Did anyone else read Dear Abby this morning? Yes, this is one of my guilty pleasures... but I did not find this morning's column at all amusing. In fact, I almost spit up my coffee when I read the headline: "Controlling pet population should be as easy as eating." Say what?

Here is the reader's question to Dear Abby:
"Why don't they put something in pet food to keep dogs and cats from getting pregnant?"

To which Abby (a.k.a. Jeanne Phillips) replies, and I'm paraphrasing: so far, we just haven't figured out a cheap and effective way to produce contraceptive pet food. But there are trials under way to develop oral contraceptives to control wild animal populations like coyotes. So (presumably) something like this is certainly conceivable for the population of pets somewhere down the line.

How exactly would this work? Would all dog and cat food be laced with contraceptives? Or just dog and cat food fed to shelter animals? Or would contraceptive food be just another option among others at grocery and pet stores, shelved alongside senior, anti-allergy, and reduced fat diets? What would it be called? Reproductive Control Plus?

The sentiment behind the reader's question seems right on: controlling the population of pets is much better than the massive killing of millions of unwanted animals. But I found the question, and especially Abby's answer, distasteful. Am I overreacting?

Recent Posts in All Dogs Go to Heaven

Dogs and the Death Penalty

An Analogy Gone Bad?

Moving Beyond the Euthanasia Imperative

Why natural death for animals is not a dangerous idea

Heading toward First Human Head Transplant?

Surgeon and patient are ready to roll

Sex with Animals

Is it wrong?

Is Euthanasia Just Another Pet Service?

Why euthanasia doesn't belong on the same list as nail trimming