Some people believe that all children should have pet or even an animal to look after.

It has been assumed that children who grow up a long side pets naturally develop an emotional bonding towards animals and in later life they become more compassionate towards flora and fauna. Some people support this opinion while others rejected. This essay will look at both sides of argument will give conclusion. The proponents of domestic animals or pets firmly believe that pets create an opportunity for kids to gain basic biological knowledge about flora and fauna. Furthermore, being a playmate for children pets for instant dogs and cats could possibly create a sense affinity with nature and have therefore imbibe respect for wildlife when makes kids more self possessed and extrovert. Conversely, the opponents of pets argue that under unhygienic conditions pets can be potential source of diseases like rabies, cat scratches, other types of dermatosis. In addition, it is argued that, if children excessively themselves with pets these may leads to lower education performance. Moreover, for less better half family maintenance of dog may prove to prohibited. Therefore, the pet may suffer from malnutrition. Which can be not only unethical but also cruel. On the whole, despite the ill consequences such as spreading disease, distraction from studies. I strongly believe, children who had brought up a long side pet show less misconduct.