@missnc77 - those outfits are just awful. AWFUL. Also, I hate when random girls I went to college with add me to a facebook group so I can view some trunk show so I can be blessed with the opportunity to buy said outfits for my daughter. No thank you. We will stick to Old Navy. Bye.
Honestly, I keep telling DH we should move to the corn fields of Kansas. I would feel safer there than in the epicenter of NY.
Not to sound cliche, but then you're doing exactly what terrorists want. Back in 2005, I was packing to go study abroad in London for the summer. When I woke up the day to go to the airport, I turned on the news and saw London was attacked. I started getting calls from other people in the program trying to see if people were still going, but I ultimately called my dad who is a retired Lt Col. He told me I needed to zip up my suitcase and get my ass on the plane, and that I should not give up something like that out of fear. So, I did as he said, zipped my suitcase, and went to the airport. Not only was it one of the best summers of my life, but being in London at the time was incredibly moving and what is ultimately lead me to go to graduate school for Public Affairs. Not to mention as soon as I got home, Katrina struck, and my friends and family lost everything. The summer of 2005 was a rough one.
Long story short, I won't give my opinions on the refugees or other things, but I do know that when bad things like this happen, people get scared. But when we start giving up things we love, any sense of adventure to travel, start judging our neighbors, and give up personal liberties, then hate is winning the ideological war. That's why I refuse to quit living. If anything, it makes me want to live even more.
*************** If doing what the terrorists want leaves myself and DD safe, then so be it. Going shopping in the city isn't going to make or break my life. It's not a lifelong ambition.
When I was single I would have thought about this differently. Now, I guess I just think if it's not important, why risk it?
UO- I HATE when people re-home their animals. Absolutely cannot stand it. I was raised to see my animals as family members, my mom has always referred to our dogs and cats as her "favorite kids" because they don't talk back or break curfew. If you get a cat or a dog you get that animal for the rest of their LIFE. You (general you) don't get to just get rid of your animal because now you need to move to an apartment that doesn't accept animals. If I have animals, I don't even CONSIDER places that don't allow animals. If your animals don't react well to your children or your change of life, consider how you'd react to such a change. If you're used to having it be you as a dog and two adults, and then this child comes and WHAM takes all the attention and pulls on your hair and your tail and pats your head and jabs your eyes how would you feel? That's when you take the time to hire somebody who knows what they're doing to help your animal through this transition that they're having such a time with. If you can't do what you need to in order to keep your animal as part of your family then maybe you should strongly consider whether or not an animal is a responsibility you are ready to take on. End of rant.
Oh, believe me, I understand. At my mom's house, she has framed pictures (Glamour shots, really) of all the cats and only after my sister pointed it out did she put up one (unframed) picture of her three human daughters (it was a candid from last Christmas and we are all in PJs looking janky). I grew up with kitty brothers and sisters and my son has uncle and auntie cats. Our daycare provider once incredulously asked how many brothers and sisters I have because during sharing time he rattled off all the names of his aunts and uncles, including my mom's 5 cats, and listed my sister's cat and her three ferrets as his cousins. So, yeah, I know that pets are family.
However, if my (human) sister attacked my son, I would never see her again. I would cut her out of my life. If she was living with me, I would kick her out. Why can't I do the same to the cat who has attacked my son *without provocation*? Seriously, imagine if a human adult member of your family just outright slashed or bit your child, with no warning or previous negative encounter. You would call the cops, press charges, file a retraining order, kick them out, never see them again, right? If you want to say that "animals are people too" than they need to be held to the same standard of behavior. If you argue that an animal can't control their behaviors (because they are animals), then how can I equate them to a human family member?
When we saved Khloe (all of our pets have come from shelters or crisis situations), we had no idea that she had these behavioral issues. I nearly fell down the stairs after she latched on to my leg and sunk her teeth into my foot while I was carrying my son down this morning. Last night, she leapt on my back and bit my neck, hard, while I was bending over, opening the hot oven, causing me to burn my hand and almost fling a hot pan towards my son and husband in the dining room. And, while my son was quietly playing with his trains, she stalked and pounced on him (it happened in less than an instant), latching on to his arm with her front paws and raking his arm with her back paws repeatedly, breaking the skin in multiple places and causing him to bleed. We have enough money to buy her nutritious food and take her to the vet (we are responsible pet owners), but not enough to pay a behavior specialist who may or may not be a quack. We have two giant cat trees, escape routes, high grounds, ample toys, play with her often, feed her and provide clean water and access to multiple clean litter boxes. We cuddle with her (when she wants to) and speak kindly to her. My son is the most gentle little guy and has never once pulled her tail or fur and knows the importance of gentle hands. She is up on all her shots and has had appropriate vet care. We love her, but cannot accept this behavior anymore. Am I an irresponsible parent if I try to find a home where she is less stressed (obviously something is stressing her out) and ensure that all my children (human and animal) are safe?
End of (guilt-fueled, hormonal, stressed-out, at-wits-end, when-is-this-f'ing-week-going-to-be-over) rant.
@missnc77 It happens, all the time. It's happened to friends of DH and husbands of other spouses that we are close with. The missions that these particular men go on and the particular ships that my husband gets assigned to with his rate are involved in many of the top secret missions where front line combat are involved. I understand for every member and rate it is very different due to rate, rank, branch. Several things take place in determining where members serve their time on deployment. It's not like I feel like this all the time, I was simply expressing that with the recent terrorist activity and threats, it most definitely has been something I have dreamt about the past few nights and things that have crossed my mind the past few days.
Hm ... I realize that this is a highly contentious issue, I am a die hard liberal and of course, I am only a US resident which may cause the flames to burn, but I'm going to weigh in on the whole refugee thing:
(1) The screening process for refugees is, like, extreme. That's why the wait time between application and admittance is so long. Added to that, the previous refugees that have been accepted and come to live in the US have never, not once, been arrested for any domestic terrorism/links to domestic terrorism, etc. The idea that this is a fragile time is prevalent right now because fear is high, but the likelihood of admitting militants in with the refugees is very low. True, not impossible, but then this is a country that already is very comfortable with such a high insurance rate (see the school shootings vs. gun control debate). And don't forget - the CIA and border patrol agencies are onboard with the refugee thing. They have already made statements saying that they can handle it and are confident about it. Since they are actually on the font lines of this (rather than, say, Ted Cruz of Mike Huckabee or Chris Christie), then maybe we should believe them with their experience and knowledge and not politicians who are trying to monopolize on your worries?
(2) GOVERNORS CAN'T JUST BAN REFUGEES! Sorry for the caps, but this bothers me as a lawyer and a politics junkie. Refugees are a FEDERAL issue, not a state issue. What that means is that the federal government goes "Okay, this is our quota of refugees for the year, and here's where it makes sense to send them in the country" and that's that (If you still have some doubt look up the Refugee Act of 1980 and the USSC case of Hines v. Davidowitz). All the States can do is make things more difficult which will be a further strain on the federal government and by extension, all of us. How about them tax hikes, eh? Anyway, what this boils down to his Governors who can basically play on fears and xenophobia for votes without actually doing much but publicly disagreeing with the federal government. Literally - all your governor can do is sit on his or her hands and proclaim loudly that they do not like this and by hell or high water, this will not happen ... and then do nothing but rake in praise from Fox News because there's nothing actually to do.
