Animal "Ethics" Committees

[Rence]

That’s not the point. The point is human life has more worth than an animal’s life. Using the resources that God has given you to treat a dog is not being a good steward.

The point was very simply, and well made: the senario was choosing between 1) doctoring a severely injured animal and 2) putting a bandaid on a human. Those were the criteria. The answer was to just put the animal down. The point was well made.

Using the resources that God has given you to take responsibility for the pets ONE decide on ONE’S own to bring home is indeed being a good steward. If you don’t want the responisiblity, then don’t have pets. That’s simple enough as well. Sure, if one can’t afford to have a servere injury treated, they’re not obliged to do so. But let me point out that there are several charities geared towards exactly this: donations are made by members in the community to pay for animal treatments. However, you cannot be assured that money not spent on petcare will go to the next door neighbor. It has nothing to do with it.

 

[DCNBILL]

It is not a matter of degree of resources or degree of injuries it is a matter of degree of human dignity and worth over that of an animal.

New question.

A flood is coming, one has the resources and time to do one of the following two things.

1. Relocate a nest of 10 million ants and save them.
2. Shore up a dam that will save a small village of 12 people.

Thats 10 million ants now.

 

[Rence]

It most certainly is. My hypothetical restricted your choice to two options, in an attempt to illustrate that the welfare of humans do not always trump the welfare of animals. If you pick choice (a), as most people would, that demonstrates my point. I think you understand this, which is why you are resisting (i.e., dodging) the question.

I think they both understand this, they’re just being stubborn unfortunately. I think most people know that life doesn’t come with a rule book, and that all the answers aren’t as cear as black and white. Fighting tooth and nail to change the senario just proves it.

 

[DCNBILL]

I think they both understand this, they’re just being stubborn unfortunately. I think most people know that life doesn’t come with a rule book, and that all the answers aren’t as cear as black and white. Fighting tooth and nail to change the senario just proves it.

It is called the Bible and with the interpretation of the Church is a pretty good guide.

 

[MaryBernard]

I think they both understand this, they’re just being stubborn unfortunately. I think most people know that life doesn’t come with a rule book, and that all the answers aren’t as cear as black and white. Fighting tooth and nail to change the senario just proves it.

Fact is that in real life, we have more than just two choices to make in a given scenario. By restricting the number of options, you take away reality and reduce it to your own little fantasy where you are god.

 

[Rence]

It is not a matter of degree of resources or degree of injuries it is a matter of degree of human dignity and worth over that of an animal.

New question.

A flood is coming, one has the resources and time to do one of the following two things.

1. Relocate a nest of 10 million ants and save them.
2. Shore up a dam that will save a small village of 12 people.

Thats 10 million ants now.

Ok, you’re asking this question, and here is my answer: I would not address this issue at all. My donation would go to the ASPCA. Everyone has their calling, and mine is to care for the animals. You and Mary Benard can fund the dam project. If everyone does their job, many things can be accomplished and senarios wouldn’t have to be a choice of two options. This is a big world, with many people in it. If more would participate and answer their calling, no one would be in want, even the animals that WE domesticated and made dependent on us.

 

[Rence]

Fact is that in real life, we have more than just two choices to make in a given scenario. By restricting the number of options, you take away reality and reduce it to your own little fantasy where you are god.

That’s right: life doesn’t come with a rule book, and the answers are not as clear as black and white. Thank you for making my point

 

[Rence]

It is called the Bible and with the interpretation of the Church is a pretty good guide.

Yeaah, and the Bible didn’t say to domesticate animals, make them helpless and dependent on their owners and then abandon them when they are in need. Sounds painfully like a bad insurance company: pay us your premiums regularly but don’t make any claims or we will drop you.

 

[DCNBILL]

Ok, you’re asking this question, and here is my answer: I would not address this issue at all. My donation would go to the ASPCA. Everyone has their calling, and mine is to care for the animals. You and Mary Benard can fund the dam project. If everyone does their job, many things can be accomplished and senarios wouldn’t have to be a choice of two options. This is a big world, with many people in it. If more would participate and answer their calling, no one would be in want, even the animals that WE domesticated and made dependent on us.

And you accused me of a cop out? :tsktsk:

 

[MaryBernard]

Ok, you’re asking this question, and here is my answer: I would not address this issue at all. My donation would go to the ASPCA. Everyone has their calling, and mine is to care for the animals. You and Mary Benard can fund the dam project. If everyone does their job, many things can be accomplished and senarios wouldn’t have to be a choice of two options. This is a big world, with many people in it. If more would participate and answer their calling, no one would be in want, even the animals that WE domesticated and made dependent on us.

Wow, just wow!

 

[MaryBernard]

Yeaah, and the Bible didn’t say to domesticate animals, make them helpless and dependent on their owners and then abandon them when they are in need. Sounds painfully like a bad insurance company: pay us your premiums regularly but don’t make any claims or we will drop you.

