Babies vs. Animal Rights

[Marfran]

Originally Posted by JaneGrey

1.I was surprised to learn that you are a vet. because ***the tone ***of your previous posts to me seemed like those of someone who ***looked down ***on ‘‘animal rights folks’’

I do look down on animal rights “extremists”, like the ones that let the mink loose at Michigan State University a while back and they all died from starvation…

Newbie2: people who work with animals often have a different, more complex outlook that is not easily conveyed or simplified to those not familiar with some of the realities of veterinary medicine, or the care, husbandry, management (wildlife & other) of animals both domestic & wild. I am sure that it is **not **your intent, but you do come across as anti-animal. And it is difficult here when communicating via the written word, to sometimes achieve the right “tone” that best conveys our message. Please don’t take offense–but you do need to work on the “tone” of your posts. Please consider that as “constructive” criticism.

I imagine that you encounter many difficulties with clients in your practice, and may have been the subject of negative attention from “animal rights” extremists. Do any of us here, in this discussion fit into that category??? I am thinking that I am “extreme” to you, but maybe not. I think that there needs to be much reform in the “pet industry” (do away with the puppy mills) and in the zoo industry–instead of breeding and purchasing animals we can obtain animals as rescues and become more of sanctuaries instead… (And don’t get me going on hunting–there is a lot of environmental mythology that is the impetus for continuing the hunt…)

Seriously, if you can squeeze it in, Dominion by Matthew Scully tiny.cc/8o2Oo is a great read… One of my veterinarian friends recommended it to me. It’s a deep look at “animal rights” and covers many areas concerning animal mistreatment, etc. And it’s a bonus that it was written by a Catholic.

 

[Newbie2]

Oh please! I said with me. I must say My dogs have never hurt anyone though I know they would defend me and my daughter.

Originally Posted by JaneGrey

OK, just checking.

1.I was surprised to learn that you are a vet. because ***the tone ***of your previous posts to me seemed like those of someone who ***looked down ***on ‘‘animal rights folks’’

OK. Put me down for not liking “animal rights extremists”, and those that would have animals have the same “rights” as humans.

Newbie2: people who work with animals often have a different, more complex outlook that is not easily conveyed or simplified to those not familiar with some of the realities of veterinary medicine, or the care, husbandry, management (wildlife & other) of animals both domestic & wild. I am sure that it is **not **your intent, but you do come across as anti-animal. And it is difficult here when communicating via the written word, to sometimes achieve the right “tone” that best conveys our message. Please don’t take offense–but you do need to work on the “tone” of your posts. Please consider that as “constructive” criticism.

That’s why precise terms are important. Until proven otherwise, I assume that those identifying themselves as “animal rights advocates” may be in the extreme camp.

I imagine that you encounter many difficulties with clients in your practice, and may have been the subject of negative attention from “animal rights” extremists. Do any of us here, in this discussion fit into that category??? Nope. I am thinking that I am “extreme” to you, but maybe not. Nope. I think that there needs to be much reform in the “pet industry” (do away with the puppy mills) and in the zoo industry–instead of breeding and purchasing animals we can obtain animals as rescues and become more of sanctuaries instead… (And don’t get me going on hunting–there is a lot of environmental mythology that is the impetus for continuing the hunt…)

I agree that there is room for reform, but we probably disagree on how to acheive it and how far to go with it…hence, you’re not an extremist.

Seriously, if you can squeeze it in, Dominion by Matthew Scully tiny.cc/8o2Oo is a great read… One of my veterinarian friends recommended it to me. It’s a deep look at “animal rights” and covers many areas concerning animal mistreatment, etc. And it’s a bonus that it was written by a Catholic.

I will definitely read it as part of my research for my thesis paper, thanks.

 

[4elise]

Thank you very much for your support. Maybe I will one day share my problems with the transition in the Vegeatarians group.

We are here to help! Lots of people can use support making this change - I know I did! Peace

 

[4elise]

i think that everyone on this thread has made it clear that we are pro-life, pro-all-of-life. We are non-violent, we care about the earth, we care about all of god’s creation, we care for human suffering and hunger, and we care for the unborn.

take the st. Francis pledge: tinyurl.com/npsnv5
**by caring for our planet, we ensure abundance to feed the human family. **

[sign]thank you!!![/sign]

 

[4elise]

The very title of this thread is inane.

I don’t think that was the intention of the original poster however - we need to keep the fuel out of fire - explain that we can and do support all pro life issues - and are working for animal welfare / and for many of us that welfare = removing them, and their products (milk and eggs) from our diet

I am sure that they may have met people who weren’t pro-life but who supported animal welfare,** we are here to clairfy that we agree **- one who supports animal welfare should NATURALLY be pro life!

 

[4elise]

Why won’t you consider making personal changes to END WORLD HUNGER? Why won’t you consider taking the St. Francis Pledge?

**Take the St. Francis Pledge: **tinyurl.com/npsnv5
**By caring for our planet, we ensure abundance to feed the human family. **

Do you think that Sailor and others just prefer arguing for issues that do not require that they make any changes in their life?

How do you suppose one changes their life by being adamantly pro life? We can financially support causes, spend time at protests, vote our conscious, support places like St. Anne’s Home, ---- but all these actions really do not require any personal changes… just wondering

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Please reply to the quetions put to you instead of just saying the same things with so much anger.

What is your opinion of GE declaring that the life of a lab rat is worth more than a human baby’s?

Animal ‘rights’ activists come dangerously close to worshipping the creation and not the Creator. Oddly enough I just got off the phone with a relative who is one of those animal ‘rights’ activists. She said she doesn’t believe God wrote the Bible because there was animal sacrifice in the Bible and God would never do that.

We are Catholics, not Hindus. If I wish to wear fur and eat meat, I can do so. Trying to make a Catholic feel guilty for using what God gave us to use will not work.

 

[SteveGC]

What is your opinion of GE declaring that the life of a lab rat is worth more than a human baby’s?

Animal ‘rights’ activists come dangerously close to worshipping the creation and not the Creator. Oddly enough I just got off the phone with a relative who is one of those animal ‘rights’ activists. She said she doesn’t believe God wrote the Bible because there was animal sacrifice in the Bible and God would never do that.

We are Catholics, not Hindus. If I wish to wear fur and eat meat, I can do so. Trying to make a Catholic feel guilty for using what God gave us to use will not work.

Hi SK. Always good to see you on the threads.

Do you think maybe you’re projecting some of that frustration with your relatives onto the folks on this thread, who don’t share at all in those extremist views?

What was the precise context of the situation at GE? And from that context, what was the exact quote? Not that I encourage a departure too far from the OP, but it seems heavy on your heart, and related to your frustration of extremist views. Anyways, I don’t think anyone on here can answer your question without context and precision about this issue.

I sense you are a faithful Catholic. Still, could you elaborate on how you reconcile your wishes with your understanding of God’s wishes when it comes to the human dominion and utilization of animals? Not that I suggest you are disregarding the will of the Father, but I’m curious of your notion of what that will of the Father is in this matter. Does the Church have guidance for us on this particular issue?

Peace be with you.

 

[Marfran]

What is your opinion of GE declaring that the life of a lab rat is worth more than a human baby’s?

If you feel that this is relevant to the discussion then why don’t you post a link so that we can see what you are talking about?

Animal ‘rights’ activists come dangerously close to worshipping the creation and not the Creator. Oddly enough I just got off the phone with a relative who is one of those animal ‘rights’ activists. She said she doesn’t believe God wrote the Bible because there was animal sacrifice in the Bible and God would never do that.

I think that people who worship cheeseburgers come dangerously close to commiting the sin of idolitry, and most definitely gluttony. Not respecting the life given up so that you may eat and live is against God. Your “cheeseburger” group is disrespectful and hedonistic. It is all about earthly pleasure at the expense of God’s other creation.

Your comment about your relative enlightens us to the true nature of your postings. You are always “opinionated” but never provide substance or resources–only angry opinion. I imagine that you are “angry” at your relative because she/he judges you, and you are unable to articulate a satisfactory response. You do not have enough knowledge to make any argument, for or against this topic, and you resort to inflammatory statements to divert our attention away from your lack of substantive discussion.

It would behoove you to educate yourself on the topic of animal rights and/or animal welfare, if this is a topic that you would like to discuss intellegently. Using buzz words and making inflammatory remarks does not gain you respect, nor advance your argument, but actually highlights your inability to engage in a discussion.

Explore Catholic Concern for Animals. Here is the link to the web site: tiny.cc/F3AGP

A good Catholic book on animal rights is ***Dominion *** tiny.cc/8o2Oo by Matthew Scully:

We are Catholics, not Hindus. If I wish to wear fur and eat meat, I can do so. Trying to make a Catholic feel guilty for using what God gave us to use will not work.

Obviously, it is more important for you to wear fur and eat meat, than it is to consider how these choices affect those less fortunate than you. Some people don’t EVEN HAVE ENOUGH to eat, but bless you for making your priorities clear.

BTW: Catholics have an obligation to consider the poor, to consider how all of their choices affect others.

 

[Marfran]

Do you think that Sailor and others just prefer arguing for issues that do not require that they make any changes in their life?

How do you suppose one changes their life by being adamantly pro life? We can financially support causes, spend time at protests, vote our conscious, support places like St. Anne’s Home, ---- but all these actions really do not require any personal changes… just wondering

I think that Sailor enjoys throwing lighted matches into discussions with the hopes of getting a good fire going. This is a good place for you, Sailor–to learn the art of debate. Do they have a forensics team at your school? It can be rough, and even more challenging than physical sports!!! To be able to articulate a position and convey it well, my best advice to you is to read–everything and anything that you can get your hands on, to learn about your topic of discussion. Knowledge is key!!! Opinion can pierced, deflated, and dissected with knowledge. Opinion can also be supported and re-inforced with accurate knowledge, science, etc. How do the public service announcements go…the more you know…

 

[Marfran]

Hi SK. Always good to see you on the threads.

Do you think maybe you’re projecting some of that frustration with your relatives onto the folks on this thread, who don’t share at all in those extremist views?

What was the precise context of the situation at GE? And from that context, what was the exact quote? Not that I encourage a departure too far from the OP, but it seems heavy on your heart, and related to your frustration of extremist views. Anyways, I don’t think anyone on here can answer your question without context and precision about this issue.

I sense you are a faithful Catholic. Still, could you elaborate on how you reconcile your wishes with your understanding of God’s wishes when it comes to the human dominion and utilization of animals? Not that I suggest you are disregarding the will of the Father, but I’m curious of your notion of what that will of the Father is in this matter. Does the Church have guidance for us on this particular issue?

Peace be with you.

**Good post!!! **I should have read it before I responded to SK myself. He does frustrate me, is not on topic, is inflammatory, etc.

I think there is much room for discussion on the topic of dominion, and it seems to be interpreted within the Church from two different vantage points. St. Thomas Aquinas has a lot of influence on Catholic thought–and he was not very animal friendly. (Aquinas thought also has Aristotelian influence.) Then you have St. Francis, St. Clare, and others who regarded God’s animals and other creation with love, respect, and mercy.

 

[SteveGC]

I think there is much room for discussion on the topic of dominion, and it seems to be interpreted within the Church from two different vantage points. St. Thomas Aquinas has a lot of influence on Catholic thought–and he was not very animal friendly. (Aquinas thought also has Aristotelian influence.) Then you have St. Francis, St. Clare, and others who regarded God’s animals and other creation with love, respect, and mercy.

Thought I’d cut and paste some catechetical data on the subject (I underlined some portions which stand out to me):

**Respect for the integrity of creation **

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

2457 Animals are entrusted to man’s stewardship; he must show them kindness. They may be used to serve the*** just ***satisfaction of man’s needs.

I think this strikes a nice balance. Noteworthy is the allowable usage of animals…for “JUST” needs. I must admit I am a lover of many types of meat. I’m not sure that I could argue that my need to eat it is always, or even partially, justified. Hard to draw the line here perhaps, but we all could stand to examine our motivations regarding the things we consume and use in our daily lives that come from animals and whether it is really necessary in our lives. Also noteworthy is the recognition that affection due to persons is superior to the affection due animals. I know plenty of people who get this quite reversed. Anyway, “food” for thought

 

[Marfran]

Thought I’d cut and paste some catechetical data on the subject (I underlined some portions which stand out to me):

**Respect for the integrity of creation **

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

2457 Animals are entrusted to man’s stewardship; he must show them kindness. They may be used to serve the*** just ***satisfaction of man’s needs.

I think this strikes a nice balance. Noteworthy is the allowable usage of animals…for “JUST” needs. I must admit I am a lover of many types of meat. I’m not sure that I could argue that my need to eat it is always, or even partially, justified. Hard to draw the line here perhaps, but we all could stand to examine our motivations regarding the things we consume and use in our daily lives that come from animals and whether it is really necessary in our lives. Also noteworthy is the recognition that affection due to persons is superior to the affection due animals. I know plenty of people who get this quite reversed. Anyway, “food” for thought

Another very good post!!! As our times change–as our civilization advances, progresses, etc., we must constantly re-evaluate how we are taking care of the Earth, the animals. etc.

I know that people don’t like to hear this but the “meat” of today is NOT the “meat” of yesterday. The vast majority of meat today is produced by factory farming methods in intense animal confinement facilities (CAFO’s). It is not produced in accordance with CCC: 2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.

