Babies vs. Animal Rights

  • Thread starter Thread starter BernadetteM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For a long time I have been greatly bothered by some advertisements of TV. They have these heart breaking ads on poor neglected animals. The background music is very touching. I have never seen an ad about aborted babies or babies who have been neglected by their parents.

I have a strong feeling that these same people asking for our help to save these animals also think that killing our little human beings is fine and a worthwhile help to save the world of over population.

I just can’t understand how anyone would place the value of an animal over the life of a human being. Of course we should take care of animals and not allow them to be harmed or neglected, but it seems to me that our nation has their priorities very confused.

This has been on my mind for a long time and wondered how others feel about this issue.
I share your angst for the unborn, however, attacking other just causes is a misdirection of your feelings of frustration. You should find a positive way or a more effectual way to participate in the fight for the unborn.

Your statement:*** “I have a strong feeling that these same people asking for our help to save these animals also think that killing our little human beings is fine and a worthwhile help to save the world of over population.”*** is an unjust characterization. I work with animals, am Catholic, am pro-life, and take offense to your OP.

And regarding your statement: "I have never seen an ad about aborted babies…": Where do you live? I live in the USA and these ads are on TV and in a big way. I think that they are effective too. I think that most young women have seen these ads (if they watch TV), and that when they find themselves in the situation of considering abortion, these ads often ***do ***play a part in their decision.

Maybe you could look into the situation in your country and see what you can do to help raise consciousness about abortion. In the US the ads are quite graphic. I have seen so many of them over the years, they are really quite well done. They certainly stick out in my mind–and I would hope that because they are so frequent on American TV, that they ***do ***have a positive impact. Though, I am sure it is hard to measure that impact. And though, we still have a long way to go on the fight…
 
I must agree with Marfran, a great post. By the way have you read C.S Lewis’ essay on vivisection?
No, I haven’t seen it at all! Do you know the title or if it’s in a particular collection? C.S. Lewis is probably my favorite Christian author - favorite author overall really.
 
I have done some research and the legs are too thin for some tracks. It is also the age of course. I have also witnessed first hand the ill treatment of former race horses. There is still quite a lot of horse racing I have to say.
You have done what sort of “research”? Are you a veterinarian? Have you worked on the race track?
Sorry? That term was not used purposefully with any agenda. I have always used it
:confused:
As others have said, us human beings are a type of animal as well. Sorry you have trouble accepting the science.
 
You have done what sort of “research”? Are you a veterinarian? Have you worked on the race track?

:confused:
JaneGrey;5651776:
No need to be smarmy. 😛

My point is that the term “non-human animals” is redundant, and quite often carries an agenda with it; i.e. that some “animal rights” folks will lower humans to the status of just another animal. We Catholics, of course, make a distinction between humans and animals, so the term “non human animal” is redundant.

Of course humans are not mineral or vegetable, scientifically we are classified as animals. Go ahead and use the term, I don’t particularly care either way. 🤷 In my mind it’s a waste of electrons. 😃
You are rude.

I have been on race tracks have ridden horses, have seen what happens to unwanted racehorses. Go and do your own research but I am rather sure you are really not interested.

Why call JaneGrey smarmy?

You are contradicting yourself. I am Catholic and do not find the use of that term redundant or wrong. I am allso one of those animal rights folks.

If you do not care either way why make a point about it in the first place.
 
I share your angst for the unborn, however, attacking other just causes is a misdirection of your feelings of frustration. You should find a positive way or a more effectual way to participate in the fight for the unborn.

Your statement:*** “I have a strong feeling that these same people asking for our help to save these animals also think that killing our little human beings is fine and a worthwhile help to save the world of over population.”*** is an unjust characterization. I work with animals, am Catholic, am pro-life, and take offense to your OP.

And regarding your statement: "I have never seen an ad about aborted babies…": Where do you live? I live in the USA and these ads are on TV and in a big way. I think that they are effective too. I think that most young women have seen these ads (if they watch TV), and that when they find themselves in the situation of considering abortion, these ads often ***do ***play a part in their decision.

Maybe you could look into the situation in your country and see what you can do to help raise consciousness about abortion. In the US the ads are quite graphic. I have seen so many of them over the years, they are really quite well done. They certainly stick out in my mind–and I would hope that because they are so frequent on American TV, that they ***do ***have a positive impact. Though, I am sure it is hard to measure that impact. And though, we still have a long way to go on the fight…
I do live in the US and have not seen pro life ads on TV. Sorry if my post implied that all persons involved in these ads were not for human life, but I know many people who seem to love their animals more than children. In fact one of my friends who has many dogs was asked if one of your dogs was drowning and also a person and you could only save one who would you save and they could not give an answer. Of course many people love both, I am not saying that you should not love animals and care for them, as I said in my post I have not seen any ads of TV, and I do watch it. I live in a liberal state and maybe that is why. My daughters are big animal lovers so please don’t misunderstand what I meant. I probably used the wrong wording to try to get a point across. We have had several animals and felt a great loss when they passed on. I also wasn’t referring to organizations who help animals, just some individuals.

Forgive me if I sounded judgemental.

God Bless

Bernadette
 
No, I haven’t seen it at all! Do you know the title or if it’s in a particular collection? C.S. Lewis is probably my favorite Christian author - favorite author overall really.
Its from “The Grand Miracle and other selected essays on theology and ethics from God in the Dock.” That essay and others are rather interesting. I do like his works too.
 
I do live in the US and have not seen pro life ads on TV. Sorry if my post implied that all persons involved in these ads were not for human life, but I know many people who seem to love their animals more than children. In fact one of my friends who has many dogs was asked if one of your dogs was drowning and also a person and you could only save one who would you save and they could not give an answer. Of course many people love both, I am not saying that you should not love animals and care for them, as I said in my post I have not seen any ads of TV, and I do watch it. I live in a liberal state and maybe that is why. My daughters are big animal lovers so please don’t misunderstand what I meant. I probably used the wrong wording to try to get a point across. We have had several animals and felt a great loss when they passed on. I also wasn’t referring to organizations who help animals, just some individuals.

Forgive me if I sounded judgemental.

God Bless

Bernadette
I work with animals and know a lot of “animal people.” I do not know one person who views animals as equals to human beings, though I know many people who love and delight in animals, and are not comfortable with their abuse. I do not know one person who would exchange their child for a puppy, or trade their spouse in for a dog or a goat-- though many people do develop close relationships with their pet animals, those relationships are quite different than human-to-human relationships.

Your friend who had trouble answering your question, was perhaps taken aback by you asking it. It’s kind of an odd thing to ask because the mythical scenario will hardly ever happen. Maybe her hesitation was due to the fact that she didn’t want to get “the Answer” wrong. If she cares for dogs more than people, then why does she have ***you ***as a human friend? And if ***she doesn’t value you ***or your life, why do you have ***her ***as a friend?

The correct answer to your question is (if the person doing the rescuing can swim): after calling 911, jump in the water and go to the drowning person, while hollering for others on the shore to help you, or for someone else to help with the dog. And if no one else is around, after you pull the human from the drink, you can jump back in and go get the dog… Now myself, I don’t know what I would do because I can not swim. Another form of your drowning scenario question goes like this: ***If your child and the neighbor’s child were drowning, **and you could only save one, **which would you save? *** Your question was an apples and oranges question. My question is an apples and apples question–and an even more troubling conflict, is it not? And how would you answer that question? Are you hesitating? Trying to figure out “the Correct” answer?

Bernadette, if you have an issue with an individual, perhaps you should take it up with that individual. Typecasting everyone is not honest and is malproductive. If your problem is with your friend’s values, then you should address it with your friend. Does she love dogs so intensely because she could never have children of her own and they fill that hole in her heart? Are you jealous of the attention that she bestows on the dogs? Do you feel neglected by that? Does she love dogs beyond all reason because she was hurt in a human relationship and finds the love of dogs to be easier and safer and less complicated? Again, you can’t generalize and typecast everyone.

Being concerned about the welfare and treatment of animals is a just cause, and in no way is related to human abortion and in no way detracts from that just fight… And I don’t know how you missed all the pro-life anti-abortion commercials–they have been around for a long time. I did a quick search on YouTube and found one that goes back to 1986–so they’ve been around that long!

So don’t take it out on the animals. They are not the ones who are aborting human babies or passing legislation on abortion. Direct your attention to the source and the solutions–slinging mud at other causes does not advance the abolishment of abortion or advance the pro-life movement.

I do not doubt that you are a caring and compassionate person, Bernadette, but you are a little misguided on this one. I am totally behind you, and on the same page with you when it comes to abortion. I suggest that you not alienate me, or all the others like me, who have love and compassion in their hearts for all suffering, all injustice, and all causes that afflict our lives, the planet, and the lives of both humans and animals. Injustices do not have to be equal–ALL need to be addressed and abolished. We are called to fight ALL.

There is nothing wrong with loving and enjoying animals–and our love and concern for animals is not connected in any way to human abortion. It is possible to love animals, be concerned for their welfare, love humans, be concerned for their welfare, and to fight to end ALL abuse, misjustice, and wrong in the world.

P.S. I forgive you. Forgive me if I sounded snippy. I long for a peaceful world sans pain, suffering, and injustice for ALL. And I know we can do it!!! I know we are capable of living in Christ’s light and spreading it to everyone!!!
 
For a long time I have been greatly bothered by some advertisements of TV. They have these heart breaking ads on poor neglected animals. The background music is very touching. I have never seen an ad about aborted babies or babies who have been neglected by their parents.

I have a strong feeling that these same people asking for our help to save these animals also think that killing our little human beings is fine and a worthwhile help to save the world of over population.

I just can’t understand how anyone would place the value of an animal over the life of a human being. Of course we should take care of animals and not allow them to be harmed or neglected, but it seems to me that our nation has their priorities very confused.

This has been on my mind for a long time and wondered how others feel about this issue.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette
I am surprised that you are “greatly bothered” by the ads. Maybe you are just “greatly bothered” by the lack of progress on the repeal of abortion laws and are projecting on the perceived assumption that “animal causes” seem to be making more headway.

Actually I think that animal causes still have a long way to go too. I don’t think you should be connecting the two. They are very separate.

Where do you get that these ads place the value of an animal over the life of a human being? And what makes you think that people have their priorities mixed up? I think that a lot of people don’t value unborn human life because it is not real to them, they cant see or feel it, its invisible. The Pro-Life ads here in the United States show what a fetus looks like inutero. We have so many of those ads that they must be having some affect. I dont know what the answer is, but the answer isnt in complaining about the Humane Society or the Aspca.
 
There is nothing wrong with loving and enjoying animals–and our love and concern for animals is not connected in any way to human abortion. It is possible to love animals, be concerned for their welfare, love humans, be concerned for their welfare, and to fight to end ALL abuse, misjustice, and wrong in the world.
I agree.
 
I occasionally feel like I would want to save my dog over my child - the 600th time she asks me if she can watch Barbie Princesses again after I said no, for example.

Then again, she doesn’t bark like a fool every time a cat crosses our lawn, so it might be a bad trade.:rolleyes:
 
I occasionally feel like I would want to save my dog over my child - the 600th time she asks me if she can watch Barbie Princesses again after I said no, for example.

Then again, she doesn’t bark like a fool every time a cat crosses our lawn, so it might be a bad trade.:rolleyes:
🙂
 
You are rude.

I have been on race tracks have ridden horses, have seen what happens to unwanted racehorses. Go and do your own research but I am rather sure you are really not interested.

Why call JaneGrey smarmy?

The assumption that I “have trouble accepting the science”. Perhaps it was not meant to be sarcastic. If that is the case, I humbly apologize.

You are contradicting yourself. I am Catholic and do not find the use of that term redundant or wrong. I am allso one of those animal rights folks.

If you do not care either way why make a point about it in the first place.
Personally, I do not care how people wish to express themselves as long as they’re clear about their biases and intent. In my experience, “animal right” folks can be confused about the difference between “animal rights” and “animal welfare”.

I’m just wondering what constitutes “research”. Internet search? Personal experience? Scientific research? If asking for clarification is considered rude, so be it.

I worked as a veterinarian of 2 separate race tracks early in my veterinary career, both with the jockeys and with the harness horses. The claim that horses are bred with “legs that are too thin” is so ridiculous that I was interested in why someone would make that claim. The problem is that they are being pushed to race too young, which is where severus68 and I agree, rather than “thin legs”.

Can you please explain where I’m contradicting myself?
 
Newbie2;5652429:
You have done what sort of “research”? Are you a veterinarian? Have you worked on the race track?

:confused:

You are rude.

I have been on race tracks have ridden horses, have seen what happens to unwanted racehorses. Go and do your own research but I am rather sure you are really not interested.

Why call JaneGrey smarmy?

You are contradicting yourself. I am Catholic and do not find the use of that term redundant or wrong. I am allso one of those animal rights folks.

If you do not care either way why make a point about it in the first place.
Animals have no rights.

None.

Only human beings have rights, endowed by their Creator.

There is a BIG difference between committing animal cruelty and trying to elevate animals to the status of man.

PETA and many other so-called animal ‘rights’ groups are all about the latter. The ASPCA does the dirty work of actually rescuing abused animals.
 
severus68;5652766:
Animals have no rights.

None.

Only human beings have rights, endowed by their Creator.

There is a BIG difference between committing animal cruelty and trying to elevate animals to the status of man.

PETA and many other so-called animal ‘rights’ groups are all about the latter. The ASPCA does the dirty work of actually rescuing abused animals.
That’s sort of what I’m getting at. We certainly have the responsibility to provide for their welfare, and there’s room for discussion as to what extent and what is the best way for doing that, but one has to be careful to define what one means by “I’m for animal rights”. Some mean the misguided approach that humans and animals are due the same rights, and some really mean “animal welfare” rather than “animal rights”.

One area that we probably all agree, is that animals are due a certain level of our concern and that we should look out for their welfare, even at a minimum level.
 
severus68;5652766:
Animals have no rights.

None.

Only human beings have rights, endowed by their Creator.

There is a BIG difference between committing animal cruelty and trying to elevate animals to the status of man.

PETA and many other so-called animal ‘rights’ groups are all about the latter. The ASPCA does the dirty work of actually rescuing abused animals.
Call it animal welfare, that does not matter. Why would any non human animal want to be “elevated” to the status of man.

I am a member of WSPCA and IFAW. I was thinking of joining PETA and feel like doing it right now. I also support Avaz. I believe in non violence and am pro all life.
 
Sailor Kenshin;5653636:
Call it animal welfare, that does not matter. Why would any non human animal want to be “elevated” to the status of man.
I am a member of WSPCA and IFAW. I was thinking of joining PETA and feel like doing it right now. I also support Avaz. I believe in non violence and am pro all life.

So they don’t get eaten or used for clothing.

Google “PETA members arrested for animal abuse” before you think about joining.

If you’re “pro all life”, what do you eat? 😃
 
Personally, I do not care how people wish to express themselves as long as they’re clear about their biases and intent. In my experience, “animal right” folks can be confused about the difference between “animal rights” and “animal welfare”.

I’m just wondering what constitutes “research”. Internet search? Personal experience? Scientific research? If asking for clarification is considered rude, so be it.

I worked as a veterinarian of 2 separate race tracks early in my veterinary career, both with the jockeys and with the harness horses. The claim that horses are bred with “legs that are too thin” is so ridiculous that I was interested in why someone would make that claim. The problem is that they are being pushed to race too young, which is where severus68 and I agree, rather than “thin legs”.

Can you please explain where I’m contradicting myself?
My apologies if I misread your manner as rudeness.

Of course you can ask for clarification. My comment really refers to the breeding of racehorses for speed at the expense of the animals. The too early racing of horses is also wrong in my opinion. I will give you links on this if you wish.

The contradiction is in you making the use of the term “non human animals” and then saying that you did not care either way.
 
severus68;5653701:
So they don’t get eaten or used for clothing.

Google “PETA members arrested for animal abuse” before you think about joining.

If you’re “pro all life”, what do you eat? 😃
I do know that some of the views of PETA founders and members are rather crazy but I still think they do more good than bad.

I am vegetarian.

There are healthier, better (for animals, humans and the environment ) if we do not eat meat or use animal skins or fur. I only brought this up in response to you.
 
My apologies if I misread your manner as rudeness.

Of course you can ask for clarification. My comment really refers to the breeding of racehorses for speed at the expense of the animals. The too early racing of horses is also wrong in my opinion. I will give you links on this if you wish.

The contradiction is in you making the use of the term “non human animals” and then saying that you did not care either way.
Thank you, but I don’t think I need to visit the internet for information on this particular subject. I worked for years with horses on the track as a veterinarian, and would disagree completely that breeding has been a significant factor in race horse injuries. IMHO, it’s the idiot owners and trainers who look at their horses simple as an investment, and try to push them into races where they’re not ready.

I can see where that might seem like a contradiction. What I meant to say is that in my experience, the use of the term “non-human animals” often carries a hidden meaning, and that I am usually suspicious of the intent in it’s use. I guess I care only in that some people use it in a purposely deceptive manner.
 
:
Thank you, but I don’t think I need to visit the internet for information on this particular subject. I worked for years with horses on the track as a veterinarian, and would disagree completely that breeding has been a significant factor in race horse injuries. IMHO, it’s the idiot owners and trainers who look at their horses simple as an investment, and try to push them into races where they’re not ready.

I can see where that might seem like a contradiction. What I meant to say is that in my experience, the use of the term “non-human animals” often carries a hidden meaning, and that I am usually suspicious of the intent in it’s use. I guess I care only in that some people use it in a purposely deceptive manner.
I am sure you are very knowledgeable being a vet. I depend a great deal on vets for my animals.

When I use that term I have no hidden meaning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top