Animal suffering

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I bet there have been many ten year old boys who have gone out by themselves and killed a rabbit or squirrel. Then skinned, cleaned, and cooked it over a fire to eat.
 
Angelsflight said:
Exactly! Thats what i meant about our “nature”…if it were in our nature we would be able to do as the animals do…pounce on our prey and eat it live right then and there.

The 2 year old in the playpen would not do that. He would not attack the bunny and rip its flesh off with his teeth, because it is not in his nature. He would eat that apple instead.

Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
I agree. Further, some forget that in Genesis, it is stated that God told humans to eat the fruit of the trees and the animals the grass. So, as I look at it, God never made us to eat flesh. Yes, man is fallen but what is most natural than what God made us to be?
 
10gr8kids said:
I bet there have been many ten year old boys who have gone out by themselves and killed a rabbit or squirrel. Then skinned, cleaned, and cooked it over a fire to eat.
Click to expand...
The sad thing is that kids lose that innocence as they grow older. So, are they following Man’s fallen nature or their God given nature when they do that? In law, a ten year old is deemed capable of committing a crime.
 
Angelsflight said:
Exactly! Thats what i meant about our “nature”…if it were in our nature we would be able to do as the animals do…pounce on our prey and eat it live right then and there.

The 2 year old in the playpen would not do that. He would not attack the bunny and rip its flesh off with his teeth, because it is not in his nature. He would eat that apple instead.

Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
I think the whole thing also brings to mind the general question - ‘Is our ability to do something an argument itself to do it?’
 
Just wondering if as you’re eating your fruits and vegetables you realize all the animals that have to die to supply the world with those fruits and vegetables?
 
Angelsflight said:
Exactly! Thats what i meant about our “nature”…if it were in our nature we would be able to do as the animals do…pounce on our prey and eat it live right then and there.

The 2 year old in the playpen would not do that. He would not attack the bunny and rip its flesh off with his teeth, because it is not in his nature. He would eat that apple instead.

Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
Nor do animals farm.

Fortunately, humans have more brains than, say, coyotes, and we have hands. We learned a long time ago that both meat and vegetables are more nutritious if they’re cooked, not to mention easier to eat and less likely to confer disease. Since we’re able to do that, and seem always to have done it, it’s “natural” for us to do it.
 
The human body is designed to be omnivorous. We are designed to eat both the flesh of animals and plant matter. We actually even have the teeth to eat both and the digestive system to deal with both.

Any religious or philosophical argument in favour of eating animals is backed up by the fact that we actually are designed to do so.

To argue that animals have “rights” akin to humans is putting animals on a similar level to humans. When a dog approaches me and asks me to give me it’s rights…then I’ll listen to that… 😃
 
10gr8kids said:
This doesn’t make much sense to me. A 2 yr old is still dependent on his parents. A lion cub is still dependent on the pride. Just because a lion cub will not attack and take down an antelope does not mean it’s not in it’s nature to do so.
Click to expand...
I use the 2 year old because he is innocent…young…still eating mashed bananas or whatever is in baby food…eating meat is a learned thing i think. Parents teach you how to cook and eat the cow and it becomes the norm for that child later on. But he does not instinctively want to rip the animal apart with his teeth…a lion cub , even with the pride, will.
 
AdamPeter said:
The human body is designed to be omnivorous. We are designed to eat both the flesh of animals and plant matter. We actually even have the teeth to eat both and the digestive system to deal with both.

Any religious or philosophical argument in favour of eating animals is backed up by the fact that we actually are designed to do so.

To argue that animals have “rights” akin to humans is putting animals on a similar level to humans. When a dog approaches me and asks me to give me it’s rights…then I’ll listen to that… 😃
Click to expand...
So, what do you mean? Because a dog cant talk to you, it doesnt deserve to be treated with respect? i dont get it
 
Angelsflight said:
So, what do you mean? Because a dog cant talk to you, it doesnt deserve to be treated with respect? i dont get it
Click to expand...
They deserve respect…but they are not on the same level as a human person. A dog does not have the dignity of a human being and we as humans can legitimately experiment upon animals to test drugs etc.
 
AdamPeter said:
The human body is designed to be omnivorous. We are designed to eat both the flesh of animals and plant matter. We actually even have the teeth to eat both and the digestive system to deal with both.

Any religious or philosophical argument in favour of eating animals is backed up by the fact that we actually are designed to do so.
Click to expand...
true

It is also in our nature to make tools to do the work for us.

If we took 87 pioneers, an apple, and a rabbit, put them in the Sierra Nevada Mountains during a blizzard……

If we put one wolf in a herd of 87 sheep, an apple and a rabbit…………

If we took over seven billion humans and took away their farming tools…………
 
Just a reminder, the thread is called “Animal Suffering” . Whether we are supposed to eat meat or not is really not the point. We can argue it until the cows come home. lol. (couldn’t resist!) 😛

Anyway, eat meat or not. Whatever. My only problem is how animals are treated while they wait for slaughter. They are keeping you alive with the food they give, after all. Don’t they deserve to be treated humanely also for the time that they are alive? I firmly believe that just because an animal is not equal to humans doesnt give us the right to treat it poorly.

