DEAR ABBY: I think I'm losing my sanity -- or am I being extremely sensitive?

My husband of nine months and I were having a discussion recently regarding a newspaper article we had read about a man who drowned trying to save his wife in the ocean. Unable to swim, he dove in, trying to save the life of his love, and they both drowned.

I foolishly asked my husband if he would try to save me if I was drowning, and got a very unexpected response. He told me that if it appeared that both of us would drown, he would not jump in to save me.

We have one child together, and he is the stepfather to my three children. When I asked him if he'd jump in to try to save his infant son, he immediately replied, "Yes." When I asked him to explain why he wouldn't die trying to save the love of his life, he stated that in all lifesaving classes, people are taught to evaluate the situation (i.e., make sure the rescuer wouldn't also die) before trying to save another life.

I'm sorry, but I would die trying to save my four children or him, for that matter, even if I had less than a 1 percent chance of living through the ordeal. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't at least try to save a loved one.

Please tell me I'm not crazy. Maybe I'm just a hopeless romantic, but something seems very wrong here. -- HURTING HEART

DEAR HURTING HEART: You are neither crazy nor hopeless. However, you should be aware that it is impossible for a person to project accurately what he or she "would" do in a life-threatening emergency. In other words, if your husband were to see you going down for the third time, there's no telling for certain that he wouldn't throw caution to the wind. And as you're the mother of four children, there's also no guarantee that you'd jeopardize your own safety to pull him from a burning building.

My advice to you, for the sake of your marriage, is to stop playing "What if?"

DEAR ABBY: My question concerns two stray cats, one male, one female, who appeared at my back door within the last year or so. Both are somewhat timid, but look as though they are in good health, aside from being very hungry. They don't bother my other cats, and it's no problem for me to feed and shelter them.

Here's the problem: Neither of these animals has been "fixed." I have made numerous attempts to find the owners, with newspaper ads and walking the neighborhood, but no one has come forward. I would like to take them both to the vet, but since I'm not sure there is an owner, I don't know if this is the "proper" thing to do.

I hate to think of the number of unwanted kittens that could be created because of this type of neglect, but do I have the right to do this to an animal that isn't really mine? -- KITTY LOVER

DEAR KITTY LOVER: If you are feeding and sheltering the cats, and no one in the neighborhood knows to whom they belong and no one has answered your newspaper ads -- then the cats were probably dumped or left behind by their owners. By all means have them neutered. You'll be doing your little furry friends an enormous favor -- not to mention acting like a responsible and generous adoptive parent. Bless you!

To order "How to Write Letters for All Occasions," send a business-sized, self-addressed envelope, plus check or money order for $3.95 ($4.50 in Canada) to: Dear Abby, Letter Booklet, P.O. Box 447, Mount Morris, IL 61054-0447. (Postage is included.)

DEAR ABBY: I'd like to comment on a letter from the president of a large photo company. Even the great yellow father, Kodak, now makes digital cameras and programs to print them on one's own computer.

Any picture taken with the most expensive digital or automatic camera, down to the homemade Boy Scout cardboard camera, is a photograph.

Any color photograph will in time fade if left in sunlight or fluorescent light.

The ink in computer printers is heated to a high temperature before being blasted onto the receiving paper. The photos are being developed as high-tech as possible, and, as yet, have not been able to pass the test of time.

With the digital camera, a photograph can be taken, and in a matter of minutes be sent by e-mail to all parts of the world.

If anyone doubts the statements I have made, they can be verified with Kodak or Fuji films or Canon or Hewlett Packard. -- JOHN R. BURNS JR., CHESAPEAKE, VA.

DEAR JOHN: I received more than a few letters from individuals who thought that the letter I printed was biased -- and attempting to promote a business that is threatened by digital technology. I did not regard it that way, and printed it because I thought it would help people protect their photographic images.

DEAR ABBY: Mr. Robertson, the president of 1-Hour Photo Corp., made a very good point about backing up priceless family images with film negatives. What he neglected to say was that color prints, even properly stored, have a life expectancy far less than that of one human generation.

