So Richard Martineau, of whom I have written about previously, posted à "free to good home" ad for his dog on his blog. Turns out that since the birth of his third child, the couple has had little time to devote to the dog, who is bored silly.
A few of the comments gently chided him not to have any more children, lest the eldest get bored. Another spoke up, saying that hippy tree-hugging animal-lovers will boo hoo the fact he's reneging on an implicit promise to care for the dog its entire life, while they should realize that it takes a real animal-lover to be able to let the dog go to someplace where he will be truly loved and cared for. I thought about this, and it almost made sense, except that:
1. If you can only spare the time to care for a limited number of beings, due to time constraints or whatever, could you not foresee this? Did it not dawn on you that you wanted children within the next fifteen years or so, and that they would take up a lot of your free time? Because let's be frank, you do not want to change your lifestyle to accommodate the dog and the baby. So be it, but you should have thought of that beforehand. I also sincerely hope your parents and in-laws are in good health; I'm afraid to ask how you would solve the dilemma of becoming a caregiver as well.
2. If there were enough foster/adoptive homes to handle and care for all these no-longer-convenient pets, it would be a wash. Problem is the numbers are anything but even. So goodhearted people pour money, time and their hearts into cleaning up your mess. And you have the gall to title your post "Chien à donner - snif". Cry me a river, buddy.
(310)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment