How to rehome mature cat that either needs a new home or gets the needle?

[Anonymous]

Your cat may have dementia. Failure to use the litterbox is a common sign, according to our vet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'll have the dog until it's an inconvenience. Don't .

+1 What if the dog has accidents in the house?

+2
A puppy is almost guaranteed to have accidents. An older dog may become incontinent, unable to climb stairs, etc while otherwise remaining in decent health. Then what?

Only on this board is incontinent and crippling immobility considered "in decent health". Perfect example of human wanting to cling to pet when pet is suffering.

You are either clueless or deliberately obtuse. No point arguing with stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I could never talk about my precious pets the way you speak of your cat.

This. This is what I find most upsetting on this thread. It's not the conversation about when it's the right time to euthanize, if this is the right time, etc. It's the bone chillingly cold way that OP talks about this creature who has lived with her for 13 years - longer than her husband, longer than her kids.

I don't know if she's maintaining some ironic distance to keep herself from feeling this loss too deeply. Maybe. Maybe she's just a dry person. I don't know. I hope that it's one of these explanations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could never talk about my precious pets the way you speak of your cat.

This. This is what I find most upsetting on this thread. It's not the conversation about when it's the right time to euthanize, if this is the right time, etc. It's the bone chillingly cold way that OP talks about this creature who has lived with her for 13 years - longer than her husband, longer than her kids.

I don't know if she's maintaining some ironic distance to keep herself from feeling this loss too deeply. Maybe. Maybe she's just a dry person. I don't know. I hope that it's one of these explanations.

Yes, is anyone giving this cat love and attention in this house? Cuddling with him/her? Playing with him/her? Is this cat just wandering around a loveless household where everyone is annoyed by it and waiting for it to die?

(This is not a simply rhetorical question: spending time with your cat, playing with him/her, brushing him/her, talking to him/her, etc. . .all are ways to de-stress the animal.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The "pet lovers" say this so much it's like they know how ridiculous a concept it really is and are trying ot convince themselves/others of it.

To some pets may be a lifelong commitment. But legally pets are property. They have some rights, but the right to the same owner for their entire life is not among them. Would you tell the Michael Vicks of the world their pet is a lifelong commitment? if it's OK to rehome or even euthanize clearly abused pets to improve their Q of L/end their pain, why isn't it OK to rehome or euthanize pets like OPs?

as for those of you judging OP's language, you are forgetting a basic rule of internet communication: everyone uses language differently and you have very little access to what someone else means by a given string of words. Why would you judge OP by a single tongue in cheek phrase in her subject line instead of what she's said in her dozens of passionate posts that clarify her position further? Where she's made colear she's done right by this cat for over a decade and the humans in her life (also animals byt the way, and ones to whom she actually HAS made a lifelong, legally binding commitment) need something to change?

Yes, this. A cat that is so stressed it can't make it to the litter box is not enjoying a good quality of life, and a 13-year-old cat has had a good run. I'm glad the cat seems to be doing better, but OP does not need to live in filth or jeopardize her marriage to accommodate the cat.

No one said she did. Lots of us tried to give her alternatives. Including behaviorists, no kill rescue groups, and at-home euthanasia.

She still shouldn't get another pet.

You are missing something really basic here. There are a few patterns of pet ownership in our society. OP's family demonstrates one: single 20something gets a pet and eventually marries and starts a family. The pet, no matter how beloved by all, is always the one person's, so when trouble starts or as the pet ages, it creates a particular sort of relationship problem for which the original owner is held responsible. IME, this is fundamentally different from the sort of relationship problem created by the existing couple/family who selects and raises a pet, and for whom problems are more clearly joint problems. "you shouldn't get another pet" is such a ridiculous blanket statement when so many of the problems in this story arise from discrepant senses of ownership and responsibility. If this FAMILY wants another pet, they have the right to get one, and manage it as a family.

