Animal Protection

[Fidelia]

What do you define as sentient life? And why does that determine your respect? What if a particular human being is not sentient?

Dan

that wouldn’t cancel out the fact that humans beings are and have the capacity to be sentient. Dogs bark. one dog that doesn’t bark doesn’t cancel out the norm. Sentient life is a creature that feels. if a creature can feel, it can suffer.

 

[Fidelia]

You’ve not come right out and said it, but it appears fundamental to your suggestion, so I will ask.

Is it an abuse of an animal to eat it?

Dan

If there are healthy alternatives being ignored (which we in a very developed country have easy access to), absolutely.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Sentient life is a creature that feels. if a creature can feel, it can suffer.

Do plants suffer when they are not watered? It looks like they do. They don’t have eyes that can shed tears, they can’t scream. If they do suffer, how can we tell? Is the real answer then that if a creature can show us humans it is suffering, then it is sentient?

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Is it an abuse of an animal to eat it?

If there are healthy alternatives being ignored (which we in a very developed country have easy access to), absolutely.

Why is it an abuse of an animal to eat it? What if it was bred, fed and cared for only to be food? What if it would not even exist except for the intent to eat it? Would that then be valid use, not abuse? It would seem the abuse would be in NOT eating it, sinces its purpose was for food.

Dan

 

[Nurse_Joy]

If there are healthy alternatives being ignored (which we in a very developed country have easy access to), absolutely.

Enough of this nonsense. You trot out the catechism and try to make it say something it doesn’t.

Try this little thought experiment. We just finished Lent. In lent, on Fridays, we abstain from eating meat. Not because eating meat is a bad thing, but exactly because it is a good thing.

Now in that practice there is an assumption that people normally eat meat - not even Richard McBrien would question this. This silliness about “healthy alternatives in developed countries” is a non-teaching and everyone knows it.

 

[Fidelia]

Enough of this nonsense. You trot out the catechism and try to make it say something it doesn’t.

Try this little thought experiment. We just finished Lent. In lent, on Fridays, we abstain from eating meat. Not because eating meat is a bad thing, but exactly because it is a good thing.

Now in that practice there is an assumption that people normally eat meat - not even Richard McBrien would question this. This silliness about “healthy alternatives in developed countries” is a non-teaching and everyone knows it.

you don’t abstain from eating meat. you eat fish out of tradition.

 

[Black_Jaque]

This animal rights activism is nothing more than the second prong of Satan’s attack on the dignity of Human life.

On the one end, Satan attempts to reduce Human life to a lower status. He is actively deceiving people into thinking that humans are no more special than animals.

On the other flank, Satan is elevating animal life to the same status as human life. People expend vast amounts of resources to protect animals.

The whole of Catholic teaching on the dignity of human life is based that human life is sacred to God. The Catholic Church does not, and never did teach that animal life has this same level of dignity.

It is OK to kill and eat animals. However the CC insists that the killing must be done humanely. Keeping animals in unsanitary pens is inhumane. Dispatching an animal by disemboweling it alive is inhumane. Relishing over the animals suffering is disordered.

However, that does not mean that person who hunts or kills animals does so inhumanely. An ethical hunter makes every reasonable effort to make the kill quickly and humanely.

Must the animal die? Yes. Because that is the only humane way to eat the animal’s flesh.

Killing a Harp seal in order to wear it’s warm water-proof fur is a good thing. Killing a Harp seal in order to show off your wealth is questionable.

Also there are three different kinds of hunting. Sport hunting, varmint hunting and commercial hunting. Sport hunting has never been responsible for the extinction of an animal species. In fact Sport hunting is often beneficial to the populations of animals.

Here in Wisconsin Sport hunting has brought back the Wild Turkey, which was totally extinct from the state. We have more deer than we can deal with. We can’t get rid of enough geese.

 

[Celeste88]

Enough of this nonsense. You trot out the catechism and try to make it say something it doesn’t.

Try this little thought experiment. We just finished Lent. In lent, on Fridays, we abstain from eating meat. Not because eating meat is a bad thing, but exactly because it is a good thing.

Now in that practice there is an assumption that people normally eat meat - not even Richard McBrien would question this. This silliness about “healthy alternatives in developed countries” is a non-teaching and everyone knows it.

Meat may be thought of as a good thing but in reality it is not such a good thing. Science is now proving that meat, especially red meat is linked to heart disease and colon cancer. Abstainence on Lenten Fridays goes back a long way when meat was necessary and thought of as something wholesome in the diet, not only that, meat is tasty. Meat is also expensive.

So it makes perfect sense to cut down on meat consumption, perhaps add omega-3 oils to your diet, reduce your grocery bill and eat more vegetables.

 

[Nurse_Joy]

you don’t abstain from eating meat. you eat fish out of tradition.

Actually I usually do Spaghettios or Cheesy Nacho Twistaroni , though fish is good too.

Abstinence—In the United States, this penitential practice consists of refraining from the consumption of meat. The Latin Church’s requirement of abstinence binds Catholics after they have celebrated their fourteenth birthday, and it is practiced on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and the Fridays during Lent. Pastors and parents are encouraged to see that children who are not bound by the obligation to fast and abstain are led to appreciate an authentic sense of penance.

usccb.org/dpp/penitential.htm

But the point isn’t to debate weather fish is meat or not. The point is that the church knows and teaches that eating meat not only is OK but is even understood as a good thing. You can’t rebut this because its a fact. Your quotes from the CCC, when considered in light of the entire text (which you so generously posted the entirety of the passages) show this too.

So please double check your source material. You will find your position has no basis.

Science is now proving that meat, especially red meat is linked to heart disease and colon cancer? Probably. But I assume there is no problem with moderation. And yes, I agree we would all do well to choose more modest diets so more of the word’s abundance could be shared by all. That’s just good stewardship.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Are fish not living, would some of you think it is wrong to eat them too? I believe and the Church teaches animals are for our use/consumption. We will probably find out over the next 10 years that everything we ingest is bad for us or the environment in some way. I suspect wearing leather or fur is more friendly to the environment than any type of synthetic material. I enjoy eating almost every type of animal, fish, shellfish, and yes, even those helpless plants I have tried, many of which I have harvested myself in good conscience. If anyone does not want to eat meat, fine, but you can’t and won’t ever convince me that anyone who does is wrong. God designed us biologically as predators who eat meat, our eyes are in the front of our skulls, and even our teeth are fashioned to eat meat. Perhaps not eating flesh is contrary to the design of our Creator?

 

[Celeste88]

This animal rights activism is nothing more than the second prong of Satan’s attack on the dignity of Human life.

On the one end, Satan attempts to reduce Human life to a lower status. He is actively deceiving people into thinking that humans are no more special than animals.

On the other flank, Satan is elevating animal life to the same status as human life. People expend vast amounts of resources to protect animals.

The whole of Catholic teaching on the dignity of human life is based that human life is sacred to God. The Catholic Church does not, and never did teach that animal life has this same level of dignity.

It is OK to kill and eat animals. However the CC insists that the killing must be done humanely. Keeping animals in unsanitary pens is inhumane. Dispatching an animal by disemboweling it alive is inhumane. Relishing over the animals suffering is disordered.

However, that does not mean that person who hunts or kills animals does so inhumanely. An ethical hunter makes every reasonable effort to make the kill quickly and humanely.

Must the animal die? Yes. Because that is the only humane way to eat the animal’s flesh.

Killing a Harp seal in order to wear it’s warm water-proof fur is a good thing. Killing a Harp seal in order to show off your wealth is questionable.

Also there are three different kinds of hunting. Sport hunting, varmint hunting and commercial hunting. Sport hunting has never been responsible for the extinction of an animal species. In fact Sport hunting is often beneficial to the populations of animals.

