I love animals and I love human beings too (well maybe except for a few rather unlovable ones). Nevertheless, I believe that when you choose to take responsibility for a domestic animal, it is entirely dependent on you. Therefore, I believe that it is an ethical obligation to provide it with the best care possible. I would never criticise a pensioner who has to have an elderly cat put down because they can't afford chemotherapy for a terminal illness. Nor would I condemn a single parent who has to leave their animal at a humane society because they can't afford to pay for a broken leg to be repaired. But I don't think that people should choose to have the responsibility for an animal if they are not able/willing to provide for that animals' needs. Fortunately, in San Pedro, as well as in the UK, that doesn't need to happen. In San Pedro, we have SAGA, who will never let an animal suffer because its owners cannot afford the care it needs. Even stray dogs are given every chance, including chemotherapy if the prognosis and the chance of rehoming is good. In the UK, people who find themselves in financial hardship can take their animals to charity run animal hospitals for care and treatment. crockhunter, to you there is a difference between human life and animal life, but not to everyone. There is extensive research on attitudes to companion animals that indicate that many people grieve more for their pets than they do for their human loved ones and family members. Also, for many lonely and isolated people, a pet is the only 'person' in their life.