YOU are missing a point. (NP here.) There are a few patterns in the life cycle of a pet: young (cute and cuddly); older (maybe starts having health problems; maybe starts making messes). When you get a pet, you sign up for the cuddlieness AND the inconveniences. It's part of the whole package. Don't get a pet if you can't deal with the messes. *running away screaming now in frustration with people who want life handed to them in a nice, neat little package*

I have no doubt you really, really want this to be true, but I'm the poster who made the legal point on the last page, and I'm sorry to tell you that no matter what Joe Bob's House of Pet Rescue has you sign, it's total bullshit. That is marriage you are thinking of, when you make a vow to another HUMAN, who has the same HUMAN rights as you. Or maybe it's parenthood, when there is no vow, but a clear legal structure of responsibilities. EVEN FOR THOSE, which are commitments made to actual HUMANS, there are legal mechanisms by which those vows can be dissolved if you really want to. There is nothing like that for a pet. Pets aren't even owned as much as cars are, with registrations linking each one to a specific person. We make no such promises to our cars to take care of them throughout their decrepitude. Pets aren't cars, but they're not and never will be human. They have a right not to be abused, but not even humans have the right to be married to the same person, or taken care of by their parents, for their entire lives--the right you're claiming here for pet ownership.

I might agree w you that it's a best practice, that we SHOULD enter into pet guardianships with the lifelong expectation in mind. But it is not a crime if we don't. people in their 20s aren't known for their foresight. It is not a crime to not realize just how much couplehood and family would change one's priorities and make one not want to feed, house, and pay for care for an in-home property and happiness destroyer. The fact is it's a lot easier to make the sort of promise you want peopel to make when you're already plannign ot spend your next 20 years raising kids and caring for a spouse than when you're just out of school and have no idea what your life will be in even 5 years.

If I were you/PPs who whink like you, I'd start a campaign of encouraging 20somethings to adopt rodents (rats have a 2 year life span and are every bit as smart as cats and dogs) until they are at least partnered or own a home, and only then get a dog or cat--that is, after they've already made a long-term commitment of some kind. That'll get people a lot closer to espousing your values than these kinds of harangues of people like OP will.

[Anonymous]

whink/think

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The "pet lovers" say this so much it's like they know how ridiculous a concept it really is and are trying ot convince themselves/others of it.

To some pets may be a lifelong commitment. But legally pets are property. They have some rights, but the right to the same owner for their entire life is not among them. Would you tell the Michael Vicks of the world their pet is a lifelong commitment? if it's OK to rehome or even euthanize clearly abused pets to improve their Q of L/end their pain, why isn't it OK to rehome or euthanize pets like OPs?

as for those of you judging OP's language, you are forgetting a basic rule of internet communication: everyone uses language differently and you have very little access to what someone else means by a given string of words. Why would you judge OP by a single tongue in cheek phrase in her subject line instead of what she's said in her dozens of passionate posts that clarify her position further? Where she's made colear she's done right by this cat for over a decade and the humans in her life (also animals byt the way, and ones to whom she actually HAS made a lifelong, legally binding commitment) need something to change?

Yes, this. A cat that is so stressed it can't make it to the litter box is not enjoying a good quality of life, and a 13-year-old cat has had a good run. I'm glad the cat seems to be doing better, but OP does not need to live in filth or jeopardize her marriage to accommodate the cat.

No one said she did. Lots of us tried to give her alternatives. Including behaviorists, no kill rescue groups, and at-home euthanasia.

She still shouldn't get another pet.

You are missing something really basic here. There are a few patterns of pet ownership in our society. OP's family demonstrates one: single 20something gets a pet and eventually marries and starts a family. The pet, no matter how beloved by all, is always the one person's, so when trouble starts or as the pet ages, it creates a particular sort of relationship problem for which the original owner is held responsible. IME, this is fundamentally different from the sort of relationship problem created by the existing couple/family who selects and raises a pet, and for whom problems are more clearly joint problems. "you shouldn't get another pet" is such a ridiculous blanket statement when so many of the problems in this story arise from discrepant senses of ownership and responsibility. If this FAMILY wants another pet, they have the right to get one, and manage it as a family.

