Compared to declawing this is a lot less cruel then the alternative (termination of unwanted offspring/strays)
Whats the logic in that?

In a choice to take away one of the cats defensive measures or taking away its ability to pass on its genetic legacy I think that the former is less cruel then the latter. I would think that one would have a much larger impact on the animal then the other, not to mention the physical damage of having hormone producing glands in an animal removed. There is a reason why most pets after they have been spayed/neutered are much more docile and lethargic afterwards.

On the other hand declawing does not have to use the bone amputation process. The two other methods that I am aware of are a much less invasive surgery which cuts the tendon used to retract and expose the claw.The other being plastic/vinyl caps that, although need to be peridotically changed, prevent the cat from tearing up anything while keeping its everything intact. There are options you just keep posting up a widely shunned practice in the veterinary community regardless of country of origin.

I am personally not a fan of either practice and I agree with you that if your life changes and you are unable or are just irresponsible then you shouldn't own a pet. If you feel like you need to take these steps in order to have a pet then IMO your doing it wrong. However it does seem at others have noted that you a determined to be right regardless of anything else, its the attitude that Europeans seem to have when something comes up that has anything to do with America that they don't agree with. We get it you have a different opinion about it, you don't need to be a dick to prove it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI