Babies vs. Animal Rights

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Sailor Kenshin;5653636:

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.

‘Animal welfare’ is a much better term. I do not advocate deliberate animal cruelty, yet there are always those who will run with any term, no matter what it is, to drag humans down below the level of the animals.

Someone still needs to 'splain to me why it is not all right to step on the eggs of sea turtles, yet it is fine to rip apart a human baby as he’s being born.

 

[spn82756]

severus68;5652766:

Animals have no rights.

None.

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

Sounds as though God through the Church is giving animals the right to kindness specifically from humans.

 

[severus68]

Newbie2;5653671:

‘Animal welfare’ is a much better term. I do not advocate deliberate animal cruelty, yet there are always those who will run with any term, no matter what it is, to drag humans down below the level of the animals.

Someone still needs to 'splain to me why it is not all right to step on the eggs of sea turtles, yet it is fine to rip apart a human baby as he’s being born.

Why is it a better term? What do terms matter for this issue? How do terms drag anyone anywhere? Humans can only drag themselves down by their own actions. Humans have free will, humans start wars, do wrong delibrately. Animals cannot sin as they do not have free will. So what is this about dragging humans below the level of animals.

Both are wrong. Please be very clear that being animal rights/welfare supporters does not mean we are supporters of abortion.

 

[Marfran]

Someone still needs to 'splain to me why it is not all right to step on the eggs of sea turtles, yet it is fine to rip apart a human baby as he’s being born.

Both are wrong.

 

[Marfran]

Why is it a better term? What do terms matter for this issue? How do terms drag anyone anywhere? Humans can only drag themselves down by their own actions. Humans have free will, humans start wars, do wrong delibrately. Animals cannot sin as they do not have free will. So what is this about dragging humans below the level of animals.

Both are wrong. Please be very clear that being animal rights/welfare supporters does not mean we are supporters of abortion.

Actually, severus68, there is a significance in what term you use. Animal wefarists generally look to reduce animal suffering, but allow for their use as food, clothing, entertainment, etc., as long as they are treated well before they are slammed in the head or their throats cut, whatever… Animal rights goes farther and does not view an animal as a commodity, the general sentiment being that they are not ours to use, and they should be allowed to live their lives naturally–in the manner, and in the environment that each species is designed for, i.e., an animal rights advocate will enjoy watching wild ducks swimming on the pond and will not interfere in their lives. The animal welfarist may choose to raise ducks domestically, but will attempt to treat them well and will avoid employing “factory farm” techniques or other abuses. The animal welfarist will not allow his ducks to be force fed to produce foie gras. The animal rights advocate will not raise any animals to be used for luxury food or other purposes.

 

[Marfran]

Someone still needs to 'splain to me why…it is fine to rip apart a human baby as he’s being born.

I think that you need to ask that question of someone who actually feels that way. Since this is a Catholic forum, and most of us are Catholics here, I don’t think any of us can answer that.

 

[severus68]

Actually, severus68, there is a significance in what term you use. Animal wefarists generally look to reduce animal suffering, but allow for their use as food, clothing, entertainment, etc., as long as they are treated well before they are slammed in the head or their throats cut, whatever… Animal rights goes farther and does not view an animal as a commodity, the general sentiment being that they are not ours to use, and they should be allowed to live their lives naturally–in the manner, and in the environment that each species is designed for, i.e., an animal rights advocate will enjoy watching wild ducks swimming on the pond and will not interfere in their lives. The animal welfarist may choose to raise ducks domestically, but will attempt to treat them well and will avoid employing “factory farm” techniques or other abuses. The animal welfarist will not allow his ducks to be force fed to produce foie gras. The animal rights advocate will not raise any animals to be used for luxury food or other purposes.

Oh, ok, thanks. I take it to be we have to see to their welfare partly because they have rights, partly because they are part of God’s creation and in part because we, the "superior "beings with superior intellect should be kind to and treat with compassion these “lesser” beings. I am iam an animal rights supporter and activist!

 

[Gerard_Nadal]

**Bernadette,

I can’t make others be nice to their pets. I can support my local animal shelter with a few dollars. Our moral imperative really centers on the members of our own species.

Beware the artificial dichotomy, the either/or approach to animals and people. We can concern ourselves with both. I find my own species to be the one suffering the most from neglect and abuse. So human animals get all of my attention.

God Bless **

 

[Newbie2]

Sailor Kenshin;5661186:

Why is it a better term? What do terms matter for this issue? How do terms drag anyone anywhere?
Please be very clear that being animal rights/welfare supporters does not mean we are supporters of abortion.

Defining terms ***are ***important. When someone says they’re an “animal lover”, that could mean two entirely different things. And yes, I know someone who, in veterinary school, was caught “loving” an animal.

Actually, severus68, there is

a significance in what term you use. Animal wefarists generally look to reduce animal suffering, but allow for their use as food, clothing, entertainment, etc., as long as they are treated well before they are slammed in the head or their throats cut, whatever… Animal rights goes farther and does not view an animal as a commodity, the general sentiment being that they are not ours to use, and they should be allowed to live their lives naturally–in the manner, and in the environment that each species is designed for, i.e., an animal rights advocate will enjoy watching wild ducks swimming on the pond and will not interfere in their lives. The animal welfarist may choose to raise ducks domestically, but will attempt to treat them well and will avoid employing “factory farm” techniques or other abuses. The animal welfarist will not allow his ducks to be force fed to produce foie gras. The animal rights advocate will not raise any animals to be used for luxury food or other purposes.

I would modify that just a wee bit:

Animal welfarists advocate adequate housing, feeding, companionship, exercise, medical are etc. for pet animals. They advocate humane raising and slaughter methods for food animals, and responsible hunting for wild game. They are also for responsible management of animal habitats.

Animal rightists in the extreme are against keeping animals as pets as it impinges on their “right” to freedom, and totally against declawing and spaying/neutering of pets, as it is something that “they would not choose”. They are against raising animals for food and fiber, as this impinges on their “right” to not be killed, and of course are against all hunting. They are against all development, as it impinges on animal’s “right” to live on open fields, wetlands, forests, etc.

Of course, there are degrees of either one, but when one starts to give animals “rights”, it’s difficult to say that they have the “right” to this and that, but not a “right” to some other thing. For example, someone may claim a right of an animal to live a “free life”. Well, that pretty much means hands off as far as humans are concerned.

I’ve represented the extreme view on “animal rights”. Not everyone who claims the title “animal rights activist” believes in these things to the exreme.

 

[Marfran]

Defining terms ***are ***important. When someone says they’re an “animal lover”, that could mean two entirely different things. And yes, I know someone who, in veterinary school, was caught “loving” an animal.

Say what, Brother??? You gotta be kidding. I hope he was ex-communicated from the profession… (Thank God he was caught.)

I would modify that just a wee bit:

Animal welfarists advocate adequate housing, feeding, companionship, exercise, medical are etc. for pet animals. They advocate humane raising and slaughter methods for food animals, and responsible hunting for wild game. They are also for responsible management of animal habitats.

Yes.

Animal rightists in the extreme are against **keeping animals as pets **as it impinges on their “right” to freedom, and totally against declawing and spaying/neutering of pets, as it is something that “they would not choose”.

Keeping animals as pets ***should be ***re-evaluated. Pet animals are not wild animals and are purposefully breed to live as domesticated, tamed animals. Obviously, we as a society, have screwed up on this one. We have so many “pet animals” that we have to destroy a lot of them because there are not enough homes for them. If we are to have “pet animals” they do need to be neutered or spayed. I am against declawing. If your furniture is more important then you should not have a cat.

They are against raising animals for food and fiber, as this impinges on their “right” to not be killed, and of course are against all hunting. They are against all development, as it impinges on animal’s “right” to live on open fields, wetlands, forests, etc.

Our civilization has progressed so much in the last few years. We now have superior alternatives to animal products, and we now understand how animal products negatively affect our health and contribute to disease. Raising animals for food also negatively impacts the environment, misappropriates resources–food feed to animals could go directly to feed people instead… So yes, I agree we do not need to raise animals for food or fiber. And Hemmingway once said that he hunted because it was better to take his aggressions out on animals instead of people. People who hunt do so for a lot of shadowy psychological reasons, and pass off their hunting as ecology management, desire to have “wild meat,” etc., but it’s a lot of BULL.

We can develop land to be used for our species but we must also consider how our development affects wild populations. This is where our responsibility as stewards of the Earth comes in. We may “gently” use but we must do so with care and consideration to the other species here, to the health of the planet, and with an eye to how our actions will affect future generations.

Of course, there are degrees of either one, but when one starts to give animals “rights”, it’s difficult to say that they have the “right” to this and that, but not a “right” to some other thing. For example, someone may claim a right of an animal to live a “free life”. Well, that pretty much means hands off as far as humans are concerned.

I’ve represented the extreme view on “animal rights”. Not everyone who claims the title “animal rights activist” believes in these things to the exreme.

Have you read any of the Catholic and Christian books on animal rights?? Such as ***Dominion ***by Matthew Scully? tiny.cc/8o2Oo Are you familiar with the organization Catholic Concern for Animals? tiny.cc/F3AGP

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

 

[Marfran]

From the thread: Does God grieve over an extinct species?