Here in Wisconsin Sport hunting has brought back the Wild Turkey, which was totally extinct from the state. We have more deer than we can deal with. We can’t get rid of enough geese.

So, in your opinion, animals are about as worthless or worthy as
plants or rocks? And if your canine companion of 10 years got sick you would dispose of him much like a …piece of trash…or a wilted begonia?

 

[Jay2]

So, in your opinion, animals are about as worthless or worthy as
plants or rocks? And if your canine companion of 10 years got sick you would dispose of him much like a …piece of trash…or a wilted begonia?

Easy …

Like “Black Jacque” I live in the northern US, Minnesota. A large part of our populations are very seriously into hunting/fishing. As he said we have a major goose & deer overpopulation problem - largely due to human sprawl.
Many people in my area depend upon the various hunting seasons for food. Many only buy staples from a store, and go to their own freezer for meat they’ve harvested.

As for our canine companions, If two guys are out for ducks, and the dog & one of the hunters got hurt, the bird hunters would leave an injured human in the woods, and carry out the dog! Some of these guys think more of their dogs than their kids sometimes No, they wouldn’t be discarded. They are as valuable a tool as the gun.

As for using animals, cows for instance… I like mine Medium-Rare, nothing like an oatmeal cookie dunked in milk, in good boots, between my and the asphalt on my bike, and as an ingredient in my dog’s chow.

 

[AnIrishCatholic]

This animal rights activism is nothing more than the second prong of Satan’s attack on the dignity of Human life.

On the one end, Satan attempts to reduce Human life to a lower status. He is actively deceiving people into thinking that humans are no more special than animals.

On the other flank, Satan is elevating animal life to the same status as human life. People expend vast amounts of resources to protect animals.

The whole of Catholic teaching on the dignity of human life is based that human life is sacred to God. The Catholic Church does not, and never did teach that animal life has this same level of dignity.

It is OK to kill and eat animals. However the CC insists that the killing must be done humanely. Keeping animals in unsanitary pens is inhumane. Dispatching an animal by disemboweling it alive is inhumane. Relishing over the animals suffering is disordered.

However, that does not mean that person who hunts or kills animals does so inhumanely. An ethical hunter makes every reasonable effort to make the kill quickly and humanely.

Must the animal die? Yes. Because that is the only humane way to eat the animal’s flesh.

Killing a Harp seal in order to wear it’s warm water-proof fur is a good thing. Killing a Harp seal in order to show off your wealth is questionable.

Also there are three different kinds of hunting. Sport hunting, varmint hunting and commercial hunting. Sport hunting has never been responsible for the extinction of an animal species. In fact Sport hunting is often beneficial to the populations of animals.

Here in Wisconsin Sport hunting has brought back the Wild Turkey, which was totally extinct from the state. We have more deer than we can deal with. We can’t get rid of enough geese.

If i posted what i wanted to say i would be banned

Hunting in my opinon is a compensationary messure for a group of men who really need it

 

[Ray_Scheel]

If i posted what i wanted to say i would be banned

Hunting in my opinon is a compensationary messure for a group of men who really need it

Even by restraining yourself you’ve established your ability to talk about your position in a logical manner is based on a prejudicial mindset and tops out at making juvenile allusions. First off, about 20% of the hunters in the U.S. are female. The vast majority of the hunters I know are not the type to spout sweeping and unfounded moral judgments about others. Many of them are actually quite successful people with no compulsive need to publicly “compensate” for anything.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

So, in your opinion, animals are about as worthless or worthy as
plants or rocks? And if your canine companion of 10 years got sick you would dispose of him much like a …piece of trash…or a wilted begonia?