Further, as an immigrant to the US (my husband is a dual Canadian-American citizen and we moved here a few years ago), these attitudes terrify me because of my status - how far is it to leap from "refugees drain our economy!" to "Immigrants come and take our jobs!" ? This is a land of immigrants, let us not forget, and it should be pointed out that if you're really going to fight terror on an international level - accepting the people who are running away from the very terrorists that are threatening world order is probably a smart move.
So, even though I don't get a vote (permanent resident, yo), I side with taking in those people who have lost everything in a war they didn't start and I trust the professionals tasked with screening them and keeping us safe. Not the governors and presidential hopefuls who apparently don't understand the basics of the Constitution they hold so dear.
I love this. I definitely fall more into moderate range, but as a country that is better off than most, I do think it's our responsibility to help in some way the WORST migrant crisis since WW2. How we are acting today is unfortunate. Excluding 9/11, white wing extremists have killed more in the US than radical Islamic terrorists. Every time the Westboro church does something, the remaining Christians do not have to stand up and say we are not like that for fear of persecution. It is sad that those of the Islamic Faith have too, especially the ones fleeing war zones.
If it was us with our young children fleeing a place where our family members were dying, I would hope other countries would feel empathy rather than saying it isn't their problem.
UO- I HATE when people re-home their animals. Absolutely cannot stand it. I was raised to see my animals as family members, my mom has always referred to our dogs and cats as her "favorite kids" because they don't talk back or break curfew. If you get a cat or a dog you get that animal for the rest of their LIFE. You (general you) don't get to just get rid of your animal because now you need to move to an apartment that doesn't accept animals. If I have animals, I don't even CONSIDER places that don't allow animals. If your animals don't react well to your children or your change of life, consider how you'd react to such a change. If you're used to having it be you as a dog and two adults, and then this child comes and WHAM takes all the attention and pulls on your hair and your tail and pats your head and jabs your eyes how would you feel? That's when you take the time to hire somebody who knows what they're doing to help your animal through this transition that they're having such a time with. If you can't do what you need to in order to keep your animal as part of your family then maybe you should strongly consider whether or not an animal is a responsibility you are ready to take on. End of rant.
Oh, believe me, I understand. At my mom's house, she has framed pictures (Glamour shots, really) of all the cats and only after my sister pointed it out did she put up one (unframed) picture of her three human daughters (it was a candid from last Christmas and we are all in PJs looking janky). I grew up with kitty brothers and sisters and my son has uncle and auntie cats. Our daycare provider once incredulously asked how many brothers and sisters I have because during sharing time he rattled off all the names of his aunts and uncles, including my mom's 5 cats, and listed my sister's cat and her three ferrets as his cousins. So, yeah, I know that pets are family.
However, if my (human) sister attacked my son, I would never see her again. I would cut her out of my life. If she was living with me, I would kick her out. Why can't I do the same to the cat who has attacked my son *without provocation*? Seriously, imagine if a human adult member of your family just outright slashed or bit your child, with no warning or previous negative encounter. You would call the cops, press charges, file a retraining order, kick them out, never see them again, right? If you want to say that "animals are people too" than they need to be held to the same standard of behavior. If you argue that an animal can't control their behaviors (because they are animals), then how can I equate them to a human family member?
When we saved Khloe (all of our pets have come from shelters or crisis situations), we had no idea that she had these behavioral issues. I nearly fell down the stairs after she latched on to my leg and sunk her teeth into my foot while I was carrying my son down this morning. Last night, she leapt on my back and bit my neck, hard, while I was bending over, opening the hot oven, causing me to burn my hand and almost fling a hot pan towards my son and husband in the dining room. And, while my son was quietly playing with his trains, she stalked and pounced on him (it happened in less than an instant), latching on to his arm with her front paws and raking his arm with her back paws repeatedly, breaking the skin in multiple places and causing him to bleed. We have enough money to buy her nutritious food and take her to the vet (we are responsible pet owners), but not enough to pay a behavior specialist who may or may not be a quack. We have two giant cat trees, escape routes, high grounds, ample toys, play with her often, feed her and provide clean water and access to multiple clean litter boxes. We cuddle with her (when she wants to) and speak kindly to her. My son is the most gentle little guy and has never once pulled her tail or fur and knows the importance of gentle hands. She is up on all her shots and has had appropriate vet care. We love her, but cannot accept this behavior anymore. Am I an irresponsible parent if I try to find a home where she is less stressed (obviously something is stressing her out) and ensure that all my children (human and animal) are safe?
End of (guilt-fueled, hormonal, stressed-out, at-wits-end, when-is-this-f'ing-week-going-to-be-over) rant.
I agree that animals are part of the family, but I'd be lying if I said that I love my doggie as much as my son. I just don't and I don't think that makes me a bad pet owner. Though, before I had children, I never imagined I'd say that. We have worked with our nervous dog, and our child so that they get along most of the time-- and to be sure that our dog gets space when he gets overwhelmed. We don't leave them alone together. But, if he ever outright attacked DS, it'd be over. I already feel slightly less love for him after one time a year ago when he growled at DS for petting him after a bath. @laurenmdrn16 I don't think you're being unreasonable at all.
If it was us with our young children fleeing a place where our family members were dying, I would hope other countries would feel empathy rather than saying it isn't their problem.
I don't think anyone (at least the people I know) are saying its "isn't our problem". I think the issue is the uncertainty of who exactly is coming into the country. I am pretty conservative, and wish I could help everyone (I know, shocker! Conservatives wanting to help!). If it wasn't for the terror coming out of Syria, then I would say, let them all in. Its a national security issue at this point. Not an issue of not wanting to help. At least that is how I see it.
1. I really feel like the whole gender/sex reveal parties is clearly a personal decision and no matter how many times we talk about it, all of our opinions are going to be how they are. It really doesn't affect me if you do or don't throw a party. We haven't decided yet if we will but right now, I don't want to. And it's not because it's "cheesy" it's because I don't want one more damn thing to do. Yes, I know that there is a difference between sex and gender but let's face it, whoever said they are the gender until they voice otherwise is correct.
2. I'm excited for everyone to hit their 20 week mark so we don't have to keep talking about gender/sex reveal parties.
3. If someone threw one with a giant penis or vagina balloon, you better believe I will be there with bells on. That party sounds hilariously fun!
4. I judge people who get rid of their animals because they have a baby. That animal sees you as their family, and you are not willing to take it to a training class or anything before you get rid of it? You're bringing a new human into what they see as their space and territory. There will be a learning curve. Don't leave your dog/cat/bird/etc. alone with the baby and do some training and it will work out. I've had my my baby fur-baby since she was 6 weeks old (she's now 7) and our other dog for 2 years. We know there will be a learning curve when the baby comes home but we are willing to work through that; not send them back to the shelters. We are their family and all they know.
5. I also agree with whoever said people who abuse animals should be locked up. There's actual proof behind people who abuse animals and sociopaths.
Overall, my UO for the day is I wish we'd stop talking about gender/sex reveal parties.
My UO: I really dislike horses. I know. *gasp* But seriously, do not like them.
Like...to ride or to look at? They aren't my favorite animal or anything but I couldn't think of a reason to dislike them if I'm just looking at them. I've never heard anyone say they dislike horses so that's an interesting UO.
If it was us with our young children fleeing a place where our family members were dying, I would hope other countries would feel empathy rather than saying it isn't their problem.
I don't think anyone (at least the people I know) are saying its "isn't our problem". I think the issue is the uncertainty of who exactly is coming into the country. I am pretty conservative, and wish I could help everyone (I know, shocker! Conservatives wanting to help!). If it wasn't for the terror coming out of Syria, then I would say, let them all in. Its a national security issue at this point. Not an issue of not wanting to help. At least that is how I see it.
I read "it's not responsibility" as it's not our problem, and I shouldn't have because I attached negative connotations. My apologies.
I understand the national security piece, but most attacks in the US do come from citizens of our own country. I just see it as a risk that should be taken that could save thousands of lives. Unfortunately, any time help is really needed, there is always a risk. There is no 100% right thing to do in global crisis.
@laurenmdrn16 and @kbrands7 I totally respect where you guys are coming from. I'm not saying that humans and animals are on the same level by any means, I simply said we've always believed that our animals are "like" family. I believe that animals, no matter how much you work with them, have natural animal instincts regardless of how much we have domesticated the dog and the cat, they still have lines and DNA coding them for their ancestors that lived in the wild and preyed for food. Would I have a huge problem with an animal attacking my children, myself, or my other family members? Heck yes I would! Would I do what was in my power to fix this problem behavior? Heck yes I would. If it didn't work out would I allow that animal to remain in my home to continue harming myself and the people I love? No. Do I feel it's the animals fault? Nope. My comment was mainly regarding people who get rid of their animals simply because they leave their children alone in a room together and when their child grabs their dogs tail, the dog snarls. Well?! What the heck do you expect? And those people who move and choose to sign a lease with a place that doesn't allow animals. So since you decided to not look at places that allow animals, your animal now gets to go to a shelter and you're just done with him or her and let's just cross our fingers and hope that someone wants to adopt a 5 year old dog when there are hundreds of others waiting for a home at the same shelter? That's not ok, not by any means. In this circumstance there is no logical or moral reason to do this.
If it was us with our young children fleeing a place where our family members were dying, I would hope other countries would feel empathy rather than saying it isn't their problem.
I don't think anyone (at least the people I know) are saying its "isn't our problem". I think the issue is the uncertainty of who exactly is coming into the country. I am pretty conservative, and wish I could help everyone (I know, shocker! Conservatives wanting to help!). If it wasn't for the terror coming out of Syria, then I would say, let them all in. Its a national security issue at this point. Not an issue of not wanting to help. At least that is how I see it.
I read "it's not responsibility" as it's not our problem, and I shouldn't have because I attached negative connotations. My apologies.
I understand the national security piece, but most attacks in the US do come from citizens of our own country. I just see it as a risk that should be taken that could save thousands of lives. Unfortunately, any time help is really needed, there is always a risk. There is no 100% right thing to do in global crisis.
No reason to apologize. You didn't say anything worth apoligizing for.... its a good place to have these discussions!
My UO: I really dislike horses. I know. *gasp* But seriously, do not like them.
Like...to ride or to look at? They aren't my favorite animal or anything but I couldn't think of a reason to dislike them if I'm just looking at them. I've never heard anyone say they dislike horses so that's an interesting UO.
Like some people just plain don't like dogs or cats, I just plain don't like horses. I also find "horse people" highly obnoxious. I don't care about their breed, etc. I have zero interest in anything horse related. I can see the point of work horses but showing horses/horse shows, riding for pleasure, owning a horse as a "pet"....I just plain don't get it.
Maybe it's just an UO around here. We have a friend who is seriously into horses, even majored in equine studies. We have taken DD to visit that friend's horse (I do believe in exposing my children to different things even if I don't like them). I can tolerate them okay just not an animal I would choose to own, be around, or talk about. My eyes seriously glaze over when people start talking horses or make me walk through the horse area at the fair.
Married: 1/2008 ~ DD#1: 3/2012 TTC #2: Started 4/2014 BFP 7/30/15 MC 8/3/15 BFP 9/4/2015 EDD 5/16/2016
And those people who move and choose to sign a lease with a place that doesn't allow animals. So since you decided to not look at places that allow animals, your animal now gets to go to a shelter and you're just done with him or her and let's just cross our fingers and hope that someone wants to adopt a 5 year old dog when there are hundreds of others waiting for a home at the same shelter? That's not ok, not by any means. In this circumstance there is no logical or moral reason to do this.
I actually know a few people who had to get rid of pets in a move. Some was because it was a huge move and it was not going to work with a pet (this was actually me as a child). Others because they had to move and could not find a place in their price range that accepted pets and they didn't have time to wait for something to come available that did. There are legitimate reasons to re-home a pet due to a move.
Married: 1/2008 ~ DD#1: 3/2012 TTC #2: Started 4/2014 BFP 7/30/15 MC 8/3/15 BFP 9/4/2015 EDD 5/16/2016
And those people who move and choose to sign a lease with a place that doesn't allow animals. So since you decided to not look at places that allow animals, your animal now gets to go to a shelter and you're just done with him or her and let's just cross our fingers and hope that someone wants to adopt a 5 year old dog when there are hundreds of others waiting for a home at the same shelter? That's not ok, not by any means. In this circumstance there is no logical or moral reason to do this.
I actually know a few people who had to get rid of pets in a move. Some was because it was a huge move and it was not going to work with a pet (this was actually me as a child). Others because they had to move and could not find a place in their price range that accepted pets and they didn't have time to wait for something to come available that did. There are legitimate reasons to re-home a pet due to a move.
Maybe I'm too much of an animal lover but I'm going to respectfully disagree. To me, there is no reason why you can't find somewhere to live with an animal (many places offer that option) or if it's a huge move, why can't you bring the animal and their belongings? Is one more box going to do it in? I would rather pay extra money and not eat out or not have cable versus leaving my animals behind. If they are that easy for someone to leave behind, then don't adopt one.
Maybe I'm too much of an animal lover but I'm going to respectfully disagree. To me, there is no reason why you can't find somewhere to live with an animal (many places offer that option) or if it's a huge move, why can't you bring the animal and their belongings? Is one more box going to do it in? I would rather pay extra money and not eat out or not have cable versus leaving my animals behind. If they are that easy for someone to leave behind, then don't adopt one.
My circumstance: My parents business went under. We lost the house. We had to move 12 hours/700 miles away to get to where my dad could find a job in his field. The only place we could find in a good neighborhood that we could afford didn't accept pets. My grandparents took our dog.
My friend: She got pregnant, he lost his job, the place they were living needed them to move out (living with a friend and he was getting married). They had to look for low income housing. They tried for 4 months to find a place that would take a cat that was low income housing approved. No could do. They had to give the cat away or go homeless.
There are just plain circumstances that mean the pet has to get re-homed.
Married: 1/2008 ~ DD#1: 3/2012 TTC #2: Started 4/2014 BFP 7/30/15 MC 8/3/15 BFP 9/4/2015 EDD 5/16/2016
And those people who move and choose to sign a lease with a place that doesn't allow animals. So since you decided to not look at places that allow animals, your animal now gets to go to a shelter and you're just done with him or her and let's just cross our fingers and hope that someone wants to adopt a 5 year old dog when there are hundreds of others waiting for a home at the same shelter? That's not ok, not by any means. In this circumstance there is no logical or moral reason to do this.
I actually know a few people who had to get rid of pets in a move. Some was because it was a huge move and it was not going to work with a pet (this was actually me as a child). Others because they had to move and could not find a place in their price range that accepted pets and they didn't have time to wait for something to come available that did. There are legitimate reasons to re-home a pet due to a move.
Totally respect your opinion, I simply do not agree. We are moving across the country in 4 weeks and have two large dogs. It will be DH, my mom, myself, and 2 Australian shepherds on a 40 hour trip in a Toyota Camry. It's not going to be fun, but when I move every 3 to 4 years, so do my dogs. Did you know that according to ADA law, service dogs do not have to certificated or licensed and you have the right to train your own service animal? All places MUST accept service animals and you could claim service animal for allergies, asthma, anything and I'm sure 95% of the population has one or more of these things okayed by the ADA. I've got several disabilities so I lay within these guidelines by a long shot, however I'd have no problem claiming service dog for a well behaved dog to stay in an apartment that did not allow animals if all I had was seasonal allergies. It's not a lie, if the ADA says allergies count, then I'd use it to keep my dog.
And those people who move and choose to sign a lease with a place that doesn't allow animals. So since you decided to not look at places that allow animals, your animal now gets to go to a shelter and you're just done with him or her and let's just cross our fingers and hope that someone wants to adopt a 5 year old dog when there are hundreds of others waiting for a home at the same shelter? That's not ok, not by any means. In this circumstance there is no logical or moral reason to do this.
I actually know a few people who had to get rid of pets in a move. Some was because it was a huge move and it was not going to work with a pet (this was actually me as a child). Others because they had to move and could not find a place in their price range that accepted pets and they didn't have time to wait for something to come available that did. There are legitimate reasons to re-home a pet due to a move.
Totally respect your opinion, I simply do not agree. We are moving across the country in 4 weeks and have two large dogs. It will be DH, my mom, myself, and 2 Australian shepherds on a 40 hour trip in a Toyota Camry. It's not going to be fun, but when I move every 3 to 4 years, so do my dogs. Did you know that according to ADA law, service dogs do not have to certificated or licensed and you have the right to train your own service animal? All places MUST accept service animals and you could claim service animal for allergies, asthma, anything and I'm sure 95% of the population has one or more of these things okayed by the ADA. I've got several disabilities so I lay within these guidelines by a long shot, however I'd have no problem claiming service dog for a well behaved dog to stay in an apartment that did not allow animals if all I had was seasonal allergies. It's not a lie, if the ADA says allergies count, then I'd use it to keep my dog.
WHOA! Ok I cannot agree with this! You would LIE and say that an animal was a service animal?! That is extremely offensive to those who legitimately NEED service animals! I have many friends and family members who have real and actual needs that can be met by a service animal (vision impaired, social anxiety, autism etc) and do you know how ridiculously offensive and RUDE it is when people pretend that their pet is a service animal just to be able to bring it places where pets are not allowed or appropriate? To admit that you would cheat the system and LIE about something that is a very serious issue to many people is beyond offensive. My dear friend had to fly to Texas and go through months of training away from her family to acquire a certified service animal because she is blind. If I suddenly decided "Hey, I want my pet to have the same rights as her HIGHLY TRAINED PROFESSIONAL service animal" it would be a smack in the face and it would devalue how serious the situation is for her. Very uncool. Do not lie about an animal being a "service animal" just because you think your pet is "well-behaved". Service animals are not well-behaved pets. I view them as respected members of the health care field. Just like I had to get trained and certified to become an RN, Elmira (my friend's service dog) had to be trained and certified as well. Please do not do this.
Wow. I'm actually surprised to see that the UO around here might be to accept refugees.
Jesus Freak Soapbox Warning: IMO it is my responsibility and purpose to share and spread the love of Jesus Christ all day/ every day. My safety, my health, nothing else comes above that purpose. I believe I should live in a way that puts the needs of others before my own and I honestly feel that the shift in our culture to protect your own (meaning nuclear family v. community as it once was) and every man for him/herself is/ will be our greatest downfall.
And those people who move and choose to sign a lease with a place that doesn't allow animals. So since you decided to not look at places that allow animals, your animal now gets to go to a shelter and you're just done with him or her and let's just cross our fingers and hope that someone wants to adopt a 5 year old dog when there are hundreds of others waiting for a home at the same shelter? That's not ok, not by any means. In this circumstance there is no logical or moral reason to do this.
I actually know a few people who had to get rid of pets in a move. Some was because it was a huge move and it was not going to work with a pet (this was actually me as a child). Others because they had to move and could not find a place in their price range that accepted pets and they didn't have time to wait for something to come available that did. There are legitimate reasons to re-home a pet due to a move.
Totally respect your opinion, I simply do not agree. We are moving across the country in 4 weeks and have two large dogs. It will be DH, my mom, myself, and 2 Australian shepherds on a 40 hour trip in a Toyota Camry. It's not going to be fun, but when I move every 3 to 4 years, so do my dogs. Did you know that according to ADA law, service dogs do not have to certificated or licensed and you have the right to train your own service animal? All places MUST accept service animals and you could claim service animal for allergies, asthma, anything and I'm sure 95% of the population has one or more of these things okayed by the ADA. I've got several disabilities so I lay within these guidelines by a long shot, however I'd have no problem claiming service dog for a well behaved dog to stay in an apartment that did not allow animals if all I had was seasonal allergies. It's not a lie, if the ADA says allergies count, then I'd use it to keep my dog.
WHOA! Ok I cannot agree with this! You would LIE and say that an animal was a service animal?! That is extremely offensive to those who legitimately NEED service animals! I have many friends and family members who have real and actual needs that can be met by a service animal (vision impaired, social anxiety, autism etc) and do you know how ridiculously offensive and RUDE it is when people pretend that their pet is a service animal just to be able to bring it places where pets are not allowed or appropriate? To admit that you would cheat the system and LIE about something that is a very serious issue to many people is beyond offensive. My dear friend had to fly to Texas and go through months of training away from her family to acquire a certified service animal because she is blind. If I suddenly decided "Hey, I want my pet to have the same rights as her HIGHLY TRAINED PROFESSIONAL service animal" it would be a smack in the face and it would devalue how serious the situation is for her. Very uncool. Do not lie about an animal being a "service animal" just because you think your pet is "well-behaved". Service animals are not well-behaved pets. I view them as respected members of the health care field. Just like I had to get trained and certified to become an RN, Elmira (my friend's service dog) had to be trained and certified as well. Please do not do this.
