The morality of killing animals in shelters is questionable.  There is no valid reason for killing animals because they have gone too long living in a shelter without being adopted, and considering it the course of action that is in the best interest of the animals.  In most cases, the only aspect of animal cruelty that is discussed in the media is the animal's life before it is rescued.  Most people do not know that the animals are killed even when they are in shelters.  Most kill shelters' reason for euthanizing animals is overpopulation, while those against kill shelters believe that animals should not lose there lives because there is not enough space for them.  Being an animal lover and a pet owner is what brings about my interest in the controversy between kill and no kill animal shelters and whether killing the animals in shelters should be considered animal cruelty.  This dilemma affects my values, because life should not be taken so often for such a ludicrous reason, which is what is happening in kill shelters.  In my own experience, most shelter animals are sweet, appreciative, and loving.   If my cat had been euthanized due to overpopulation in the shelter before I had adopted him, not only would he have been robbed of his life, but I would have been robbed of all the great times I have had with him.  My personal experience and the evidence that I will draw from the credible articles I have found will help me develop my ethos in the essay. 

In the article "More on Animal Rights", Andrew N. Rowan makes the claim that animals, like plants and fetuses should have rights.  He questions the morality of abortions and destroying plant life, as a parallel to his argument that killing shelter animals is immoral and he also points out that little attention is given to this issue.  He values the significance of life in the world and believes that people should not be given the power to take it away from any living being, even an animal.  Rowan establishes his ethos through his diction. He also strengthens it with the evidence he provides to support his claims on abortion, destruction of plant life and animal cruelty as immoral.  He is also published by the Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences which makes his article a credible source.  

The article, "The No-kill Debate:  A Conversation with Both Sides" by John Davidson, focuses its discussion on the supposed reason why animals are killed in shelters.  The reason given by shelters for euthanizing of animals, even if they are healthy, is overpopulation and not enough people willing to adopt.  The people being interviewed for this article have different values that oppose each other.  Nathan Winograd believes that animal life is valuable and that kill shelters should not be allowed to euthanize healthy animals.  Lisa Pederson, believes that kill shelters help animals as a whole in the long run, because they keep animals from living in overcrowded conditions.  The author and interviewer, John Davidson, gains his credibility through the thorough questioning of the interviewees and by being published by the Denver Post.  Nathan Winograd's credibility comes from being the leader of the no-kill movement.  Lisa Pederson is a shelter manager and former leader of the Metro Denver Shelter Alliance, which makes her a reliable source.

 In the Los Angeles Daily News' article, "The Unintended Consequences of 'No Kill' Shelters" the result of having no kill shelters is discussed.  The central claim being made is that no kill shelters are doing more bad than good.  The author is arguing for kill shelters, instead of against them.  The author, like the people against kill shelters, values the lives of animals but believes that they are put in more danger when not put down because of overpopulation.  Overpopulation leads to a more rapid spread of diseases through shelters, and bad living conditions.  The author's ethos is built through an abundance of factual evidence to back his claims.

The question of why shelters killing animals is immoral or not, is arguable.  The people arguing for no kill shelters, as well as myself, believing that killing animals is immoral; while the people defending kill shelters would say that it is not immoral.  Some arguments between both sides are in stasis.  For example, both sides argue that what they do is in the best interest of the animals, but one side thinks that is killing them to avoid overcrowding and the other side thinks that is not killing them to spare their lives.  One source on the opposing argument argues that not killing them leads to more deaths in the long run from other issues that arise.  Another argues that all lives are valuable.  People should not have the power to choose which lives to save and which to take.  The different perspectives do not affect my opinion, which is that kill shelters should be illegal.  Transitioning into a no-kill shelter system will take time, but it is in the best interest of all shelter animals.  To revise my research question, I can make it more argumentative and be slightly less bias towards the no-kill movement.

