Do you feel that dogs are "adopted" or "purchased"?

Question

How do you feel on this? Are dogs property or not?

Answer 1

Dogs are purchased or otherwise acquired; as property.

"Children" are adopted.

However, there was a time in our recent past when children were purchased or otherwise acquired; as property. These children were not 'adopted.'

Tony A-

Answer 2

I feel that it's a combination really. By law, dogs are considered property, but I definitely don't agree with everything "the law" says, and I consider them to be like family. Other answers said that humans are adopted and dogs are purchased because you spend money on the dogs, but you also spend money when adopting a child. Thousands of dollars are spent when adopting a child, so what's the difference? I personally don't feel that dogs are property. They are living, breathing creatures, not inanimate objects.

Answer 3

It's purely semantics. The process of rehoming a dog from a shelter is generally termed as 'adopting' because it involves taking on a dog with at least partial goodwill intended, for a no fee, a small donation or a sum otherwise less than the dog would be available for on the market. 'Buying' generally refers to purchasing something - if no money changes hands, it isn't technically a purchase.

If you pay money for a dog, it's a purchase, though you can still consider yourself to be adopting a new family member. Animals are property; they're seen under the law as such, and most owners would consider their pets their property if the theological conception of owning a living creature was removed - I doubt any owner would have a "let it slide" attitude were their pet to be stolen, or accept the argument that a pet cannot be stolen because it doesn't belong to anyone in the first place.

Answer 4

I feel that anything other than a human being is purchased. However, that does not mean that dogs should not be treated with love and affection. There are many things people purchase and take great care of, such as cars, expensive clothes/accessories, and homes. So viewing a dog as 'property' or something that is purchased doesn't take away from the dogs position as a thing of value that should be cared for.

Answer 5

They are property, and they are definitely more than property. That is why I resent some commercial breeders. I raised Rhodesian Ridgebacks and was angered by breeders who would kill pups because they lacked a specific marking of the breed.

I had a pup who lacked the distinctive ridge and was going to keep it as a pet, but a family fell in love with that particular dog and demanded to purchase him at full price. I saw the family again several years later - best dog they ever had, they said, and they wouldn't sell the dog for a $million. I could see by their faces that they meant what they said. That dog was a family member.

One needs to respect all life.

Answer 6

I think both terms apply and neither is offensive or wrong to me. You pay money for a dog, so you do in fact purchase it. But you also make a dog a part of your family so you do in fact adopt it. I do think dogs are property and dogs do legally belong to you, but it isn't lawn furniture you purchased, you purchased a LIFE, therefore the term adoption is appropriate as well because you adopted a LIFE into your family.

Answer 7

Dog's are always by law someones property, even if 'adopted'
All of my dogs except the first were 'rescued' and although I 'paid' towards the shelters costs for them, they are adopted, but I have papers which clearly state that they remained the property of the rescue society!
I've always felt that my dogs and cats chose me rather than me choose them and they are never seen as MY property in the way a non living thing like a car is, they are valued members of my mixed animal family,
Although I buy other pets like fish, frogs and shrimps I don't consider them my property either but of course they are 'Purchased' although even there I've been known to 'adopt' and a lot are home bred!
Someone tries to steal one, and they'd become your property quickly enough!

Answer 8

Good question! I feel like a dog is purchased at first until you really get to know the animal and then he/she is adopted. I just think you need that emotional connection to feel there is an adoption :)

Answer 9

What a great question. As far as the law goes, as in responsibility, ownership issues (who gets the dog and theft). I would say property. As a member of the family, adopted furry children. You should treat a dog as a member of your family, in the home they should not be viewed as property, but a family member and friend. When it comes down to ownership issues and responsibility like, a dog running loose, mistreatment, bites, theft, people finding your dog and keeping it, I think the animal should be treated as property by the law.

If that makes any sense. Its early for me and I'm on a new ADHD med so please tell me I'm being a scatterbrain if that makes no sense. Lol

EDIT: I agree with what someone else said as well, whether we like it or not, how a person treats their dog and what they do with their dog is their business, so again it's property. As long as the dog isn't being directly mistreated, ie. physical abuse, starvation, neglect... the animal is property, but again I feel that falls under the law aspect. I wouldn't want someone telling me what I can and cannot do with my dogs, but I also give my dogs the best care, whether I can truly afford it or not so I would hope I won't have to worry about it, unless some jackholes get involved, which happens occasionally, but I don't see why anyone would refute my care of my dogs. (who are all asleep on my bed, I was being smothered and couldnt go back to sleep so I just got up... ugh, maybe I shouldn't treat them so well lol)

Ilovetorofl: I'm sorry but that rescue worker did EXACTLY what they should have, to adopt that dog from a rescue by Ellen meant she signed a contract stating that if for some reason she could not keep the dog or did not want the dog she HAD to return it, it is a legally binding contract, that is a requirement for non profit private rescues. The people she gave it to were asked to fill out an application as a matter of due course and would have been considered for adoption and probably WOULD have gotten the dog, had the lady not been such a jerk and refused. It was not within Ellens legal rights to give the dog away because once a dog is taken into a rescue that dog is techincally the rescues PROPERTY for the life of the animal. My friend died after we had a car accident. I paid for and took care of his dog who was thrown from the car, along with my dogs, and hit by another vehicle. She is now living with me as an "indefinite foster", his son, who he told ME my Mom and several others was NOT to have the dog in case something happened to him. He's a nice person, just not a dog person and she would have ended up in a backyard. When he called me asking to have her "after she was well" I immediately called the rescue I volunteer with and he adopted her from and asked if Clint tried to take the dog would he be within legal rights. The answer is no, she was never my friends "property" to begin with, she is the rescues, it is in the contract he signed when he got her, if in case something should happen she is to be returned to rescue, of course, his son Clint was welcome to fill out an application for her, but of course didn't really care enough to bother, he just didn't like me and didn't want me to have anything of JCs. So no ELLEN was WRONG. Just because she's famous doesn't mean she's right.

Answer 10

Dos are purchased so they are in fact private property.

Adopt is a word that is used by the HSUS/PETA to soften and change people's minds about their dog being property because their agenda is to get the law changed so that they can have the power to undermine our rights as pet owners, which will help with their true agenda, ending all pet ownership.

BTW, for those that do not know, according to the LAW dogs are in fact PROPERTY.