Never said I would lie, in fact I specifically said that SOLELY because the ADA states that allergies and or asthma qualify as a disability in which people could benefit from a service animal, if someone had these disabilities and it meant keeping their dog, I'd say use it. I personally have severe disabilities in which I DO need a service animal. These including asthma and allergies as well as Hashimotos disease and severe fibromyalgia where I need a wheelchair when I am having a flare up. My point in this comment was simply there are always things you could do and sacrifices to be made to keep your animals. Plain and simple.
Service animals, as stated by the ADA do not have to be certified or have a license. There are a lot of scam websites that claim that you can pay a fee for a service animal certificate when a service dog does not need any sort of vest or professional training. I know this because as someone with disabilities, I have researched long and hard about how to have a service animal and you simply have the right to train your own dog. Sorry that my post was misunderstood, however accusing me of being a liar or cheating the system is uncalled for, especially when I specifically said that since the ADA qualifies allergies and or asthma as disabilities that could find use in a service animal, if you had one or both of these (which majority of the population does) you could LEGALLY use these issues to have your animal be a service animal and it WOULD NOT be a lie. As stated in my post originally. Do I believe people should lie and claim their dog is a service dog to bring their chihuahua into a grocery store? No way. THAT IS offensive to those that have a disability and truly need their animal for service purposes. Do I think if you have a disability okayed by the ADA for a service animal you should be able to use it to keep your dog in an apartment building that doesn't allow animals? Yep. And there are plenty of other ways to keep your pet if they are well behaved. THAT was my point.
Honestly, I keep telling DH we should move to the corn fields of Kansas. I would feel safer there than in the epicenter of NY.
Not to sound cliche, but then you're doing exactly what terrorists want. Back in 2005, I was packing to go study abroad in London for the summer. When I woke up the day to go to the airport, I turned on the news and saw London was attacked. I started getting calls from other people in the program trying to see if people were still going, but I ultimately called my dad who is a retired Lt Col. He told me I needed to zip up my suitcase and get my ass on the plane, and that I should not give up something like that out of fear. So, I did as he said, zipped my suitcase, and went to the airport. Not only was it one of the best summers of my life, but being in London at the time was incredibly moving and what is ultimately lead me to go to graduate school for Public Affairs. Not to mention as soon as I got home, Katrina struck, and my friends and family lost everything. The summer of 2005 was a rough one.
Long story short, I won't give my opinions on the refugees or other things, but I do know that when bad things like this happen, people get scared. But when we start giving up things we love, any sense of adventure to travel, start judging our neighbors, and give up personal liberties, then hate is winning the ideological war. That's why I refuse to quit living. If anything, it makes me want to live even more.
I am not realllly going to move to a corn field! It's just a figure of speech. What would I do in a corn field
And those people who move and choose to sign a lease with a place that doesn't allow animals. So since you decided to not look at places that allow animals, your animal now gets to go to a shelter and you're just done with him or her and let's just cross our fingers and hope that someone wants to adopt a 5 year old dog when there are hundreds of others waiting for a home at the same shelter? That's not ok, not by any means. In this circumstance there is no logical or moral reason to do this.
I actually know a few people who had to get rid of pets in a move. Some was because it was a huge move and it was not going to work with a pet (this was actually me as a child). Others because they had to move and could not find a place in their price range that accepted pets and they didn't have time to wait for something to come available that did. There are legitimate reasons to re-home a pet due to a move.
Totally respect your opinion, I simply do not agree. We are moving across the country in 4 weeks and have two large dogs. It will be DH, my mom, myself, and 2 Australian shepherds on a 40 hour trip in a Toyota Camry. It's not going to be fun, but when I move every 3 to 4 years, so do my dogs. Did you know that according to ADA law, service dogs do not have to certificated or licensed and you have the right to train your own service animal? All places MUST accept service animals and you could claim service animal for allergies, asthma, anything and I'm sure 95% of the population has one or more of these things okayed by the ADA. I've got several disabilities so I lay within these guidelines by a long shot, however I'd have no problem claiming service dog for a well behaved dog to stay in an apartment that did not allow animals if all I had was seasonal allergies. It's not a lie, if the ADA says allergies count, then I'd use it to keep my dog.
WHOA! Ok I cannot agree with this! You would LIE and say that an animal was a service animal?! That is extremely offensive to those who legitimately NEED service animals! I have many friends and family members who have real and actual needs that can be met by a service animal (vision impaired, social anxiety, autism etc) and do you know how ridiculously offensive and RUDE it is when people pretend that their pet is a service animal just to be able to bring it places where pets are not allowed or appropriate? To admit that you would cheat the system and LIE about something that is a very serious issue to many people is beyond offensive. My dear friend had to fly to Texas and go through months of training away from her family to acquire a certified service animal because she is blind. If I suddenly decided "Hey, I want my pet to have the same rights as her HIGHLY TRAINED PROFESSIONAL service animal" it would be a smack in the face and it would devalue how serious the situation is for her. Very uncool. Do not lie about an animal being a "service animal" just because you think your pet is "well-behaved". Service animals are not well-behaved pets. I view them as respected members of the health care field. Just like I had to get trained and certified to become an RN, Elmira (my friend's service dog) had to be trained and certified as well. Please do not do this.
Never said I would lie, in fact I specifically said that SOLELY because the ADA states that allergies and or asthma qualify as a disability in which people could benefit from a service animal, if someone had these disabilities and it meant keeping their dog, I'd say use it. I personally have severe disabilities in which I DO need a service animal. These including asthma and allergies as well as Hashimotos disease and severe fibromyalgia where I need a wheelchair when I am having a flare up. My point in this comment was simply there are always things you could do and sacrifices to be made to keep your animals. Plain and simple.
I don't think she was saying that you would lie about having a qualified disability. It's lying about whether or not your pet is actually a trained service pet that's the issue. When people simply say that a well behaved pet is a service pet to gain certain perks of having a service animal without going through the extensive training, it is unfair to those who have undergone the training, and also threatens to create a culture where people do not take service animals seriously (like trying to pet them or get their attention). There is a distinct difference between the behavior and duties of a "good" dog and a trained service dog.
And those people who move and choose to sign a lease with a place that doesn't allow animals. So since you decided to not look at places that allow animals, your animal now gets to go to a shelter and you're just done with him or her and let's just cross our fingers and hope that someone wants to adopt a 5 year old dog when there are hundreds of others waiting for a home at the same shelter? That's not ok, not by any means. In this circumstance there is no logical or moral reason to do this.
I actually know a few people who had to get rid of pets in a move. Some was because it was a huge move and it was not going to work with a pet (this was actually me as a child). Others because they had to move and could not find a place in their price range that accepted pets and they didn't have time to wait for something to come available that did. There are legitimate reasons to re-home a pet due to a move.
Totally respect your opinion, I simply do not agree. We are moving across the country in 4 weeks and have two large dogs. It will be DH, my mom, myself, and 2 Australian shepherds on a 40 hour trip in a Toyota Camry. It's not going to be fun, but when I move every 3 to 4 years, so do my dogs. Did you know that according to ADA law, service dogs do not have to certificated or licensed and you have the right to train your own service animal? All places MUST accept service animals and you could claim service animal for allergies, asthma, anything and I'm sure 95% of the population has one or more of these things okayed by the ADA. I've got several disabilities so I lay within these guidelines by a long shot, however I'd have no problem claiming service dog for a well behaved dog to stay in an apartment that did not allow animals if all I had was seasonal allergies. It's not a lie, if the ADA says allergies count, then I'd use it to keep my dog.