I could address a few more things in the CCC here, but it is probably off topic. Like there really isn’t a lot of animal experimentation that is neccessary, and many animals die needlessly. LD-50 tests–otherwise known as Lethal Dose/50% Fatality tests are where animals are forcefed oven cleaner, laundry detergent, etc. until 50% of the test animals die. Talk about animals needlessly dying… I purchase ***Seventh Generation products because they ARE NOT tested on animals, they are mild, safe, and do not degrade the environment. I also do not buy make-up tested on animals. ZuZu ***is a good product line that does not test on animals. And this is getting off topic–so I should refrain–but pharmaceutical drug testing isn’t as beneficial as people are lead to believe–when a patent is up, the medication can be replicated by other manufacturers, and even if they just change the color of the pill–do not alter the chemical composition–the new maker must test (the previously tested drug) in a duplicate trial that kills more animals (needlessly).

And 2418: One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. Seriously now–who does that??? Who trades their husband or wife in for a dog or a goat, or exchanges their child for a puppy???

The interesting thing, Steve, that you have noticed here, that which you call “balance”–I also notice–but to me I see the balancing act, and the struggle of Aquinian and Franciscan influences. And these two influences are very dissimilar.

 

[severus68]

What is your opinion of GE declaring that the life of a lab rat is worth more than a human baby’s?

Animal ‘rights’ activists come dangerously close to worshipping the creation and not the Creator. Oddly enough I just got off the phone with a relative who is one of those animal ‘rights’ activists. She said she doesn’t believe God wrote the Bible because there was animal sacrifice in the Bible and God would never do that.

We are Catholics, not Hindus. If I wish to wear fur and eat meat, I can do so. Trying to make a Catholic feel guilty for using what God gave us to use will not work.

I have requested that you explain about your statement on this GE issue. You do not explain, you just rant.

The Bible was inspired by God, it was not written by God. The Muslims believe that the Quran was dictated to Mohamed by God. That is the difference. It is not a matter of worship but of respect, kindness and charity. Human beings are part of God’s creation too and don’t you as one expect the same?

It is not a question of “because I can”. In this case you can’t . Abuse of animals is abuse of God’s law. Why do you need to wear fur? Very few can afford mink and chinchilla. If you could afford it, perhaps your money could be better spent on feeding the poor and supporting anti abortion activities. Most people would only be able to afford rodent fur.

 

[Newbie2]

And 2418: One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. Seriously now–who does that??? Who trades their husband or wife in for a dog or a goat, or exchanges their child for a puppy???

I’ve seen a few cases where the husband or wife dotes on the dog more than their spouse. It happens.

Most people would only be able to afford rodent fur.

Then it becomes a matter or what one can afford, not whether or not it’s humane to make clothing out of animal fur.

One thing that has not been brought up is the potential damage to the environment in making synthetic clothing. I’m not making the argument, but animal fur is biodegradable while synthetic clothing, I would think, takes far longer to degrade in landfills. As well, the by-products of manufacturing could be potentially harmful to the environment, no? I don’t know how significant this affects the planet, but could it be a factor, even a small one? I’ve never seen any discussion on this.

 

[Marfran]

I’ve seen a few cases where the husband or wife dotes on the dog more than their spouse. It happens.

I don’t think that “doting” is what CCC 2418 is referring to. I know couples where both spouses “dote” on the dog and it is enriching to their relationship, and adds joy to it. I probably “dote” on my animals more than I do my husband, but he’s capable of taking care of himself and putting his own food in the bowl…

Then it becomes a matter or what one can afford, not whether or not it’s humane to make clothing out of animal fur.

One thing that has not been brought up is the potential damage to the environment in making synthetic clothing. I’m not making the argument, but animal fur is biodegradable while synthetic clothing, I would think, takes far longer to degrade in landfills. As well, the by-products of manufacturing could be potentially harmful to the environment, no? I don’t know how significant this affects the planet, but could it be a factor, even a small one? I’ve never seen any discussion on this.

Are you like seriously advocating we raise animals for their fur??? And kill them for their fur??? You, a veterinarian??? Would you wear a fur coat to the office??? (Some of the *cheap fur *sold in the US is imported, purposely obscurely labeled, and a lot of that fur comes from dogs, cats, and rats from Asian countries.) I do not have the facts at my fingertips but a number of European countries have banned fur farming completely–because it is inhumane.

*You are not making the argument but * “animal fur is biodegradable while synthetic clothing, I would think, takes far longer to degrade in landfills.” So you are throwing that out there because you want to play devil’s advocate, or it is something that you would like to learn more about??? As good stewards of the Earth, yes, we must examine all of our choices, and as technology advances we should examine the totality of impact as it affects the animals that we oversee, the impact to the Earth, and the impact to humans and to future generations. Cotton is biodegradable, as is hemp, as are quite a number of fibers. I do agree that we must assess the impact to the Earth in ALL of our manufacture, of ALL products.

I haven’t figured you out yet, Newbie2. A Dr. Jeckle & Mr. Hide??? A deep, probing thinker??? A member of the NRA??? A Safari Club member???

Should we start a thread on fur and the fur industry? Any other topic that you’d like to see as an off-shoot of this thread??? I’m game!

 

[Marfran]

I have requested that you explain about your statement on this GE issue. You do not explain, you just rant.

The Bible was inspired by God, it was not written by God. The Muslims believe that the Quran was dictated to Mohamed by God. That is the difference. It is not a matter of worship but of respect, kindness and charity. Human beings are part of God’s creation too and don’t you as one expect the same?

It is not a question of “because I can”. In this case you can’t . Abuse of animals is abuse of God’s law. Why do you need to wear fur? Very few can afford mink and chinchilla. If you could afford it, perhaps your money could be better spent on feeding the poor and supporting anti abortion activities. Most people would only be able to afford rodent fur.

Right on!!!

 

[Marfran]

I am currently reading ***Animal Theology ***by Rev. Andrew Linzey. I have previously read ***Animal Gospel *** tiny.cc/WugTh by Rev. Linzey. Matthew Scully, the Catholic author of Dominion quotes Rev. Linzey in his book, and was inspired by him.

Please check out this short video on Rev. Linzey. It fits well in our discussion here. It also connects ***children and animals ***appropriately with our discussion.
tiny.cc/Bh7JC

 

[JaneGrey]

I don’t think that “doting” is what CCC 2418 is referring to. I know couples where both spouses “dote” on the dog and it is enriching to their relationship, and adds joy to it. I probably “dote” on my animals more than I do my husband, but he’s capable of taking care of himself and putting his own food in the bowl…

Are you like seriously advocating we raise animals for their fur??? And kill them for their fur??? You, a veterinarian??? Would you wear a fur coat to the office??? (Some of the *cheap fur *sold in the US is imported, purposely obscurely labeled, and a lot of that fur comes from dogs, cats, and rats from Asian countries.) I do not have the facts at my fingertips but a number of European countries have banned fur farming completely–because it is inhumane.

*You are not making the argument but * “animal fur is biodegradable while synthetic clothing, I would think, takes far longer to degrade in landfills.” So you are throwing that out there because you want to play devil’s advocate, or it is something that you would like to learn more about??? As good stewards of the Earth, yes, we must examine all of our choices, and as technology advances we should examine the totality of impact as it affects the animals that we oversee, the impact to the Earth, and the impact to humans and to future generations. Cotton is biodegradable, as is hemp, as are quite a number of fibers. I do agree that we must assess the impact to the Earth in ALL of our manufacture, of ALL products.

I haven’t figured you out yet, Newbie2. A Dr. Jeckle & Mr. Hide??? A deep, probing thinker??? A member of the NRA??? A Safari Club member???

Should we start a thread on fur and the fur industry? Any other topic that you’d like to see as an off-shoot of this thread??? I’m game!

:clapping:

 

[JaneGrey]

I’ve seen a few cases where the husband or wife dotes on the dog more than their spouse. It happens.

Then it becomes a matter or what one can afford, not whether or not it’s humane to make clothing out of animal fur.

One thing that has not been brought up is the potential damage to the environment in making synthetic clothing. I’m not making the argument, but animal fur is biodegradable while synthetic clothing, I would think, takes far longer to degrade in landfills. As well, the by-products of manufacturing could be potentially harmful to the environment, no? I don’t know how significant this affects the planet, but could it be a factor, even a small one? I’ve never seen any discussion on this.

I think the point severus was making about the cost of rodent fur was that since fur in general is expensive, those who declare it is their right to use it are likely to have more than enough money to doante and put towards pro-life causes-you know, instead of sitting in run front of the computer whining because they are jealous of animals.

You said in an earlier post about people refusing to euthanize their pets when their children have been bitten or spouses doting more on their pets-i think the first one is too uncommon to be a problem and euthanization should only be the last resort-actually, it shouldnt even be considered if a pet is healthy. Spouses need interests outside of their relationship.