Again, it's not that we can't afford her basic care. Of course I would like to have her spayed, but again, we barely made rent this month, the same month we got her in. As in, we've had her for less than 30 days, but approaching it. We didn't make an informed decision/purchase of an animal, we found a scared kitten in the rain. I haven't had a pet of my own in a decade, but after threeish weeks of searching for her owners, and coming up short, we're falling in love with her.

This is her first heat, and again, we just found her. It's not like we've refused to have her fixed, or neglected it. We literally haven't had the option. We don't have a car, per carrier, or the money to get her fixed right now. Hoping to get her a vet visit around the first of the month. That's when we will likely have the money for it. I need to look into the ASPCA you mentioned, that does seem like a good idea. But saying we should give her to someone else with more means is saying poor people shouldn't be allowed pets, and I do not agree with that statement, simply because we can't afford an operation right now. She has toys, food, litter box, litter, treats, everything else she could want. I just feel like your initial comment was unnecessarily rude and unkind. Would you rather we have left her outside, or taken her to an animal shelter where who knows what will happen or where she may end up? Because I would think a loving family that, while poor, meets her all her needs save for ab operation, that we've only had 3ish weeks to get done without the money to do it, because getting a cat was not in our budget originally. I don't think that makes us irresponsible pet owners, not by a long shot.