WHOA! Ok I cannot agree with this! You would LIE and say that an animal was a service animal?! That is extremely offensive to those who legitimately NEED service animals! I have many friends and family members who have real and actual needs that can be met by a service animal (vision impaired, social anxiety, autism etc) and do you know how ridiculously offensive and RUDE it is when people pretend that their pet is a service animal just to be able to bring it places where pets are not allowed or appropriate? To admit that you would cheat the system and LIE about something that is a very serious issue to many people is beyond offensive. My dear friend had to fly to Texas and go through months of training away from her family to acquire a certified service animal because she is blind. If I suddenly decided "Hey, I want my pet to have the same rights as her HIGHLY TRAINED PROFESSIONAL service animal" it would be a smack in the face and it would devalue how serious the situation is for her. Very uncool. Do not lie about an animal being a "service animal" just because you think your pet is "well-behaved". Service animals are not well-behaved pets. I view them as respected members of the health care field. Just like I had to get trained and certified to become an RN, Elmira (my friend's service dog) had to be trained and certified as well. Please do not do this.
Never said I would lie, in fact I specifically said that SOLELY because the ADA states that allergies and or asthma qualify as a disability in which people could benefit from a service animal, if someone had these disabilities and it meant keeping their dog, I'd say use it. I personally have severe disabilities in which I DO need a service animal. These including asthma and allergies as well as Hashimotos disease and severe fibromyalgia where I need a wheelchair when I am having a flare up. My point in this comment was simply there are always things you could do and sacrifices to be made to keep your animals. Plain and simple.
Service animals, as stated by the ADA do not have to be certified or have a license. There are a lot of scam websites that claim that you can pay a fee for a service animal certificate when a service dog does not need any sort of vest or professional training. I know this because as someone with disabilities, I have researched long and hard about how to have a service animal and you simply have the right to train your own dog. Sorry that my post was misunderstood, however accusing me of being a liar or cheating the system is uncalled for, especially when I specifically said that since the ADA qualifies allergies and or asthma as disabilities that could find use in a service animal, if you had one or both of these (which majority of the population does) you could LEGALLY use these issues to have your animal be a service animal and it WOULD NOT be a lie. As stated in my post originally. Do I believe people should lie and claim their dog is a service dog to bring their chihuahua into a grocery store? No way. THAT IS offensive to those that have a disability and truly need their animal for service purposes. Do I think if you have a disability okayed by the ADA for a service animal you should be able to use it to keep your dog in an apartment building that doesn't allow animals? Yep. And there are plenty of other ways to keep your pet if they are well behaved. THAT was my point.
Attached is a snapshot directly from Ada.gov that states that service dogs DO NOT have to be professionally trained and CAN be trained by their owner to perform tasks necessary in helping with their disability i.e. Calling for help when someone's having an asthma attack or allergic reaction, reminding their owner to take their medication, opening doors..etc
And there are lots of states that do not require "school nurses" to be RNs with BSN/MSN. Am I offended when I am compared to an unlicensed person attempting to do the same job as me? Of course! Just because you can find a legal loophole does not make something right. I could've taken the easy route and NOT gotten licensed and nationally certified as a school nurse but worked in a different more lenient state, but it wouldn't be right or in my mind ethical. My friend could've taken the easy route too, but respects the title of service animal too much NOT to do the right, but maybe not legally required, action of acquiring a legitimate service animal.
@laurenmdrn16 alright, fair enough. Clearly a complete difference in opinion and that's perfectly fine. Like I said, I've got a chronic pain disorder where when I flare every single month for differing periods of time I can't walk, talk, my husband has to feed and bathe me. I MOST DEFINITELY qualify for service animals and I have them and I have trained them to open doors, bring me my inhaler for asthma, they know when to bark for help or how to go find help. I did all of that. To me, my dogs are NO LESS service dogs than someone who has their dog professionally trained because they can do everything I need them to do in order to assist me with my disability. Sorry I've seemed to offend you with my opinion, but I'm definitely not a liar or a cheater or any less of a Christian by having this opinion, clearly it was indeed an unpopular one and that's perfectly fine.
Now how about those bell bottom ruffled pants and gigantic hair bows!
Syrian refugees are trying to escape the same oppressive terrorists regimes that we're fighting against. Also, several of the terrorists were French--by that logic, would we need to ban visitors from France and Belgium, too?
I lived in NYC for 9/11 and I remember the fear. But I also had Muslim friends, one of whom was harassed on the street. That's not right. That's not us, as Americans, is it?
Ok, I have another one since its been front and center in the news this week, and slightly touched upon here....I don't think we should be allowing any refugees in the country right now. The #1 job of the POTUS is to keep the citizens safe. And if there is even the slightest chance that one refugee can cause the type of harm and chaos we saw in Paris, then we need to take precautions. I am all for helping in safe ways, and feel for the children in particular that are fleeing Syria. But allowing 10,000 in the country at this very fragile time seems risky. I found this opinion piece in the Post today summed up my views on this debate.
Living in NYC, the fear is real. I try not to dwell on it when on the subway, or shopping in some of the more busy areas, but we need to be aware that the threat is real and tangible.
I'm a lifelong New Yorker who's been trapped in the midwest for a decade now. And I was a member of New Yorkers Against the War back in '03. And I have family in NYC, London, Boston, Paris, etc., and we lost a number of friends on 9/11. I also have connections in DC working for Homeland Security.
So, from both an emotional/experiential position and a knowledge position, I am saying this:
We should take in the Syrian refugees (and the Rohingya, too).
Here's why:
1. Terrorism is something we prevent by tracking people, using surveillance, vigilant inspections at ports, and controlling substances that could be used in terror plots (guns, biological agents, ammonium nitrate). Tracking refugees is far easier than tracking tourists or "home-grown" terrorists. Anyone admitted as a refugee has undergone a multi-year vetting process (the family that was turned away from Indiana yesterday and sent to Connecticut instead began their asylum process *3 years ago*!), and has agreed to continue to be monitored for years after arrival.
2. Home grown terrorists are by far the most dangerous and the ones we should be worried about (this is direct from my homeland security contact). Let's remember that, before 9/11, our single worst terrorist attack was perpetrated by an American, Timothy McVeigh.
3. The single worst thing that can happen to ISIS (from their perspective) is for all Syrian refugees to be admitted to safe countries. ISIS still needs a tax base, they need populations to support their efforts, they need families to produce new soldiers. Allowing those who want to leave to do would rob them of all of that.
4. More than that, ISIS needs people to radicalize, people who hate the West. If the West invites the needy in with open arms, ISIS will lose the ability to recruit more terrorists.
5. These people are refugees because they are fleeing violence. They are not trying to start shit: they are trying to build peaceful lives. And if you want to argue that a terrorist will sneak in with a horde of refugees, good luck not getting caught: as I mentioned above, no one is vetted like refugees are vetted.
No *one* terrorist could pull off something like the Paris attacks. It takes the coordinated effort of many people (And it's not as if they did not raise red flags: the Iraqi government warned the French that something would happen). And, might I add, the cell that carried out those attacks was based *in Belgium.* You don't need to be living someplace to attack it.
