Relatives came from India and saw the treatment that one of my neighbors gave their dog. After laughing (because the dog was going for a “pamper session") they were soon saddened that the neighbor showed more concern for the dog then to family relationships...not so cute, huh?

Yedge

Well said, Carolyn.  This is indeed a very real and very troubling issue.

men in japan need to be real fathers to their children and the gov’t needs to support part-time moms w/ childcare or the low birthrate will continue.

The Japanese are merely being human by expressing the instinct of parenting albeit on their pets instead of on their children since they would not have children. It is noteworthy that the government has resolved to tackle the problem of population decline. However it is ironical that the same government, as are most western governments, support population control in developing countries.
Nature really abhors a vacuum. If the developed countries do not want babies, the developing countries want them. Little wonder birth control policies in these countries are not working.

This is happening in Canada too.  I walked by a 40 year old woman pushing a baby pram - and as I passed, I looked in the pram hoping to see a sweet, little baby (My wife and I are expecting soon, so I have a bit of baby fever).  To my shock, and amusement, there was no baby in the pram but an ugly, black pug - complete with beedy eyes.  If ever there was an image that summed up all the problems with the Sex in the City lifestyle and the failure of modern feminism, this was it.

Just a curious thought----Has anyone considered the possiblity that some of these women could not have children of their own(as opposed to choosing not to have them). Humans crave emotional attachment and if these women are obtaining it through the care and love of pets, then so be it. 

Large families are not possible for everyone.  What are these women supposed to do?  Become suicidal at the vacuum of affection in their lives or find some replacement with which they can live?

I would recommend that those of you who are fortunate enough to have families of your own show some “Christian charity” and try to imagine what life might be like if you had to walk in these women’s shoes. 

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

What a sad state of affairs.  But, as noted, this is not a Japanese problem.  In every culture where self is elevated and served the ability to sacrifice for others diminishes.

Ann, your comment ignores the basis of this article.  The women under discussion are not childless due to reproductive circumstances beyong their control, but by choice.  The Dr. in the above article didn’t want to be a stay at home mom.

The reason people choose pets over children is because they are far less trouble.  Training is as easy as getting a can of doggie treats.  They don’t require you give up anything you want.  The pets go where every you go, and if they can’t you can leave them at home without getting a babysitter.  It is a psuedo-paternal relationship.  Certainly that dog, if he lives to see you reach a ripe old age, won’t be caring for you.

“Sadness,” like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Some people can’t have kids, some people—for a host of reasons—choose not to have them.  Playing armchair psychiatrist is generally pointless and fruitless. Have all the kids you want, and enjoy. Don’t worry about these folks, since they are adults capable of making their own choices.  They seem happy enough, so spare them your concern and misplaced pity.

And for the record, I think pugs are cuter than babies.

I don’t think it’s anyone’s business if women choose to dote on the family pet.  Not everyone wants kids.  Get over it already.  It is not a problem.  What IS a problem is having kids just to escape the ridicule and pressure society puts on couples.  Childfree living with pets is quite wonderful, actually.

Why are people threatened by women choosing to opt out of motherhood and deciding against the LifeScript(TM)? So you think it’s better to conform to the traditional societal mold: have a litter of unwanted kids, because it’s “what ya’ suppose ta do” rather than leading their life as they see fit?

Why are people so threated by women who don’t want children?  How is it your business?  And the comment by Amy: “Certainly that dog, if he lives to see you reach a ripe old age, won’t be caring for you.” So is THAT why you have children?  For old age insurance?  Hmm, why are the nursing homes so full of people, people with children who don’t visit?  From the comments, I conclude that women are just good for popping out babies. Failure of modern feminism! What a nasty remark.

I believe one basic and important fact is being missed here:

Why is it an issue for someone to NOT want children?

Is this an infringement on others rights? Is a law being violated? Is anyone at all negatively impacted by this decision? Is child bearing our one and only reason for being alive?

These are misconceptions and jaded views placed on us by societal pressures.

:scratches head:

Did it occur to anyone here that having children is a choice and yes, there are some people who make the choice :gasp: not to have any? What is so wrong with that? I thought liberals were for reproductive choice?

And if people that have kids are always the best of breed of society, why do we need laws like the new ones in California to fine parents who are smoking in the car while the children are present?

This is what happens when people feel pressured and or forced to breed by society, and by people like you who denigrate the choice to be childfree—CHILDREN SUFFER. If more people who were not cut out to have children stopped having them, less children would suffer.

The problem as I see it lies not with the women in the article. It lies with a society that demands that women act as brood mares for the state regardless of the cost or consequences. It saddens me to see so many people with such a narrow view of their own lives that they have to project years of accumulated expectations onto anyone who doesn’t make the same choices.

I personally am never having children. I have taken steps medically to insure that there are no accidents. I applaud anyone that follows there own convictions when it comes to whether or not they want kids. The human race is well represented and the very notion that these women need to have a couple “For The Country” is about as vitriolic as any eugenic propaganda I have ever heard. If they want to have dogs instead of children, I say let them. They will answer for the choices they have made either good or bad. Not you. Let them be.

Why can’t people in general just face the fact that having children is not for everybody?

Bringing a child into the world when you are NOT 110% interested in nor enthusiastic about parenting (or simply recognize that you don’t have the talent or the resources for it) is a terrible thing to do to a child.

Children born into poverty, and/or raised with poor parenting suffer terrible consequences. Many grow up to be citizens who are little more than a burden or even a threat to society as a whole. And many do not survive to grow up at all.

People who would make poor parents are doing EVERYBODY a service by not having them.