YOU are missing a point. (NP here.) There are a few patterns in the life cycle of a pet: young (cute and cuddly); older (maybe starts having health problems; maybe starts making messes). When you get a pet, you sign up for the cuddlieness AND the inconveniences. It's part of the whole package. Don't get a pet if you can't deal with the messes. *running away screaming now in frustration with people who want life handed to them in a nice, neat little package*

I have no doubt you really, really want this to be true, but I'm the poster who made the legal point on the last page, and I'm sorry to tell you that no matter what Joe Bob's House of Pet Rescue has you sign, it's total bullshit. That is marriage you are thinking of, when you make a vow to another HUMAN, who has the same HUMAN rights as you. Or maybe it's parenthood, when there is no vow, but a clear legal structure of responsibilities. EVEN FOR THOSE, which are commitments made to actual HUMANS, there are legal mechanisms by which those vows can be dissolved if you really want to. There is nothing like that for a pet. Pets aren't even owned as much as cars are, with registrations linking each one to a specific person. We make no such promises to our cars to take care of them throughout their decrepitude. Pets aren't cars, but they're not and never will be human. They have a right not to be abused, but not even humans have the right to be married to the same person, or taken care of by their parents, for their entire lives--the right you're claiming here for pet ownership.

I might agree w you that it's a best practice, that we SHOULD enter into pet guardianships with the lifelong expectation in mind. But it is not a crime if we don't. people in their 20s aren't known for their foresight. It is not a crime to not realize just how much couplehood and family would change one's priorities and make one not want to feed, house, and pay for care for an in-home property and happiness destroyer. The fact is it's a lot easier to make the sort of promise you want peopel to make when you're already plannign ot spend your next 20 years raising kids and caring for a spouse than when you're just out of school and have no idea what your life will be in even 5 years.

If I were you/PPs who whink like you, I'd start a campaign of encouraging 20somethings to adopt rodents (rats have a 2 year life span and are every bit as smart as cats and dogs) until they are at least partnered or own a home, and only then get a dog or cat--that is, after they've already made a long-term commitment of some kind. That'll get people a lot closer to espousing your values than these kinds of harangues of people like OP will.

And no matter how much you're trying to read it this way, no one said that there is a legal obligation to love your animals, even after your asshole new husband demands you kill them.

What we said is that there is a philosophy of commitment to animals. A moral obligation.

And that people who discard their pets because they are no longer convenient are bad people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could never talk about my precious pets the way you speak of your cat.

This. This is what I find most upsetting on this thread. It's not the conversation about when it's the right time to euthanize, if this is the right time, etc. It's the bone chillingly cold way that OP talks about this creature who has lived with her for 13 years - longer than her husband, longer than her kids.

I don't know if she's maintaining some ironic distance to keep herself from feeling this loss too deeply. Maybe. Maybe she's just a dry person. I don't know. I hope that it's one of these explanations.

You're right, you don't know OP or her state of mind or her style. Her posts have led me to believe that she's trying hard to make it work and that she is not taking this decision lightly.

You don't mention if you have children - I know I was much, much more attached to my pets before I had kids. Afterwards, of course I still loved the pets and cared for them, but I was able to be somewhat more dispassionate about them because my children changed our family dynamics. And not just in the "who would you save from fire first, the kids or the dog?" way. I needed to hold myself together when the dog got sick BECAUSE my young children needed me. I couldn't fall apart completely, nor could I put my other family responsibilities on hold indefinitely to attend to him 24-7.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could never talk about my precious pets the way you speak of your cat.

This. This is what I find most upsetting on this thread. It's not the conversation about when it's the right time to euthanize, if this is the right time, etc. It's the bone chillingly cold way that OP talks about this creature who has lived with her for 13 years - longer than her husband, longer than her kids.

I don't know if she's maintaining some ironic distance to keep herself from feeling this loss too deeply. Maybe. Maybe she's just a dry person. I don't know. I hope that it's one of these explanations.

Yes, is anyone giving this cat love and attention in this house? Cuddling with him/her? Playing with him/her? Is this cat just wandering around a loveless household where everyone is annoyed by it and waiting for it to die?

(This is not a simply rhetorical question: spending time with your cat, playing with him/her, brushing him/her, talking to him/her, etc. . .all are ways to de-stress the animal.)

