You’ve likely seen them by now: the pushchairs that, at a casual glance, seem to cradle sleeping babies—until a double take reveals a dog, perfectly content and ribboned, nestled where an infant ought to be.
They are becoming surprisingly common. Only last week, I sat beside one on the bus. A woman fussed over her furry companion in a buggy, cooing as if it were a toddler. There was no child in sight, only a well-groomed pooch adorned with a bow.
Now, let’s be clear. I love dogs. I love babies too. But to muddle the two is to commit a profound category error. Dogs are wonderful, loving companions. They can enrich our lives immeasurably. A pet at home can provide comfort, routine, and a sense of responsibility—something my daughter discovered after adopting a cat against my better judgment. I was adamant that a pet didn’t belong on the top floor of a mansion block. And yet, now I can’t imagine life without him. When he once fell gravely ill after swallowing sewing thread, I was in pieces and paid every penny I had to save him.
But here’s the thing—pets are not people. They’re not babies. They are not meant to be. While they may be integral members of the household (and sometimes far less trouble than the humans), they exist in a different emotional and developmental universe.
The late philosopher George Steiner famously cherished his family’s sheepdog, in part because it was the only non-linguistic presence in a house full of words. The animal’s silence, its otherness, was precisely what made it valuable.
Children, on the other hand, are fellow humans. Whether born of us or raised by us, they are part of who we are and who we might yet become. They’re gifts—complex, frustrating, demanding, brilliant. The notion that one might substitute a dog for a child, intentionally, is frankly unsettling.
And yet, a growing number of people appear to be doing just that. A recent study published in European Psychologist, conducted by researchers at the Department of Ethology at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, found that 16% of dog owners regard their pet as a child. Not figuratively—a literal child. These owners refer to themselves as “pet parents”, and to their dogs as their “fur babies”.
This is disturbing on two levels. It short-changes both the animal and the concept of childhood.
Firstly, treating dogs like babies is detrimental to the dogs. They’re meant to trot along pavements, sniff lampposts, roll in questionable substances and wag their tails at everything from squirrels to sausages. A life spent swaddled in a buggy denies them the experience of being dogs. It is, in truth, a kind of indulgent cruelty.
Secondly, it trivialises what it means to raise a human child. A baby is not merely a creature to dote upon; it is a future adult, a contributor to society, someone to teach, guide, argue with, and (hopefully) be proud of. Raising a child is hard work, emotionally and physically. But it is also the most rewarding, most fundamentally human thing most of us will ever do.
More Read
Now, I fully understand that not everyone can have children. For those who can’t, or for whom life has unfolded in a different direction, it makes perfect sense to pour love into a pet. But that’s not the same as pretending the pet is a child.
The study’s authors note that some individuals actively choose dogs over children, viewing pet ownership as a way to fulfil their nurturing instincts with fewer sacrifices. But that, frankly, is a sad compromise. It’s not the dogs’ fault, but it does speak to a cultural drift away from one of our core responsibilities: to pass life on, to raise the next generation.
Of course, it’s not a binary choice. Families with children and pets often enjoy the best of both worlds—warmth, companionship, chaos, and joy. But confusing the two roles is unfair to both.
So let’s have both, by all means. But let dogs be dogs. Let children be children. And let’s not pretend that they’re interchangeable.
