wide to those who believe that an unfertilized egg is just the same -- has just the same rights -- as a living breathing child or a living breathing twenty year old--or, apparently--a dog.

And while it's possible that the person making the dog argument does indeed believe that the life of an unborn fetus -- or heck, an unfertilized egg -- is as important as that of his mother, for the vast majority of people in our society, this is not the case. And I think we shall see this proven come November.

In the meantime--though I hate to seem humorless and overbearing about this--it's important that we always consider the long term implications and ramifications of our well-meaning politically-directed comments.

7 likes ·   •  9 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on September 27, 2012 09:17
Comments Showing 1-9 of 9 (9 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Larry (new)

Larry Benjamin Why is it that any one group’s fight for equality always seems to trivialize some other group’s fight for equality? Gay marriage trivializes “traditional” marriage. Simply saying an animal is equal to a human (meaning he has a right to live, to be treated humanely) is to “insult and degrade the battle of those humans who have fought (and continue to fight) for equality in our society.”

I understand the battle for equality, I do. As a gay man, as a black man, all I do is fight for equality. But I do not think that my right to be treated fairly, humanely, equally, is trivialized by women’s battle for equal pay or control of their own bodies. We should all be entitled to equality. Fighting for equality for all can only enhance each of our lives once that equality is achieved.


message 2: by Josh (last edited Oct 02, 2012 11:54AM) (new)

Josh Larry wrote: "Why is it that any one group’s fight for equality always seems to trivialize some other group’s fight for equality? Gay marriage trivializes “traditional” marriage. Simply saying an animal is equal..."

That's not even remotely close to what I'm saying, Larry.

However, as much as I love animals--and I've had dogs, cats (even though I'm allergic to them), horses, turtles, mice and birds--(as well as contributing to numerous wildlife protection funds) I do not consider them "equal" to humans.

Depending on how you define "equal."

Are they deserving of love and protection? Absolutely. Are they "just the same" as people? No. I don't think they are. I don't think referring to an animal as a "pet" or something we "own" does either disrespect or disservice to the animal.


message 3: by Josh (new)

Josh And probably the key difference between humans and animals is that the "any one group’s fight for equality" that you refer to is not waged by the animals. Can not be waged by animals. It is waged by well-meaning humans.


message 4: by Larry (new)

Larry Benjamin I don't think referring to an animal as a "pet" or something we "own" does either disrespect or disservice to the animal.

I disagree. I think as writers we can agree that words have power. Words have the power to influence how we perceive and/or think about another. If this wasn’t true there would be no reason to work to ban the “n word”, the “r word,” the “f word,” or even the gay word in context of “oh that’s so gay,” meaning lame. If it can change the way we perceive and treat our animals then yes I’m all for avoiding the word pet and own.

(the fight) that you refer to is not waged by the animals. Can not be waged by animals. It is waged by well-meaning humans.

Good point but often in the fight for equality the battle is started by a group other than the affected. When one group cannot fight for themselves, we must fight for them.

(By the way, I happen to agree with you that a dog or even a fertilized egg is the same as a human). Thanks for the thought provoking post which perked up a rather dull afternoon.


message 5: by Josh (new)

Josh Larry wrote: "I don't think referring to an animal as a "pet" or something we "own" does either disrespect or disservice to the animal.

I disagree. I think as writers we can agree that words have power. Words h..."


I agree words have power, Larry. Beyond that, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm just not a sentimentalist.


Suzanne (Doppleganger) As much as I love my dogs, I completely agree with you Josh. I purchased my pets, and I own them. I adopted my children, and I am raising them. BIG difference between the two!

I don't actively complain about the use of the word 'adopt' for gaining a pet, but I do wish the practice would end. It's not about disrespecting or mistreating the animal, it's about respecting the permanence of the adoptive family and not equating adopted children to pets.


message 7: by Cerulean (new)

Cerulean I agree that words have power, but, as someone who has had pets for most of my life and loved them as much as any other close family member, they have been my pets. The same as my parents are called my parents, my sisters are called my sisters, my pets have been called my pets. Most who own pets know for a fact that it's actually them that own us, so I don't really see the problem with using that term. And as much as they may be equal in our affections, they aren't actually members of our society and therefore outside any ideas of equality as such. We fight to ensure their welfare, ensuring that those choosing to become pet owners uphold their end of the bargain in that they will love and care for them. That is fighting for their right to not be mistreated and abused, not their right to equality. It is completely different from the various fights for the equal treatment between members of our society. Thanks for a great, thought-provoking post, Josh :-)


message 8: by Josh (new)

Josh Suzanne (Doppleganger) wrote: "As much as I love my dogs, I completely agree with you Josh. I purchased my pets, and I own them. I adopted my children, and I am raising them. BIG difference between the two!

I don't actively ..."


Suzanne, I hadn't even thought about the "adoption" angle. Good point.


message 9: by Josh (new)

Josh Aniko wrote: "I agree that words have power, but, as someone who has had pets for most of my life and loved them as much as any other close family member, they have been my pets. The same as my parents are calle..."

Thank you, Aniko.

I don't know why this issue bothers me so much because I can usually pretty much see both sides. And I DO love animals. I've risked my life for my animals--and not just once either.

But the more I think about it, the crazier it makes me. If we were to take the animals-are-equal argument to its logical conclusion, not only would all humans need to stop eating meat (okay, fair enough) but we would have to insist that the animal citizens stop eating each other, right? I mean, we interfere with other sovereign countries, so of course we would have to interfere with--

No, I just have to let this go. It will make me nuts.


back to top