@ncm0328 what pissed me off was this in your original post:
"I would have no problem claiming service dog for a well behaved dog to stay in an apartment that did not allow animals if all I had was seasonal allergies. It's not a lie, if the ADA says allergies count, then I'd use it to keep my dog."
Not cool. I don't doubt you personally have legitimate need, but you encouraged others to cheat the system. But you are belittling legitimate disabilities by saying others should consider using seasonal allergies as an excuse to abuse the system. As @kbrands7 said, it reinforces a culture where service animals are not respected if you know your neighbor abused the system by claiming their pet is a service animal just to get them into a no-pets allowed apartment building.
Hope that was enough drama for everybody because I am out!
I think Unpopular Opinion Thursday should be renamed to Debate Thursday. I always think of UO as being able to state an unpopular opinion and then move on. But on The Bump it's more like one person states an opinion and then everyone responds. So really the thread is not abut multiple UO's, it's about a couple that are hot topics and then pages and pages of debate. State your UO, if others agree, hit the Love It button, if you don't agree, move on to the next post. It's one person's UO, hence the name of the thread. It's because of this that I usually skip UO. This could just be me and my understanding not being the same as the group's.
Seriously. What happened to the light heartedness affiliated with stating an UNPOPULAR OPINION. Obviously there are going to be people who agree and people who disagree. Shoot, maybe there's NOBODY who agrees, and that's fine; but I've never ever thought that such a light hearted board where we are allowed to state an unpopular opinion could turn and make me feel like the biggest piece of scum on the earth. Makes me not even want to participate in this board period. And no, I'm by no means a sensitive individual. I am blunt as heck and it rubs a lot of people the wrong way and there are also people who really respect my no bs and no fluffing approach to the way I speak. I post here how I would speak to anybody else in real life. The beautiful thing about life is there are people of all shapes, sizes, colors, opinions and I think it's fabulous for people to have differing opinions, it's what makes the world go around. That's why I'm sure to not question people's integrity when they state or say something that I don't necessarily support or believe in. I personally won't be partaking in any future UO boards and will certainly bite my tongue and think long and hard before posting on somebody's question or statement in the future.
I won't be showcasing his or her genitalia at the dinner party we are having so maybe I'm having a different kind then others.
Wait, you won't have a giant penis piñata if it's a boy?! I thought this was how these things are done!! haha
One of our friends suggested we have a hot dog or taco party... Now THAT would be grossly inappropriate and probably on the side of showcasing genitalia!
Been married since 2009. Unicornuate Uterus (yes I menstruate glitter) Several MCs DD born 2013 (our miracle "you can't have babies" baby!)
@vinerie I love my Chihuahua and he's never attacked anyone.
I also love all the pitbulls I've saved from being fought, abandoned, and abused. I've not been attacked by any of them. In fact, the ones that are trained to fight are only aggressive towards other dogs not people. I think all dogs have the ability to be vicious and attack people. I don't believe it is the breed. My pitbulls have been the most loving and wonderful dogs I've ever owned.
Been married since 2009. Unicornuate Uterus (yes I menstruate glitter) Several MCs DD born 2013 (our miracle "you can't have babies" baby!)
I think Unpopular Opinion Thursday should be renamed to Debate Thursday. I always think of UO as being able to state an unpopular opinion and then move on. But on The Bump it's more like one person states an opinion and then everyone responds. So really the thread is not abut multiple UO's, it's about a couple that are hot topics and then pages and pages of debate. State your UO, if others agree, hit the Love It button, if you don't agree, move on to the next post. It's one person's UO, hence the name of the thread. It's because of this that I usually skip UO. This could just be me and my understanding not being the same as the group's.
Seriously. What happened to the light heartedness affiliated with stating an UNPOPULAR OPINION. Obviously there are going to be people who agree and people who disagree. Shoot, maybe there's NOBODY who agrees, and that's fine; but I've never ever thought that such a light hearted board where we are allowed to state an unpopular opinion could turn and make me feel like the biggest piece of scum on the earth. Makes me not even want to participate in this board period. And no, I'm by no means a sensitive individual. I am blunt as heck and it rubs a lot of people the wrong way and there are also people who really respect my no bs and no fluffing approach to the way I speak. I post here how I would speak to anybody else in real life. The beautiful thing about life is there are people of all shapes, sizes, colors, opinions and I think it's fabulous for people to have differing opinions, it's what makes the world go around. That's why I'm sure to not question people's integrity when they state or say something that I don't necessarily support or believe in. I personally won't be partaking in any future UO boards and will certainly bite my tongue and think long and hard before posting on somebody's question or statement in the future.
I've been on TB for 4 years and never have seen an UO thread stay lighthearted. I honestly think ours, including this one, are pretty tame. I'm seen some real crazy ones over the years. Not saying you don't have valid feelings just that the nature of UO and FFFC is not one of lightheartedness and they generally turn into debate.
Married: 1/2008 ~ DD#1: 3/2012 TTC #2: Started 4/2014 BFP 7/30/15 MC 8/3/15 BFP 9/4/2015 EDD 5/16/2016
@ncm0328 you must be more sensitive than you think if that exchange would make you not want to participate in the group. It was one person and she has a right to her opinion also. I hope you change your mind with time.
Re: UO Thursday
Not to sound cliche, but then you're doing exactly what terrorists want. Back in 2005, I was packing to go study abroad in London for the summer. When I woke up the day to go to the airport, I turned on the news and saw London was attacked. I started getting calls from other people in the program trying to see if people were still going, but I ultimately called my dad who is a retired Lt Col. He told me I needed to zip up my suitcase and get my ass on the plane, and that I should not give up something like that out of fear. So, I did as he said, zipped my suitcase, and went to the airport. Not only was it one of the best summers of my life, but being in London at the time was incredibly moving and what is ultimately lead me to go to graduate school for Public Affairs. Not to mention as soon as I got home, Katrina struck, and my friends and family lost everything. The summer of 2005 was a rough one.
Long story short, I won't give my opinions on the refugees or other things, but I do know that when bad things like this happen, people get scared. But when we start giving up things we love, any sense of adventure to travel, start judging our neighbors, and give up personal liberties, then hate is winning the ideological war. That's why I refuse to quit living. If anything, it makes me want to live even more.
***************
If doing what the terrorists want leaves myself and DD safe, then so be it. Going shopping in the city isn't going to make or break my life. It's not a lifelong ambition.
When I was single I would have thought about this differently. Now, I guess I just think if it's not important, why risk it?
I live in the middle of nowhere. And I love it.
Edited for quote box fail
Married: 1/2008 ~ DD#1: 3/2012
TTC #2: Started 4/2014 BFP 7/30/15 MC 8/3/15 BFP 9/4/2015 EDD 5/16/2016
I love this. I definitely fall more into moderate range, but as a country that is better off than most, I do think it's our responsibility to help in some way the WORST migrant crisis since WW2. How we are acting today is unfortunate. Excluding 9/11, white wing extremists have killed more in the US than radical Islamic terrorists. Every time the Westboro church does something, the remaining Christians do not have to stand up and say we are not like that for fear of persecution. It is sad that those of the Islamic Faith have too, especially the ones fleeing war zones.
