I was all set to post this when the 'Cat went down. gnu touches on much of what I was addressing and saved to post now.
It's way too late to start pretending that if we have pets that we kick out in the yard with or without shots that we're just allowing them to experience the joy of being "wild." We know too much about the science of animal behavior. A good life for a pet doesn't require unlimited unaccompanied "wildness." If you're a pet owner, then it is your responsibility to take care of that animal, to confine them if necessary to prevent scaring or hurting people or other animals, and to keep them out of other people's yards and from freely ranging public spaces. DON'T ADOPT ANIMALS IF YOU AREN'T WILLING TO GO TO THAT EXPENSE AND TROUBLE. Neither dogs as they appear now, nor domestic house cats, were here prior to colonization, they're not native "wild" species. The North American wild dogs that were domesticated by indigenous people weren't "pets," they were as likely to end up in the soup pot as sleeping on someones pallet at night. (Before someone starts down that path--the amplification of human traits in animals in native stories was not as the result of personification but a metaphorical approach to teaching through storytelling.)
Humans make the rules, humans have the language and the standing in the courts, humans bear the responsibility for their pets. Pets may seem like other-than-human people, but it is this failure to understand the natures of cats and dogs that gets so many pet owners into trouble. If you're going to have pets then take the time to work with them and train them and understand the limitations of keeping animals in your home and on your property. In the U.S. at least there is an epidemic of pet overpopulation and a huge number of unwanted pets are euthanized every day, coming from homes that can't control their animals. Having a pet is on a par with having children--if you're going to do it, you should be ready for it. (Unfortunately, it is also on a par with having children in that there are people who are criminally incompetent who have no business being pet owners or parents who are popping out puppies and kittens and babies like clockwork).
Whether or not you declaw your cat is up to you and is based on your decisions regarding the health and comfort of the family and the pets living there. Leaving a cat's claws on so it can defend itself outside means you're going to allow that animal free reign regarding the local pet, bird, and wildlife population (and by the way, they defend themselves perfectly well with their back claws, so removing the front claws spares the furniture but leaves the animal protected). Spaying and neutering is essential to keeping pets who are more comfortable, less likely to fight, and more even-tempered. If an individual adopts a pet and chooses not to neuter, don't give me the crap that they're allowing the animal some sort of autonomy. Pets are property, they AREN'T autonomous creatures in the eyes of the law, and not getting them fixed is an act of laziness on the part of the pet owner, not an act of liberation for the pet.
Can't afford the shots and the occasional veterinary care? Then you need to explore the services in your community that subsidize these things. Your local Humane Society has low-cost programs to spay and neuter pets, and I see signs several times a year for low-cost shot clinics for cats and dogs.
Working animals are not included in this rant of mine--there is an entirely different dynamic going on in that world.