We are not equal to God. How would we like it if he treated us poorly, just because?
 
AdamPeter said:
They deserve respect…but they are not on the same level as a human person. A dog does not have the dignity of a human being and we as humans can legitimately experiment upon animals to test drugs etc.
Click to expand...
did you know…50,000 animals died in the name of Splenda? And for what? Its on the market…what did all that animal testing prove?

So, since the animal is not on the same level as a human, then the results of animal tests are null and void. They do not share the same genetic make up as we do…how would these tests be accurate?
 
Angelsflight said:
Just a reminder, the thread is called “Animal Suffering” . Whether we are supposed to eat meat or not is really not the point. We can argue it until the cows come home. lol. (couldn’t resist!) 😛

Anyway, eat meat or not. Whatever. My only problem is how animals are treated while they wait for slaughter. They are keeping you alive with the food they give, after all. Don’t they deserve to be treated humanely also for the time that they are alive? I firmly believe that just because an animal is not equal to humans doesnt give us the right to treat it poorly.

We are not equal to God. How would we like it if he treated us poorly, just because?
Click to expand...
They suffer a lot less at human hands than they do at nature’s. Human slaughter of animals is extremely benign compared to what their fate would be otherwise.

What, after all, do animals do “by nature”? They eat, they drink and they breed. They don’t listen to Mozart or gaze at a gorgeous sunset. They have no pride in their offspring. They do exactly the same things as domestic animals as they would in the wild, with some significant exceptions. As domestic animals, they are almost always well fed, well-watered, spared most diseases and die quickly and humanely before the suffering and ravages of nature overtake them. In the wild, they are ill-fed, drink often disease or parasite-laden water and are ultimately chased down and torn to pieces by some other animal.

That’s not to say that nobody treats animals inhumanely. But it’s not common, and it most certainly is not typically as portrayed or described by most internet postings.
 
Angelsflight said:
did you know…50,000 animals died in the name of Splenda? And for what? Its on the market…what did all that animal testing prove?

So, since the animal is not on the same level as a human, then the results of animal tests are null and void. They do not share the same genetic make up as we do…how would these tests be accurate?
Click to expand...
I take drugs for epilepsy - these would not be possible if not for animal testing. Many people’s lives would be much worse if not for animal drug testing. I would be having seizures every day if not for animal testing. It’s necessary and the church does not teach that it’s wrong.
It alleviates human suffering.
 
Ridgerunner said:
They suffer a lot less at human hands than they do at nature’s. Human slaughter of animals is extremely benign compared to what their fate would be otherwise.

What, after all, do animals do “by nature”? They eat, they drink and they breed. They don’t listen to Mozart or gaze at a gorgeous sunset. They have no pride in their offspring. They do exactly the same things as domestic animals as they would in the wild, with some significant exceptions. As domestic animals, they are almost always well fed, well-watered, spared most diseases and die quickly and humanely before the suffering and ravages of nature overtake them. In the wild, they are ill-fed, drink often disease or parasite-laden water and are ultimately chased down and torn to pieces by some other animal.

That’s not to say that nobody treats animals inhumanely. But it’s not common, and it most certainly is not typically as portrayed or described by most internet postings.
Click to expand...
Good points…And I dont think everyone treats animals bad…not at all. There are nice farms out there, and nice people who respect animals. I guess I am just talking about those who don’t value animals on any level and see them only as a piece of meat. 🙂
 
AdamPeter said:
I take drugs for epilepsy - these would not be possible if not for animal testing. Many people’s lives would be much worse if not for animal drug testing. I would be having seizures every day if not for animal testing. It’s necessary and the church does not teach that it’s wrong.
It alleviates human suffering.
Click to expand...
There really is no easy answer for animal testing. It is very important to me too that people have the medicines they need to get well, or to keep illnesses in check. I guess I just wish no one had to suffer to accomplish it. I see pictures of horribly mutilated animals being tested…and you can see on their faces how much pain they are in…its heartbreaking. But you are right in the respect that humans are more important than animals when it comes to finding cures for people.
 
Angelsflight said:
Good points…And I dont think everyone treats animals bad…not at all. There are nice farms out there, and nice people who respect animals. I guess I am just talking about those who don’t value animals on any level and see them only as a piece of meat. 🙂
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for those who raise hogs or sheep or poultry. But I have some idea what I’m talking about when I talk about beef. Most ranchers I know actually do have some attachment to their animals. But it can only go so far. Animals aren’t people in any way, and lines have to be drawn in terms of attachments and sentimentality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top