If it was us with our young children fleeing a place where our family members were dying, I would hope other countries would feel empathy rather than saying it isn't their problem.
I read "it's not responsibility" as it's not our problem, and I shouldn't have because I attached negative connotations. My apologies.
I understand the national security piece, but most attacks in the US do come from citizens of our own country. I just see it as a risk that should be taken that could save thousands of lives. Unfortunately, any time help is really needed, there is always a risk. There is no 100% right thing to do in global crisis.
Maybe it's just an UO around here. We have a friend who is seriously into horses, even majored in equine studies. We have taken DD to visit that friend's horse (I do believe in exposing my children to different things even if I don't like them). I can tolerate them okay just not an animal I would choose to own, be around, or talk about. My eyes seriously glaze over when people start talking horses or make me walk through the horse area at the fair.
Married: 1/2008 ~ DD#1: 3/2012
TTC #2: Started 4/2014 BFP 7/30/15 MC 8/3/15 BFP 9/4/2015 EDD 5/16/2016
Married: 1/2008 ~ DD#1: 3/2012
TTC #2: Started 4/2014 BFP 7/30/15 MC 8/3/15 BFP 9/4/2015 EDD 5/16/2016
My friend: She got pregnant, he lost his job, the place they were living needed them to move out (living with a friend and he was getting married). They had to look for low income housing. They tried for 4 months to find a place that would take a cat that was low income housing approved. No could do. They had to give the cat away or go homeless.
There are just plain circumstances that mean the pet has to get re-homed.
Married: 1/2008 ~ DD#1: 3/2012
TTC #2: Started 4/2014 BFP 7/30/15 MC 8/3/15 BFP 9/4/2015 EDD 5/16/2016
Also, if you search "hipster babies" on pinterest you'll find lots.... lame I know.
Totally respect your opinion, I simply do not agree. We are moving across the country in 4 weeks and have two large dogs. It will be DH, my mom, myself, and 2 Australian shepherds on a 40 hour trip in a Toyota Camry. It's not going to be fun, but when I move every 3 to 4 years, so do my dogs. Did you know that according to ADA law, service dogs do not have to certificated or licensed and you have the right to train your own service animal? All places MUST accept service animals and you could claim service animal for allergies, asthma, anything and I'm sure 95% of the population has one or more of these things okayed by the ADA. I've got several disabilities so I lay within these guidelines by a long shot, however I'd have no problem claiming service dog for a well behaved dog to stay in an apartment that did not allow animals if all I had was seasonal allergies. It's not a lie, if the ADA says allergies count, then I'd use it to keep my dog.
DD: 05/14/16
Never said I would lie, in fact I specifically said that SOLELY because the ADA states that allergies and or asthma qualify as a disability in which people could benefit from a service animal, if someone had these disabilities and it meant keeping their dog, I'd say use it. I personally have severe disabilities in which I DO need a service animal. These including asthma and allergies as well as Hashimotos disease and severe fibromyalgia where I need a wheelchair when I am having a flare up. My point in this comment was simply there are always things you could do and sacrifices to be made to keep your animals. Plain and simple.
Service animals, as stated by the ADA do not have to be certified or have a license. There are a lot of scam websites that claim that you can pay a fee for a service animal certificate when a service dog does not need any sort of vest or professional training. I know this because as someone with disabilities, I have researched long and hard about how to have a service animal and you simply have the right to train your own dog. Sorry that my post was misunderstood, however accusing me of being a liar or cheating the system is uncalled for, especially when I specifically said that since the ADA qualifies allergies and or asthma as disabilities that could find use in a service animal, if you had one or both of these (which majority of the population does) you could LEGALLY use these issues to have your animal be a service animal and it WOULD NOT be a lie. As stated in my post originally. Do I believe people should lie and claim their dog is a service dog to bring their chihuahua into a grocery store? No way. THAT IS offensive to those that have a disability and truly need their animal for service purposes. Do I think if you have a disability okayed by the ADA for a service animal you should be able to use it to keep your dog in an apartment building that doesn't allow animals? Yep. And there are plenty of other ways to keep your pet if they are well behaved. THAT was my point.
Never said I would lie, in fact I specifically said that SOLELY because the ADA states that allergies and or asthma qualify as a disability in which people could benefit from a service animal, if someone had these disabilities and it meant keeping their dog, I'd say use it. I personally have severe disabilities in which I DO need a service animal. These including asthma and allergies as well as Hashimotos disease and severe fibromyalgia where I need a wheelchair when I am having a flare up. My point in this comment was simply there are always things you could do and sacrifices to be made to keep your animals. Plain and simple.
Service animals, as stated by the ADA do not have to be certified or have a license. There are a lot of scam websites that claim that you can pay a fee for a service animal certificate when a service dog does not need any sort of vest or professional training. I know this because as someone with disabilities, I have researched long and hard about how to have a service animal and you simply have the right to train your own dog. Sorry that my post was misunderstood, however accusing me of being a liar or cheating the system is uncalled for, especially when I specifically said that since the ADA qualifies allergies and or asthma as disabilities that could find use in a service animal, if you had one or both of these (which majority of the population does) you could LEGALLY use these issues to have your animal be a service animal and it WOULD NOT be a lie. As stated in my post originally. Do I believe people should lie and claim their dog is a service dog to bring their chihuahua into a grocery store? No way. THAT IS offensive to those that have a disability and truly need their animal for service purposes. Do I think if you have a disability okayed by the ADA for a service animal you should be able to use it to keep your dog in an apartment building that doesn't allow animals? Yep. And there are plenty of other ways to keep your pet if they are well behaved. THAT was my point.
Attached is a snapshot directly from Ada.gov that states that service dogs DO NOT have to be professionally trained and CAN be trained by their owner to perform tasks necessary in helping with their disability i.e. Calling for help when someone's having an asthma attack or allergic reaction, reminding their owner to take their medication, opening doors..etc
Now how about those bell bottom ruffled pants and gigantic hair bows!
DS: Born 5-17-16
"I would have no problem claiming service dog for a well behaved dog to stay in an apartment that did not allow animals if all I had was seasonal allergies. It's not a lie, if the ADA says allergies count, then I'd use it to keep my dog."
Not cool. I don't doubt you personally have legitimate need, but you encouraged others to cheat the system. But you are belittling legitimate disabilities by saying others should consider using seasonal allergies as an excuse to abuse the system. As @kbrands7 said, it reinforces a culture where service animals are not respected if you know your neighbor abused the system by claiming their pet is a service animal just to get them into a no-pets allowed apartment building.
Hope that was enough drama for everybody because I am out!
Been married since 2009.
Unicornuate Uterus (yes I menstruate glitter)
Several MCs
DD born 2013 (our miracle "you can't have babies" baby!)
Been married since 2009.
Unicornuate Uterus (yes I menstruate glitter)
Several MCs
DD born 2013 (our miracle "you can't have babies" baby!)
Married: 1/2008 ~ DD#1: 3/2012
TTC #2: Started 4/2014 BFP 7/30/15 MC 8/3/15 BFP 9/4/2015 EDD 5/16/2016