Oh quite the contrary! Meat eaters value animals much much more than vegetarians. (Ever wonder how many cows there would be today if we all valued them as vegetarians do? The fact that there would be far fewer cows is proof that meat eaters value cows more than vegetarians do)

You are what you eat. It is a great sign of the worthiness of an animal that I would eat it. (BTW, it is a great sign of the respect I have for Christ that I eat Him. It would be the utmost disrespect if I rejected His flesh, I shudder at the thought of that sin.) If I don’t eat a food, that is a sign of disrespect for it. (I do disrespect fish by the way, meat that is good to eat, is supposed to taste good. It definitely is a sacrifice for me to eat fish during Lent) It is the ultimate sign of disrespect of an animal not to eat it if it was raised for the sole purpose of being food. The church teaches that abuse of an object is simply using it for something other than its intended purpose. If we raise animals for food, the abuse is to NOT eat them.

Christ thought the same way as meat-eaters do! Christ was a meat-eater. He ate fish that were ‘inhumanely’ caught in a net, dragged out of the water, suffocated for lack of oxygen in the air, likely beheaded before they were dead, and cooked over a fire. Christ suffered no stain of sin, not even original sin. Everything he did was perfect! If you believe that He could act sinfully or unethically, then we have more important things to discuss.

Christ even ate ‘cute’ lambs. Each passover dinner that Jesus ate included slaughtered lamb. I say you can’t go wrong doing what Jesus did. You can go wrong teaching that animals are worthy of the respect that God has granted only to persons.

IMHO, the much more pertinent evil to bring to light is the vast expenditures on pets, that necessarily is not spent on needy humans. It is not black or white of course, but my household cat gets fed and watered, and basic medical care that the city demands. After that, she’s on her own. Every dollar I spend on an ‘animal’, is money I don’t have to spend on human beings. Every dollar spent on saving the animals, when millions of humans are inhumanely killed, seems to be the real disorder.

And in ending; ever examine the word humane? It means to treat with the same respect as a human. It is not possible to treat animals with the same respect as humans without degrading humans to the level of animals. Animals deserve the respect that is consistent with their purpose. They exist for man, to be ‘used’ responsibly.

Dan

 

[Celeste88]

Oh quite the contrary! Meat eaters value animals much much more than vegetarians. (Ever wonder how many cows there would be today if we all valued them as vegetarians do? The fact that there would be far fewer cows is proof that meat eaters value cows more than vegetarians do)

You are what you eat. It is a great sign of the worthiness of an animal that I would eat it. (BTW, it is a great sign of the respect I have for Christ that I eat Him. It would be the utmost disrespect if I rejected His flesh, I shudder at the thought of that sin.) If I don’t eat a food, that is a sign of disrespect for it. (I do disrespect fish by the way, meat that is good to eat, is supposed to taste good. It definitely is a sacrifice for me to eat fish during Lent) It is the ultimate sign of disrespect of an animal not to eat it if it was raised for the sole purpose of being food. The church teaches that abuse of an object is simply using it for something other than its intended purpose. If we raise animals for food, the abuse is to NOT eat them.

Christ thought the same way as meat-eaters do! Christ was a meat-eater. He ate fish that were ‘inhumanely’ caught in a net, dragged out of the water, suffocated for lack of oxygen in the air, likely beheaded before they were dead, and cooked over a fire. Christ suffered no stain of sin, not even original sin. Everything he did was perfect! If you believe that He could act sinfully or unethically, then we have more important things to discuss.

Christ even ate ‘cute’ lambs. Each passover dinner that Jesus ate included slaughtered lamb. I say you can’t go wrong doing what Jesus did. You can go wrong teaching that animals are worthy of the respect that God has granted only to persons.

IMHO, the much more pertinent evil to bring to light is the vast expenditures on pets, that necessarily is not spent on needy humans. It is not black or white of course, but my household cat gets fed and watered, and basic medical care that the city demands. After that, she’s on her own. Every dollar I spend on an ‘animal’, is money I don’t have to spend on human beings. Every dollar spent on saving the animals, when millions of humans are inhumanely killed, seems to be the real disorder.