The cat gets affection whenever she emerges from hiding. She hates being brushed and has a limited tolerance for a lot of petting. Her preference is to curl up in general proximity to non-moving adults (she comes out of hiding and curls up near is when we sleep). I do not drag her put from under the bed to cuddle on my terms. She is not and has never been a lap cat. We talk to her when she's around. Now that she is willing to make limited appearances in front of the kids, she gets even more affection. The kids have been educated to pet kitty only when kitty approaches them, never to chase or grab her, and to let her walk away when she's ready. They have been thoroughly trained on respecting her cat-wishes for personal space and they do a very good job of it. She's not being terrorized by wild unsupervised tail-grabbers. So yes, she gets affection, but it's only when she decides she wants it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could never talk about my precious pets the way you speak of your cat.

This. This is what I find most upsetting on this thread. It's not the conversation about when it's the right time to euthanize, if this is the right time, etc. It's the bone chillingly cold way that OP talks about this creature who has lived with her for 13 years - longer than her husband, longer than her kids.

I don't know if she's maintaining some ironic distance to keep herself from feeling this loss too deeply. Maybe. Maybe she's just a dry person. I don't know. I hope that it's one of these explanations.

Yes, is anyone giving this cat love and attention in this house? Cuddling with him/her? Playing with him/her? Is this cat just wandering around a loveless household where everyone is annoyed by it and waiting for it to die?

(This is not a simply rhetorical question: spending time with your cat, playing with him/her, brushing him/her, talking to him/her, etc. . .all are ways to de-stress the animal.)

The cat gets affection whenever she emerges from hiding. She hates being brushed and has a limited tolerance for a lot of petting. Her preference is to curl up in general proximity to non-moving adults (she comes out of hiding and curls up near is when we sleep). I do not drag her put from under the bed to cuddle on my terms. She is not and has never been a lap cat. We talk to her when she's around. Now that she is willing to make limited appearances in front of the kids, she gets even more affection. The kids have been educated to pet kitty only when kitty approaches them, never to chase or grab her, and to let her walk away when she's ready. They have been thoroughly trained on respecting her cat-wishes for personal space and they do a very good job of it. She's not being terrorized by wild unsupervised tail-grabbers. So yes, she gets affection, but it's only when she decides she wants it.

Ok, that's good. I do feel a little bit better about this, then! Thanks for replying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The "pet lovers" say this so much it's like they know how ridiculous a concept it really is and are trying ot convince themselves/others of it.

To some pets may be a lifelong commitment. But legally pets are property. They have some rights, but the right to the same owner for their entire life is not among them. Would you tell the Michael Vicks of the world their pet is a lifelong commitment? if it's OK to rehome or even euthanize clearly abused pets to improve their Q of L/end their pain, why isn't it OK to rehome or euthanize pets like OPs?

as for those of you judging OP's language, you are forgetting a basic rule of internet communication: everyone uses language differently and you have very little access to what someone else means by a given string of words. Why would you judge OP by a single tongue in cheek phrase in her subject line instead of what she's said in her dozens of passionate posts that clarify her position further? Where she's made colear she's done right by this cat for over a decade and the humans in her life (also animals byt the way, and ones to whom she actually HAS made a lifelong, legally binding commitment) need something to change?

Yes, this. A cat that is so stressed it can't make it to the litter box is not enjoying a good quality of life, and a 13-year-old cat has had a good run. I'm glad the cat seems to be doing better, but OP does not need to live in filth or jeopardize her marriage to accommodate the cat.

No one said she did. Lots of us tried to give her alternatives. Including behaviorists, no kill rescue groups, and at-home euthanasia.

She still shouldn't get another pet.

You are missing something really basic here. There are a few patterns of pet ownership in our society. OP's family demonstrates one: single 20something gets a pet and eventually marries and starts a family. The pet, no matter how beloved by all, is always the one person's, so when trouble starts or as the pet ages, it creates a particular sort of relationship problem for which the original owner is held responsible. IME, this is fundamentally different from the sort of relationship problem created by the existing couple/family who selects and raises a pet, and for whom problems are more clearly joint problems. "you shouldn't get another pet" is such a ridiculous blanket statement when so many of the problems in this story arise from discrepant senses of ownership and responsibility. If this FAMILY wants another pet, they have the right to get one, and manage it as a family.