Let the heavens be glad and the earth rejoice;
let the sea and what fills it resound;
let the plains be joyful and all that is in them.
Then let all the trees of the forest rejoice
before the Lord who comes,
who comes to govern the earth,
To govern the world with justice
and the peoples with faithfulness.
[Psalm 96:11-13]

Somehow, I imagine that God allows humanity to be curators of a museum guarding all his creations. Great masterpieces!
And, that humans have defaced and defiled almost every single one, to the point of destroying some.
And, to add insult to injury, when He comes back to check on his creation, some of us plan to tell Him:
‘well…you said WE were in charge here!’ as if that explained it all…

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

Fabulous post!!!

 

[Marfran]

Originally Posted by Marfran

Forgive me for saying this, but I get tired of hearing this. **No one thinks that animals are equal to humans or should be equal to humans. **

Sorry, Marfran, but you’re simple wrong here. I’ve met such people. They exist. And they’re misguided.

Generally, the term ***equality ***when used in conjunction with “animal rights” means equality of consideration. That is, if a person is in pain we will try to alleviate that pain and care for the suffering human. As animals also feel pain–***equal consideration ***means that we would also try to alleviate the hurting animal’s pain. Animals are sentient beings–they are conscious and capable of feeling pain and distress. A rock is not sentient–it is neither conscious nor is it capable of pain. We therefore do not need to extend ***equal consideration ***to the rock.

People who are not familiar with the concepts of "animal rights or “animal welfare,” or feel threatened by the growing social concern for animals (often because they work in an industry that abuses animals), often twist that word equality and/or equal rights to mean something it does not, and to cast a negative light on the intentions of the “animal rights movement.”

I am for “animal rights” and I am proud of it.

 

[4elise]

How many people are now pro-“animal rights” and “pro-choice” at the same time?

There are 110 of us so far here at CAF in the group Catholic Vegetarians and Vegans - and there is also a blog site that one of our members has: thecontinualramblingofaprolifevegan.blogspot.com/

It is hypocritical and unreasonable to be both against hurting animals and in favor of allowing people to kill innocent HUMAN children.

I agree.

How can you…

Who is the ‘you’ here?

… fight to save animals and disregard human life? It reminds me of how movie audiences always gasp when a horse or dog dies in a film, but they calmly sit through hundreds of human murders without flinching. It is a dangerous lie to believe that animals are equal to human beings. It reduces human beings to merely material things that do not have intrinsic dignity and worth as being made in the image of God. Animals are not made in the image and likeness of God as humans are. Jesus tells us that we are worth more than birds (Luke 12:24) figuratively reinforcing my above points.

I for one avoid violent movies and tv because as you say - it makes us numb to suffering.

Let’s care for human beings first, work with our resources to save innocent human lives, and along the way respect animals as precious gifts from God here for our use and the common good.

I think we can do both - they are not mutually exclusive so we can work to care for innocent human lives AND protect all of God’s precious gifts

 

[4elise]

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

Why is it that you have this strong feeling?
I’ve seen lots of TV commercials by groups like save the children and world vision who are raising money for children in slums in Africa or Latin America.
I have seen a few commercials that I think were run by the Knights of Columbus in support of a St. Anne’s home - but none recently - I think that would be great - more commercials on pro life options - suggestions to women who find themselves pregnant who can’t afford to have their child - as a way to encourage adoption.

 

[4elise]

We have to also consider and understand that these ads and commercials are specifically designed to make you feel guilty and throw you emotionally off balance. If you feel sad and even angry, they’ve achieved the point they’ve tried to make, and if they can manipulate a person to feel that way just with showing a dog or cat with a voice over to make it sound like it’s talking to you, and the violins are playing in the background, then surely they can do it for an unborn child and imagine what that could do to a person. They don’t because to do so would make more people feel guilty about abortion right in their own living room (extremely uncomfortable), and it would show them the grim reality of it, and it would also be a victory for the pro-life movement as something like that, once imprinted in your mind, is hard to get rid of- exactly what the servants of the power behind abortion don’t want, so they don’t let it go through onto t.v. They want to throw at you so many things to think about and consider that you become distracted, divided and confused, to the point you pick and choose your battles. The enemy is clever. He confronts us with so many problems to solve that we end up choosing something else, ie- easier to save a dog or cat than to convince a human that killing an unborn child is wrong. So he tells us ‘just go for the dog, it’s the right thing to do, don’t worry about it, you can’t stop abortion, focus on this instead, it’ll make you feel better’. The lie is then turned inward and made to make you feel selfrighteous and contented that you’ve achieved a good and that it’s good enough for you, you needn’t face the most vital issues of our time, so long as you do something else.