Have you ever read the first 3 chapters of Genesis? Specifically Gen. 1:28

New International Version (NIV)

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

 

[MaryBernard]

Yeaah, and the Bible didn’t say to domesticate animals, make them helpless and dependent on their owners and then abandon them when they are in need. Sounds painfully like a bad insurance company: pay us your premiums regularly but don’t make any claims or we will drop you.

Genesis 1:28

New International Version (NIV)

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

 

[pete_29]

That wasn’t a dodge. That was the truth. That was calling on you on the fact that your impossible senario doesn’t exist. There is NO reason in the world for either one to go hungry. If you ask me about a starving dog and a starving person, there is NO reason in the world why we can’t feed them both. This is a nonissue.

It was a dodge. I gave you two options. You decided to add a third. The difference between you and your friend, and me is that given a life and death situation between your life and an animals life, I would always, repeat always, save you. You two evidently would not do the same for me. So much for your moral superiority. :dts:

 

[TimeEntrance]

Problem with online debates is that there is no face-to-face interactions and reading of body language and other cues. And people get really upset really fast.

The pointing of arguing is to persuade others to your position. And things should logically follow from the premises. Accepted.

But maybe everything does not need to be taken so seriously always. In the case of the injured animal and the guy in need of the band aid… why not just help both Kind of like injured people. Nonetheless, even among injured people medics and medical doctors will assess who they should help and who they should just leave. There’s a term for it but I forget. But if you can help all the injured people in front of you then you do. Same with one injured dog and the guy with a minor wound. In fact the guy can wait if his injury does not require immediate attention.

 

[DCNBILL]

Problem with online debates is that there is no face-to-face interactions and reading of body language and other cues. And people get really upset really fast.

The pointing of arguing is to persuade others to your position. And things should logically follow from the premises. Accepted.

But maybe everything does not need to be taken so seriously always. In the case of the injured animal and the guy in need of the band aid… why not just help both Kind of like injured people. Nonetheless, even among injured people medics and medical doctors will assess who they should help and who they should just leave. There’s a term for it but I forget. But if you can help all the injured people in front of you then you do. Same with one injured dog and the guy with a minor wound. In fact the guy can wait if his injury does not require immediate attention.

That would be triage.

The thing is that as it was originally stated the “hypothetical” question was an either /or proposition. If the situation were as you state I would help the person first, which would not take very long and then take the dog to the vet.

 

[tabycat]

Spoiler: No.
Instead, they’ll “volunteer” certain groups of people./QU

The groups of people that can not defend themselves (the poor, the handicaped).

 

[Brendan]

FYI, Here is a document from the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life. It deals with the morality of Xenotransplantation ( the implantation of animal organs into humans).

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20010926_xenotrapianti_en.html

It notes that, from a Catholic perspective, the experimentation on animals is morally justified under the following conditions

1. Concern for the well-being of genetically modified animals should be guaranteed so that the effect of the transgene’s expression, possible modification of the anatomical, physiological and/or behavioural aspects of the animal may be assessed, all the while limiting the levels of stress and pain, suffering and anxiety experienced by the animal;

1. The effects on the offspring and possible repercussions for the environment should be considered;

1. Such animals should be kept under tight control and should not be released into the general environment;

1. The number of animals used in experiments should be kept to a bare minimum;

1. The removal of organs and/or tissues must take place during a single surgical operation;

1. Every experimental protocol on animals must be evaluated by a competent ethics committee.

The interesting thing is that those conditions are laid out in the section on Transgenesis ( the introduction of human genes into animals to allow for more compatable transplants

The Vatican came out in favor of Transgenesis

"Trangenesis’

1. The use of organs from engineered animals for xenotransplantation raises the need for certain reflections on transgenesis and its ethical implications.

The term “transgenic animal” is used to indicate an animal whose genetic make-up has been modified by the introduction of a new gene (or genes). In contrast, the term “knock out” is used to designate those animals in which a given endogenous gene (or genes) is no longer expressed. In either case, such animals will express particular characteristics which will be transmitted to the offspring.

As we have already observed, the possibility of working out such genetic modifications, using genes of human origin as well, is morally acceptable when done in respect for the animal and for biodiversity, and with a view to bringing significant benefits to man himself. Therefore, while recognizing that transgenesis does not compromise the overall genetic identity of the mutated animal or its species, and reaffirming man’s responsibility towards the created order and towards the pursuit of improving health by means of certain types of genetic manipulation, we will now enumerate some fundamental ethical conditions which must be respected

 

[Rence]

And you accused me of a cop out? :tsktsk:

Hey, it was the honest truth, without any hedging. Take it or leave it.

 

[Rence]

Wow, just wow!

Yup, that’s what I would do.

 

[Rence]

Have you ever read the first 3 chapters of Genesis? Specifically Gen. 1:28

New International Version (NIV)

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Where does it say to domesticate them, make them dependent on you, and then toss them away like garbage when they get injured? Sorry, I can’t find that part.