2007-06-03 17:34:47 · 22 answers · asked by I <3 U 1 in Pets ➔ Other - Pets
Definitely not!!
But then again, poor idiots have CHILDREN they can't afford every day of the week. In my view, there should be proof of parenting ability (including meeting financial needs) before anyone is allowed to procreate or have a pet!
2007-06-03 17:36:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
well, some create children that they can't feed, clothe, educate much less take them to the Dr. but, heck in our country they do more to save the whales than babies in the womb. So, really, I guess it' up to the pet owner as what they choose. Maybe, some have money to take them to the vet for normal stuff, like we do our kids, but then if a major medical condition arises and there is not insurance, then what? I don't think it should be a major criteria for getting an animal. If you can provide reasonable health care, good food, insect protection, shelter, LOVE, etc., then you should be able to get one, if you can't then no, good grief, people lose their jobs then what, no dog?
There are organizations, like rottie rescue, gsd rescue, greyhound rescue, etc... out there that will help with vet bills, with few questions asked, or you can take them to a shelter but, with children's medical you either pay or lose,if you make too much to qualify for medical, but too little to buy insurance, then you suffer or your kids do because no one will give you free medical, unless you are poor or sometimes illegal. Pretty crazy, but kids in OUR country, born and raised here, by working class people DIE every day due to lack of medical coverage. Very sad. but tune to the local news stations and they will tell you how they saved some unfortunate child from another country and how great America is, but what about our kids here??
2007-06-04 00:59:27 · answer #2 · answered by Kiki B 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have three dogs and a cat and when I first got them I had the money to take them without if interfering with anything but now I don't. but I'm the type of person who puts there needs first. Having a pet is like having a child. They didn't ask to be apart of you life so they shouldn't suffer because you can't give them proper care. So my answer is no you should get a pet if you don't have the money to care for them when they are sick and need a vet.
2007-06-04 00:40:17 · answer #3 · answered by Iamme2 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, they shouldn't. If a child got sick, would you not take him/her to a Doctor?? If you have a pet, be responsible and do the right thing. There are too many unwanted pets out there because people think that they are cute as babies, then when they need medical attention, they either just turn them loose or take them to the Humane Society or the local Pound. Would you do that with a child?? All I have to say, is be RESPONSIBLE!!
2007-06-04 00:55:19 · answer #4 · answered by Pat G 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. This is not fair to the pet. Vaccinations, check-ups, health maintenence are vital for longevity and quality of life for the animal. Too often people jump into pet ownership without considering the cost and responsibilities involved, and many times the animals suffer neglect, and even abandonment. Unless you have the money to take proper care of a pet, best not to own one.
2007-06-04 00:49:08 · answer #5 · answered by scott p 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't think that she asked if people should have kids if they don't have money...
if you are gonna take care of your pet and give it the TLC it needs, i think you will be OK if you cant afford regular vet visits. but do take your pet to the vet if it becomes very ill. most animal hospitals don't make you pay upfront for a service, they will bill you and you can make payments. just make sure you feed your pet and give it fresh water twice a day.. you wouldn't want to drink a glass of water that has been sitting out all day, why should your pet.
best of luck to you
2007-06-04 00:47:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
that is a loaded question -- in a perfect world of course it would never happen but we don't live in a perfect world. nobody expects someone to take their goldfish to a vet but a cat or dog is expected to go regularly. there are many things a veterinarian can't cure as well. i do not condone doing rediculous surgeries on animals while there are starving children in the world. even think about how many animals could be vaccinated for the same price of some old cow getting botox treatments. the world is out of alignment. making sure animals get proper treatment is part of realigning it but not allowing pets based on your socio-economic status wouldn't fix anything.
2007-06-04 00:48:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
should people exist if they can't afford to take themselves to the doctor - or to the dentist? what would you have done with these animals? put them to sleep? keep them in cages at the pound? the same can be said for people having kids - especially in a country like america, where there is no health care (that's affordable). there's free health care for kids now in some states, but we're still way behind the rest of the world.
2007-06-04 00:39:12 · answer #8 · answered by minstrelboy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Certainly not anything more than a fish or frog or turtle.
These animals are very easy to take care of with little chance of sickness,but four footed hairy pets are like children & you better have good insurance or good credit when they get sick!
2007-06-04 00:38:42 · answer #9 · answered by frogginmama52 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, please don't. I don't think that anybody should have a pet if they can't properly take care of it. To give it the happiest and best life it can you need to take it to the vet and make sure they are taken care of:)
2007-06-04 00:43:47 · answer #10 · answered by bridge 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