Animals are God’s creatures as well, and they deserve to be treated with compassion also, but ads like this, while well-meaning and good are also used as a diversionary tactic. They want your time and energy on something else worthwhile so that priority #1 (in this case human life) seems like just another option from a myriad of options. They want you over-extended and morally exhausted so that you give in a little. The problem is, too many people have given in completely already. A good pro-life, anti-abortion commercial like how they do for the animal rights deal is just what we need to convert some of these people back, and to wake up many more!

ASPCA is just a non profit organization that is pretty successful in raising money to take care of abused animals - sounds like a good cause to me, and I think is consistent with caring for God’s creation.

A Pro-life organization could do well to use commercials to raise funds to - provide education to advance waiting as the best choice for our young men and young women - and to support women - and encouraging adoption like local St. Anne’s do -

 

[4elise]

Both animal life and human life must be protected. However, human life is paramount in it’s need to be protected. The reason? We have immortal souls, animals do not. This does not, however, mean that we should not also work towards protecting neglected animals. However, if it comes down to choosing where your money should go first, I would definitely give to pro-life organizations first.

Do you know what group puts that billboard up?

 

[4elise]

I came across a flyer this morning which contained the following old man’s testimony. It speaks to us all, and in a particular way to those who may be discouraged into feeling helpless, divided, confused, or ineffective in regard to abortion.

“I lived in Germany during the Nazi holocaust. I considered myself a Christian. I attended church since I was a boy. We had heard the stories of what was happening to the Jews, but like most people today in this country, we tried to distance ourselves from it. After all, what could we do to stop it? A railroad track ran behind our small church. Each Sunday morning we would hear the whistle from a distance and then the clacking of the wheels moving over the track. We became disturbed when one Sunday we noticed cries coming from the train as it passed by. We grimly realized that the train was carrying Jews. They were like cattle in those cars! Week after week that train whistle blew. We would dread to hear the sound of those old wheels because we knew that the Jews would begin to cry out to us as they passed our church. It was so terribly disturbing! We could do nothing to help these poor miserable people, yet their screams tormented us. We knew exactly what time that whistle would blow, and we decided that to keep from being so disturbed by the cries we would start singing our hymns. By the time the train came rumbling past our church, we were singing at the top of our voices. If some of the screams reached our ears, we would just sing a little louder until we couldn’t hear them. Years have passed and no one talks about it much anymore, but I still hear that train whistle in my sleep. I can still hear them crying out for help. God forgive all of us who called ourselves Christians, yet did nothing. Now so many years later, I see it happening all over again in America. God forgive you as Americans for blocking out the screams of millions of your own children. The holocaust is here. The response is the same as it was in my country–Silence!”

The flyer then went on to remind us that everyone can do at least something:

"If the Christians in the old man’s church had done something, they probably would have been killed. That is not the case with us today. We don’t even have that excuse for our silence.

What can I do?

1. Pray for an end to abortion.
2. Wear the “Precious Feet” pin. It is the exact size and shape of an unborn baby’s feet at 10 weeks.
3. Volunteer your time with Pro-Life groups or Pregnancy Care Centers and support them financially.
4. Start a Pro-Life group at your church.
5. Share your convictions with your children and grandchildren.
6. Donate Pro-Life books, videos or fetal models to local libraries and schools.
7. Participate in Pro-Life events being held in your community."

Whatever we do, let’s not just “sing a little louder” and excuse ourselves from meaningful action. Even if all we can do is pray, prayer alone is meaningful action.

A powerful post and a good call to action… thanks!

 

[ccwebapps]

I am against abortion. I am against animal cruelty. I give time to each cause. I donate to each cause. It is not one against the other. Both are about life, how it should be nurtured in every case and in every case never neglected or deliberately harmed. We will probably never get pictures of abortions in our ads against abortion, but I have the hope that ads which arouse sympathy for tortured animals may make someone who has never thought about it before start thinking about what this culture does to babies. It can’t hurt our cause, anything that elicits compassion and tenderness for any life at all can only help.

 

[4elise]

I am against abortion. I am against animal cruelty. I give time to each cause. I donate to each cause. **It is not one against the other. ** Both are about life, how it should be nurtured in every case and in every case never neglected or deliberately harmed. We will probably never get pictures of abortions in our ads against abortion, but I have the hope that ads which arouse sympathy for tortured animals may make someone who has never thought about it before start thinking about what this culture does to babies. It can’t hurt our cause, anything that elicits compassion and tenderness for any life at all can only help.

well said -

 

[4elise]

I just ran acrss a really good blog that I wanted to share:

conversiondiary.com/2008/01/how-i-became-pro-life.html