Babies vs. Animal Rights

[severus68]

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.

Well often the animal requires and earns more doting.

Are you serious? I was just making a point related to why anyone would want to use fur even if they thought they had a right to.

Cotton is grown, biodegradeable and there is even cotton thermal stuff that do a good job of keeping people warm. Have you got actual facts on man made material? What about the damage to the planet, to people and to the rest of God’s creation?

 

[Marfran]

There is a ton of information on **biodegradable fibers **on the internet. Don’t have time to wade through it all, but the good news is that we no longer need to wear mink fur or rat fur!!! woodheadpublishing.com/en/book.aspx?bookID=788

 

[severus68]

There is a ton of information on **biodegradable fibers **on the internet. Don’t have time to wade through it all, but the good news is that we no longer need to wear mink fur or rat fur!!! woodheadpublishing.com/en/book.aspx?bookID=788

Thank goodness, need to get this wriggling rat off my shoulders and switch to nylon.

 

[Newbie2]

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…

Again, I’ve seen cases where it goes way beyond doting; perhaps I should have made that clearer.

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.

What is the difference between raising animals for fur and raising them to eat?

No, I don’t wear fur products myself.

*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’m just throwing it out there. I don’t know the extent that the production of synthetic materials has on the environment; perhaps someone else does. Everything we produce makes some sort of waste. I assume that there may be some potentially harmful byproducts of synthetic fiber manufacturing on the environment, perhaps I’m mistaken.

Duh. Of course cotton and other natural fibers are biodegradable. However, they make lousy insulation.
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???

Never went hunting myself.

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!/QUOTE]

Pun intentional?

 

[Marfran]

There is a ton of information on **biodegradable fibers **on the internet. Don’t have time to wade through it all, but the good news is that we no longer need to wear mink fur or rat fur!!! woodheadpublishing.com/en/book.aspx?bookID=788

Thank goodness, need to get this wriggling rat off my shoulders and switch to nylon.

OK–that is a really good response!!! Blue-ribbon winner!!!

 

[Marfran]

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.

Pun intentional?

Totally.

 

[Jean_1958]

I have never seen an ad about aborted babies or babies who have been neglected by their parents.

I have.

I have seen ads encouraging women to have babies and get hekp if needed. I have seen ads encouraging putting a baby up for adoption if the mother does not want to keep their baby. I have seen ads with kids in third world countries suffering and Christians soliciting for my money.

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.

That is SUCH a far stretch. You may have that feeling, but that does not mean it is true.

II just can’t understand how anyone would place the value of an animal over the life of a human being.

Just because there is an ad on animal abuse and neglect and how we should “save” them from such atrocity does not necessarily mean that person showing that ad is pacing the value of an animal over the life of a human being.

Peace,

Jean

 

[Jean_1958]

You might want to keep a few things in mind. Animal abusers are often child abusers too. And the SPCA and other animal shelters in many places in North America take care of animals that are stray, ill, and abandoned, abused, and has to gather the evidence to prosecute the abusers - both individuals and places like puppy mills, which are big business. And usually they do it with private funds - many cities give very little to help them, but have no other facilities to take care of these things. Think about what would happen if these shelters closed down, the outcry among people with stray cats in their yards or wherever, and consider that they need to get funding somehow.

VERY TRUE!

Jean

 

[Jean_1958]

You cannot blame the humane societies for asking for donations. They have a job to do, and they’re doing it. But you can blame every Christian, and especially—since they ought to know better—every Catholic (and there are many) who will give and do more this year for “animal rights” than they will give and do for the many pro-life apostolates that are asking for their support and whose work is frankly more important.

Excuse me, but I refuse to take “blame” for anything that I didn’t do, or for something that I neglected to do after somebody with a judgmental penchant decided I should have done. I definitely offer more support to animal-care-based organizations than to pro-life causes. I have good, valid, loving personal reasons for doing so. We can judge each other forever because we don’t support each other’s favorite causes. But I think we’re negating a lot of Christianity when we do so. There’s nothing in the Caholic catechism that says we have to support one cause more than another. We each have only so much in the way of resources. How dare you tell me where I should put mine to use.

