I would agree except for spaying takes away hormones and the animals suffer bigtime, only they cannot talk. It's just better to keep them away from fertile animals if they don't want puppies. No one should have a nornal God-given function disrupted through surgery, even if they are only an animal.
well, i guess they just have to be put down needlessly, then. (we are so overpopulated with strays not sure i would call it needless, though). i would rather see that than all the health problems it entails, especially when they are doing it at 4 months old, before major organs are even fully developed. i have seen what it did to me and many many women and i used to work at a veterinarian and saw the effects there and with my own animals. and, in female animals, they take the ovaries. then, they give them nothing to replace hormones they won't make anymore. they get fatty tumors and heart disease and arthritis and on and on. perhaps we should never have bred animals in the first place and just left nature alone. http://curezone.com/forums/f.asp?f=839
"since you believe that it is OK to let 'fertile' animals roam freely and mate whenever they feel the need"
That is not exactly the correct context I am implying. Perhaps you may want to study the history of breeding dogs and cats. I feel it is wrong. Sure they are cute, because if you leave them to breed on their own, for example, the dogs will all look like wild dogs with pointy noses. Humans interfered with nature and began breeding them. I am against that and I am against taking their organs out. If people want dogs and cats, then they can figure out a way to not let them get pregnant and surgery is not the answer, in my opinion.