And in ending; ever examine the word humane? It means to treat with the same respect as a human. It is not possible to treat animals with the same respect as humans without degrading humans to the level of animals. Animals deserve the respect that is consistent with their purpose. They exist for man, to be ‘used’ responsibly.

Dan/QUOTE

Over the years as humans have strived to improve the lot of humans the trickle down effect has been to improve the lots of animals. This is seen primarily in the more affluent Western countries. Ideally, I’d like to see humans live in a world without war, poverty, disease, deprivation, indignity, etc. It may not be totally so, but your lot in life is better than it would have been had you been born 200 years ago. So we also try to improve animal lives and reduce their suffering as well, shouldn’t we?

As far as their purpose…well I’m sure we could modify their purpose…in the 16th century England banquets were served with all kinds of strange foods…blackbirds baked in a pie…for example…hummingbird tongues in gravy…(I’m gonna puke any second) I don’t think we really miss these delicassies (sp?)

I haven’t eatten bacon in yeasrs, yes its tasty but high fat and carcinogenic. If I am what I eat why would I want to put that into my body?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

[Over the years as humans have strived to improve the lot of humans the trickle down effect has been to improve the lots of animals. This is seen primarily in the more affluent Western countries. Ideally, I’d like to see humans live in a world without war, poverty, disease, deprivation, indignity, etc. It may not be totally so, but your lot in life is better than it would have been had you been born 200 years ago. So we also try to improve animal lives and reduce their suffering as well, shouldn’t we?

A reasonable post and question. Thank you. I would like to take a try at your question, but I do not understand it well enough. May I paraphrase in two different versions that you may be asking? A. Should we try to reduce the suffering that animals experience while under man’s care, to the extent reasonable, considering their purpose? That question I would answer with a positive yes, acknowledging that ‘reasonable’ leaves a lot of wiggle room, and that their purpose may be a point of debate.

B. Should we try to improve animal lives and reduce their suffering beyond what nature (God) provides for ‘in the wild’? That question I would answer with a positive no. Efforts in that regard would seem in all cases to be wrong. Christ told us “The poor will always be with you”. Our care of the ‘poor’, whoever they may be, is a real responsibility. To the extent that someone expends significant efforts to ‘improve’ the natural lot in life of animals is erring. Unless its accepted as a hobby, and not ‘charity’. But, I am sure that there are those that believe it is charity, and as a result, spend less time, energy, and money, on the charity that Christ told us was really important.

As far as their purpose…well I’m sure we could modify their purpose…in the 16th century England banquets were served with all kinds of strange foods…blackbirds baked in a pie…for example…hummingbird tongues in gravy…(I’m gonna puke any second) I don’t think we really miss these delicassies (sp?)

I haven’t eatten bacon in yeasrs, yes its tasty but high fat and carcinogenic. If I am what I eat why would I want to put that into my body?

I agree, bacon is very tasty. To be more accurate, you should say that bacon is cured in such a way as to contain carcinogens. The sodium nitrate added during the curing process is the cause. As a result it has been limited. But, you would best not use that argument against bacon. From a research publication from Oregon State University concerning the same carcinogen found in bacon:

Nitrosamines can form in the gastric juice of the human stomach. This is commonly referred to as endogenous nitrosation. Bacteria in the mouth chemically reduce nitrate, which is prevalent in many vegetables

, to nitrite, which in turn can form nitrosating agents. Many foods contain amines that can react with nitrosating agents in the acidic stomach to form nitrosamines.

I think we just discovered something. Any food contains some small chance of doing you in! But we have to eat. We just have the ability to pick our own ‘poison’. Vegetarians can certainly pick their poisons exclusively from plant life. Omnivores prefer to reduce the risks inherent with eating vegatables by exercising greater moderation.

Dan

Dan
[/quote]