Should owners be forced to care for pets for life, with no option to have them killed when they become inconvenient?

Who's going to force them, the Government? As disgusting as these people are, and who clearly are delinquent in taking responsibility of a choice they made, they are within their rights to destroy their pets.

I think that RSPCA (ASPCA in the USA), local animal control etc should be able to keep better legal record of history of neglect of animals, these neglect and abuse cases should carry harsher penalties.

Apart from that it is hard to means test and keep tabs on who constitutes a loving pet owner. Merely meeting a pet's basic survival needs isn't enough. Interaction and affection is required.

In a perfect world such would apply to people with children as well, just look at the shamozzle that the child protective services departments across the world face each and every day.

I know where I live, before you can adopt an animal from a shelter that do a background check on you for any history of animal abuse/neglect.

Ask the Pro Life Crowd

I have, but peta really bothers me as they have a habit of killing more animals than they save.

That is a myth though they possibly do not save enough. Once the animal is to hurt or harmed it is hard and expensive to keep them alive. Let me ask it a different way. If an animal is hurt and suffering do you keep it alive? If a Horse on a farm breaks it's leg many farmers or owners will simply put it down. It's sad all around.

NO, because sometimes it's not possible. If someone all of a sudden becomes very ill and can't take care of it, or they can't afford it any longer, then they need the option to be able to give that animal a good home first and foremost. And people have to remember that not everyone can afford to take care of animals. Look at the vet bills and how expensive they are? My friends have a Golden Retriever who needs surgery. They were beside themselves not knowing how they could pay for it. Her husband was cut down from 60 hours a week to 40, and they can barely make ends meet as it is. Luckily they found a vet that will work with them and finance the surgery. What if that weren't the case???? That's why at this time I don't have animals because I can't afford vet bills when I have so much medication for myself to buy.

I can understand your point of view, just asking a what if question. Thanks for answering.

I know what you mean. If they DID force owners to do that it could be a real disaster down the road.

I have a rescued cat and volunteer in a shelter, so I know all about the realities people face as they have to make the touch choices to give animals up. It's sad to see.

Yes, it sure is.

No vet does it, but when you give up your pet to a shelter and that shelter is full, there are vets that HAVE to.

I doubt the government would ever get involved with that, as the topic of pets is a very personal one which people are very passionate about. It would be a election disaster...

selfish people will do what they want