A new way to see pets?

I was all set to do a post about the amount of money spent on our animals in America, which even I think sometimes go to an excess, not on the money spent, but on the things we may buy for them. I was ready to say that cat spas are silly, that painting your dogs toe nails the same color that you favor is a bit much and that all the money spent on clothes and costumes for your furry friend could probably be put to better use someplace else.

Then, I did a search and the first article that Google presented was an opinion piece by Gary Bauer. Oh, that was a mistake on my part. Not double checking that it was the Christian Science Monitor, also a foe pa. But, its too late now and I am up in a lather.

Basically, at least in my view, he is tying the fact that we spend money on our animals to the fact that less people are having children in the United States.

Census data reveal that the proportion of childless women 15 to 44 years old reached an all-time high of 45 percent in 2004. Moreover, he National Center of Health Statistics confirms that the percentage of women who choose to be "child-free" has swelled 160 percent in a generation.

Both singles and couples without children are more likely to own pets and are significantly more likely to develop strong, even parental bonds with them. In San Francisco, pet owners – "pet guardians" according to city ordinance – outnumber children nearly 2 to 1.

Standard reasons for choosing pets over people include the rising costs of raising children, and careers and social standing taking precedence over family life

. From the Christian Science Monitor.

Now, tell me, what in the world does the fact that we have two cats have to do with the fact that I don't have children? Nothing. Pets and Children are not a mutual decision. We don't sit down and say "oh we have Lola and Bettina, so we can't have kids". No, right now we don't have kids because I personally am not ready to be a father and we are still not sure how healthy it would be for Mrs Duck to have kids. Mutually exclusive decisions!

Plus, the information he points to is very flawed, especially the 160% number talking about generational choices for children. He forgets the fact that people have different lives now, the woman in the family works and is sometimes the bread winner. We are not the baby boomer generation, thank the goddess, because I do not think that our economy would be able to handle it. So, good ol Gary thinks that the woman better be home barefoot and pregnant? Nothing wrong with that idea, if it is your choice, not what you think society wishes for you as a woman, or a man for that matter.

So, Gare, I am not going to be buying mini Eagles Jerseys for the girls. They will not be eating caviar anytime soon. But, I am insulted by the insinuation that the money that we spent when Kittie broke her leg and had to have it amputated was a waste of money. She had been my girl for 14 years and that last year and a half I got to have her around was worth more then ten times the money I spent. And, I would do it all over again if I could.

So, no Christian Science Monitor subscription for Christmas please.