Lawyers have sunk to a new low in their desperation: helping people gain custody of their pets from their exes. Several points: first, animals may seem human, and though we talk about their “personalities,” that doesn’t mean they are people. You may love your dog, but it isn’t your child. Second, why on eart would cities start calling pet-owners pet “guardians”?! How can we start thinking about pets as people to gain custody of? I have to agree with the judge who puts the idea of pet custody on par with suggesting lamp custody or table custody. Yes, a dog is alive and maybe it will miss its owner for a while, but honestly: all dogs want are food, walks, and nice people to be with. No dog cares who its owner is as long as the owner is responsible; in fact, probably sharing a dog every other weekend would confuse the animal more than just letting one of the people in the couple keep it.

This sound to me more like an issue of people who a) can’t see that their pets aren’t people; b) can’t let go; or c) are totally desperate for company. Buy another dog if you’re so needy. Speaking of which, it isn’t legal to sell children, but it’s legal to sell pets. Will there come a day when we can’t legally buy Man’s Best Friend because they’re people too?

Coming soon: a more in-depth discussion of the “animal rights” issue.

– KF –