I'm not missing that this pattern exists. What I'm missing is why you think this pattern is acceptable.

"acceptable"? What does my personal judgment of the pattern (or yours) have to do with it? It exists. You ignore it at the pet's peril.

I once adopted a pet from PAWS Chicago, which has a Lifetime Guarantee:

"We offer a lifetime guarantee to every pet in our program. While we hope our adopters and their new pets are together for life, if something happens to you or if you can no longer care for your pet, you can rest easy knowing that every PAWS pet is welcomed back at any time."

Now that's a policy that understands and accounts for this pattern.

[Anonymous]

OP, haven't read all 8 pages. I did read you'd tested her for a UTI. Good. If you haven't tried kitty Prozac, I would definitely do that before euthanizing her. If that doesn't work, I would think dementia is a very real possibility and not think you are a bad person for doing it, and I completely love cats.

I have a cat I tamed from feral but could not house train. He is our outside cat which I don't like to do because we have coyotes but I couldn't stand the cat pee issues. He has a heated cat igloo on our screened porch and is very savvy. He has lived for years this way with no problems and is still fine out there. I am lucky I have enough land I don't have to worry about cars, I live half a mile from the nearest road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The "pet lovers" say this so much it's like they know how ridiculous a concept it really is and are trying ot convince themselves/others of it.

To some pets may be a lifelong commitment. But legally pets are property. They have some rights, but the right to the same owner for their entire life is not among them. Would you tell the Michael Vicks of the world their pet is a lifelong commitment? if it's OK to rehome or even euthanize clearly abused pets to improve their Q of L/end their pain, why isn't it OK to rehome or euthanize pets like OPs?

as for those of you judging OP's language, you are forgetting a basic rule of internet communication: everyone uses language differently and you have very little access to what someone else means by a given string of words. Why would you judge OP by a single tongue in cheek phrase in her subject line instead of what she's said in her dozens of passionate posts that clarify her position further? Where she's made colear she's done right by this cat for over a decade and the humans in her life (also animals byt the way, and ones to whom she actually HAS made a lifelong, legally binding commitment) need something to change?

Yes, this. A cat that is so stressed it can't make it to the litter box is not enjoying a good quality of life, and a 13-year-old cat has had a good run. I'm glad the cat seems to be doing better, but OP does not need to live in filth or jeopardize her marriage to accommodate the cat.

No one said she did. Lots of us tried to give her alternatives. Including behaviorists, no kill rescue groups, and at-home euthanasia.

She still shouldn't get another pet.

You are missing something really basic here. There are a few patterns of pet ownership in our society. OP's family demonstrates one: single 20something gets a pet and eventually marries and starts a family. The pet, no matter how beloved by all, is always the one person's, so when trouble starts or as the pet ages, it creates a particular sort of relationship problem for which the original owner is held responsible. IME, this is fundamentally different from the sort of relationship problem created by the existing couple/family who selects and raises a pet, and for whom problems are more clearly joint problems. "you shouldn't get another pet" is such a ridiculous blanket statement when so many of the problems in this story arise from discrepant senses of ownership and responsibility. If this FAMILY wants another pet, they have the right to get one, and manage it as a family.

YOU are missing a point. (NP here.) There are a few patterns in the life cycle of a pet: young (cute and cuddly); older (maybe starts having health problems; maybe starts making messes). When you get a pet, you sign up for the cuddlieness AND the inconveniences. It's part of the whole package. Don't get a pet if you can't deal with the messes. *running away screaming now in frustration with people who want life handed to them in a nice, neat little package*

I have no doubt you really, really want this to be true, but I'm the poster who made the legal point on the last page, and I'm sorry to tell you that no matter what Joe Bob's House of Pet Rescue has you sign, it's total bullshit. That is marriage you are thinking of, when you make a vow to another HUMAN, who has the same HUMAN rights as you. Or maybe it's parenthood, when there is no vow, but a clear legal structure of responsibilities. EVEN FOR THOSE, which are commitments made to actual HUMANS, there are legal mechanisms by which those vows can be dissolved if you really want to. There is nothing like that for a pet. Pets aren't even owned as much as cars are, with registrations linking each one to a specific person. We make no such promises to our cars to take care of them throughout their decrepitude. Pets aren't cars, but they're not and never will be human. They have a right not to be abused, but not even humans have the right to be married to the same person, or taken care of by their parents, for their entire lives--the right you're claiming here for pet ownership.