The solution? Black and white, of course. Black-and-white images, when printed on high-quality black-and-white photographic paper and developed properly, should last approximately 200 years. But I must caution your readers: Do not be taken in by processors who would tell you, "Black and white is black and white." Not so! Some developers are now printing black-and-white images on color photographic paper. Those images will fade as quickly as if they were printed from a color negative.

Of course, you should shoot the colorful balloons at your baby's first birthday party in color. But please take some black-and-white pictures, too. In a few years, the frosting on the birthday cake is going to look moldy in those color prints. When you must use color, nothing can beat slides. Prints can be made from them for albums, but the brilliantly projected image on a screen can't compare with passing around a 4-by-6-inch piece of paper.

"Monochrome" images can be oil-tinted, sepia-toned or left alone. But one thing is for sure: No matter the race of your family, the faces of your grandparents will never turn green or purple if they are preserved in black-and-white. -- DENNIS C. HUNT, FRESNO, CALIF.

DEAR DENNIS: I'm sure many readers will be as surprised as I was to know that color prints have such a short "shelf life" -- and that they must be so specific about the kind of paper they want black-and-white pictures printed on. Thank you for the input.

For everything you need to know about wedding planning, order "How to Have a Lovely Wedding." Send a business-sized, self-addressed envelope, plus check or money order for $3.95 ($4.50 in Canada) to: Dear Abby, Wedding Booklet, P.O. Box 447, Mount Morris, IL 61054-0447. (Postage is included.)

DEAR ABBY: Yesterday at the grocery store, I observed a woman with two young children in the parking lot. While she loaded her groceries and her toddler from the cart into her van, she left the younger child (under a year old) sitting in the cart behind her vehicle.

The scene brought back an incident when my own child was just a year old. I parked the grocery cart at the rear of my small pickup truck and hesitated only a moment before deciding to load my child into the pickup before my purchases. I had taken only three steps when a car pulling out of the parking space directly behind me slammed into my grocery cart hard enough that the cart dented the tailgate of my truck. Customers all over the parking lot heard the impact. Even if my child had not died from the impact, he would have been seriously -- and possibly permanently -- injured.

During the time that this woman took to load her toddler and groceries, the cart and the baby were out of her line of sight. Someone could have pulled up and taken her child, could have hit the cart, or the cart could have rolled into the path of a car.

Abby, please remind your readers that the most important thing in a grocery cart is your child. Always put the child (or children) in the car first. -- DIANE IN SCAPPOOSE, ORE.

DEAR DIANE: When I read your letter, the hairs on my arms stood straight up! In case other parents need this reminder: If a child is a passenger in the grocery cart, the cart should be placed beside the parent's vehicle where it's protected from traffic. And, of course, the child (or children) should be placed first in the vehicle.

DEAR ABBY: The letter regarding calendars depicting almost nude women hanging in businesses frequented by both men and women brought back an incident that I experienced.

I worked in a car radio company and had to regularly visit the garage where the radios were installed. The installers had many calendars in their work areas that offended me, some depicting completely nude women.

I spoke to the owner (a woman) about my feelings and she had the perfect solution. She bought a magazine (Playgirl) that contained photos of completely naked men and tacked a few of the pics up in the garage. The installers had a fit, telling her that the pictures were "obscene." Needless to say, all the girlie pics were down the next day!

By the way, this was 25 years ago, long before there were any laws regarding sexual harassment. -- JO IN LARGO, FLA.

DEAR JO: What's good for the gander is good for the goose! I have to wonder at the logic that pictures of nude women are art and pictures of nude men are obscene, since both the subjects were formed by the same creator.

CONFIDENTIAL TO "CONSIDERING DIPLOMACY AS A CAREER": Art Linkletter described diplomacy succinctly: "The art of jumping into troubled water without making a splash."

What teens need to know about sex, drugs, AIDS, and getting along with peers and parents is in "What Every Teen Should Know." To order, send a business-sized, self-addressed envelope, plus check or money order for $3.95 ($4.50 in Canada) to: Dear Abby, Teen Booklet, P.O. Box 447, Mount Morris, IL 61054-0447. (Postage is included.)