I might agree w you that it's a best practice, that we SHOULD enter into pet guardianships with the lifelong expectation in mind. But it is not a crime if we don't. people in their 20s aren't known for their foresight. It is not a crime to not realize just how much couplehood and family would change one's priorities and make one not want to feed, house, and pay for care for an in-home property and happiness destroyer. The fact is it's a lot easier to make the sort of promise you want peopel to make when you're already plannign ot spend your next 20 years raising kids and caring for a spouse than when you're just out of school and have no idea what your life will be in even 5 years.

If I were you/PPs who whink like you, I'd start a campaign of encouraging 20somethings to adopt rodents (rats have a 2 year life span and are every bit as smart as cats and dogs) until they are at least partnered or own a home, and only then get a dog or cat--that is, after they've already made a long-term commitment of some kind. That'll get people a lot closer to espousing your values than these kinds of harangues of people like OP will.

And no matter how much you're trying to read it this way, no one said that there is a legal obligation to love your animals, even after your asshole new husband demands you kill them.

What we said is that there is a philosophy of commitment to animals. A moral obligation.

And that people who discard their pets because they are no longer convenient are bad people.

LOL. Thanks to black and white thinkers like you, I really do think this board is the most rigid on this entire site, and that's saying something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could never talk about my precious pets the way you speak of your cat.

This. This is what I find most upsetting on this thread. It's not the conversation about when it's the right time to euthanize, if this is the right time, etc. It's the bone chillingly cold way that OP talks about this creature who has lived with her for 13 years - longer than her husband, longer than her kids.

I don't know if she's maintaining some ironic distance to keep herself from feeling this loss too deeply. Maybe. Maybe she's just a dry person. I don't know. I hope that it's one of these explanations.

You're right, you don't know OP or her state of mind or her style. Her posts have led me to believe that she's trying hard to make it work and that she is not taking this decision lightly.

You don't mention if you have children - I know I was much, much more attached to my pets before I had kids. Afterwards, of course I still loved the pets and cared for them, but I was able to be somewhat more dispassionate about them because my children changed our family dynamics. And not just in the "who would you save from fire first, the kids or the dog?" way. I needed to hold myself together when the dog got sick BECAUSE my young children needed me. I couldn't fall apart completely, nor could I put my other family responsibilities on hold indefinitely to attend to him 24-7.

Oh brother. Don't get into the ol' "You'll know once you are parent" song and dance. That is old. I'm a parent too (NP here) and you don't have to do much for a cat (esp. the one who, as OP described below, does not seem to want much) even if children are sick. I have two SNs kids who end up in the hospital multiple times a year and for gosh sakes, it doesn't make you a saint if you "don't fall apart" and simply make sure cat is allowed to have the same home she is used to. Don't paint all parents with the same "Stupid" brush. We have 3 cats, all rescues, got them all before we had kids, now have two SNs kids; all of us co-exist in the same house and we all have our needs met AND we don't live in a hovel either. Have some higher expectations of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The "pet lovers" say this so much it's like they know how ridiculous a concept it really is and are trying ot convince themselves/others of it.

To some pets may be a lifelong commitment. But legally pets are property. They have some rights, but the right to the same owner for their entire life is not among them. Would you tell the Michael Vicks of the world their pet is a lifelong commitment? if it's OK to rehome or even euthanize clearly abused pets to improve their Q of L/end their pain, why isn't it OK to rehome or euthanize pets like OPs?

as for those of you judging OP's language, you are forgetting a basic rule of internet communication: everyone uses language differently and you have very little access to what someone else means by a given string of words. Why would you judge OP by a single tongue in cheek phrase in her subject line instead of what she's said in her dozens of passionate posts that clarify her position further? Where she's made colear she's done right by this cat for over a decade and the humans in her life (also animals byt the way, and ones to whom she actually HAS made a lifelong, legally binding commitment) need something to change?

Yes, this. A cat that is so stressed it can't make it to the litter box is not enjoying a good quality of life, and a 13-year-old cat has had a good run. I'm glad the cat seems to be doing better, but OP does not need to live in filth or jeopardize her marriage to accommodate the cat.

No one said she did. Lots of us tried to give her alternatives. Including behaviorists, no kill rescue groups, and at-home euthanasia.

She still shouldn't get another pet.

You are missing something really basic here. There are a few patterns of pet ownership in our society. OP's family demonstrates one: single 20something gets a pet and eventually marries and starts a family. The pet, no matter how beloved by all, is always the one person's, so when trouble starts or as the pet ages, it creates a particular sort of relationship problem for which the original owner is held responsible. IME, this is fundamentally different from the sort of relationship problem created by the existing couple/family who selects and raises a pet, and for whom problems are more clearly joint problems. "you shouldn't get another pet" is such a ridiculous blanket statement when so many of the problems in this story arise from discrepant senses of ownership and responsibility. If this FAMILY wants another pet, they have the right to get one, and manage it as a family.

YOU are missing a point. (NP here.) There are a few patterns in the life cycle of a pet: young (cute and cuddly); older (maybe starts having health problems; maybe starts making messes). When you get a pet, you sign up for the cuddlieness AND the inconveniences. It's part of the whole package. Don't get a pet if you can't deal with the messes. *running away screaming now in frustration with people who want life handed to them in a nice, neat little package*

I have no doubt you really, really want this to be true, but I'm the poster who made the legal point on the last page, and I'm sorry to tell you that no matter what Joe Bob's House of Pet Rescue has you sign, it's total bullshit. That is marriage you are thinking of, when you make a vow to another HUMAN, who has the same HUMAN rights as you. Or maybe it's parenthood, when there is no vow, but a clear legal structure of responsibilities. EVEN FOR THOSE, which are commitments made to actual HUMANS, there are legal mechanisms by which those vows can be dissolved if you really want to. There is nothing like that for a pet. Pets aren't even owned as much as cars are, with registrations linking each one to a specific person. We make no such promises to our cars to take care of them throughout their decrepitude. Pets aren't cars, but they're not and never will be human. They have a right not to be abused, but not even humans have the right to be married to the same person, or taken care of by their parents, for their entire lives--the right you're claiming here for pet ownership.

I might agree w you that it's a best practice, that we SHOULD enter into pet guardianships with the lifelong expectation in mind. But it is not a crime if we don't. people in their 20s aren't known for their foresight. It is not a crime to not realize just how much couplehood and family would change one's priorities and make one not want to feed, house, and pay for care for an in-home property and happiness destroyer. The fact is it's a lot easier to make the sort of promise you want peopel to make when you're already plannign ot spend your next 20 years raising kids and caring for a spouse than when you're just out of school and have no idea what your life will be in even 5 years.

If I were you/PPs who whink like you, I'd start a campaign of encouraging 20somethings to adopt rodents (rats have a 2 year life span and are every bit as smart as cats and dogs) until they are at least partnered or own a home, and only then get a dog or cat--that is, after they've already made a long-term commitment of some kind. That'll get people a lot closer to espousing your values than these kinds of harangues of people like OP will.

And no matter how much you're trying to read it this way, no one said that there is a legal obligation to love your animals, even after your asshole new husband demands you kill them.

What we said is that there is a philosophy of commitment to animals. A moral obligation.

And that people who discard their pets because they are no longer convenient are bad people.

LOL. Thanks to black and white thinkers like you, I really do think this board is the most rigid on this entire site, and that's saying something.

"Black and white" thinkers? Are you the poster who are defining pets in the legal sense (property)? You really do see things in shades of gray, then, don't you?

Signed,
Different poster than the one you were replying to