Very well said jln. I totaly agree with EVERYTHING you said.

Jean

 

[Jean_1958]

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.

I am sorry, but the Bible tells us we are stewards of God’s creation, which includes animals… We are to protect and take care of them.

Of course, I do understand that people take a higher priority over animals.

Peace,

Jean

 

[Marfran]

I am sorry, but the Bible tells us we are stewards of God’s creation, which includes animals… We are to protect and take care of them.

Of course, I do understand that people take a higher priority over animals.

Peace,

Jean

Right on, Jean!!!

 

[Le_Cracquere]

I am sorry, but the Bible tells us we are stewards of God’s creation, which includes animals… We are to protect and take care of them.

Of course, I do understand that people take a higher priority over animals.

Peace,

Jean

Multiple amens. Animals have no rights, but as God’s stewards, we have definite responsibilities concerning them. All the lunatic PETA members in the world do not negate that.

I’m also getting a bit wearied of the forum chestnut “Any money/time/concern spent on X that equals or exceeds what you spend on pro-life causes, proves that you’re a messed-up person and there’s something messed up about caring for X.”

 

[JaneGrey]

Multiple amens. Animals have no rights, but as God’s stewards, we have definite responsibilities concerning them. All the lunatic PETA members in the world do not negate that.

I’m also getting a bit wearied of the forum chestnut “Any money/time/concern spent on X that equals or exceeds what you spend on pro-life causes, proves that you’re a messed-up person and there’s something messed up about caring for X.”

I get what youre saying, but it doesnt make sense to say animals have NO rights at all when you acknowlegde that as protectors of Earth and stewards etc we owe something to them. You might well believe animals have less rights as humans, but as much right to live a life that does not involve unnecessary pain and suffering. What one considers necessary or unnecessary is where most people and animal rights ‘‘extremists’’ differ.

 

[Marfran]

I get what youre saying, but it doesnt make sense to say animals have NO rights at all when you acknowlegde that as protectors of Earth and stewards etc we owe something to them. You might well believe animals have less rights as humans, but as much right to live a life that does not involve unnecessary pain and suffering. What one considers necessary or unnecessary is where most people and animal rights ‘‘extremists’’ differ.

Multiple Amens!!!

The** rights **that God gave to animals: the right to run if they have legs, swim if they have fins, and fly if they have wings.

I think that the true “extremists” are the ones who use and abuse animals for any and every whim and justify it by saying that God gave us the animals and the Earth to do whatever we wish with. The Earth and the animals were entrusted to our care. We are taking care of God’s creation–and are generally doing a p*ss poor job of it.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

I get what youre saying, but it doesnt make sense to say animals have NO rights at all when you acknowlegde that as protectors of Earth and stewards etc we owe something to them. You might well believe animals have less rights as humans, but as much right to live a life that does not involve unnecessary pain and suffering. What one considers necessary or unnecessary is where most people and animal rights ‘‘extremists’’ differ.

I think you & I are on the same page. I think that at minimum, animals are owed reasonable kindness and care, and even if one is going to eat them, their treatment should be as humane as the situation permits. I’m just saying that these obligations inhere less in what they are (although part of God’s good creation, they’re not strictly on par with humanity), and more in what we are (the stewards of said creation, with God-given capacities for kindness and mercy).

When one centers the argument for kindness in animals’ natures, rather than humans’, and makes it a question of rights rather than responsibilities, it rhetorically pits them against us, which is how PETAesque ideologies can arise.

 

[Marfran]

I think you & I are on the same page. I think that at minimum, animals are owed reasonable kindness and care, and even if one is going to eat them, their treatment should be as humane as the situation permits. I’m just saying that these obligations inhere less in what they are (although part of God’s good creation, they’re not strictly on par with humanity), and more in what we are (the stewards of said creation, with God-given capacities for kindness and mercy).

When one centers the argument for kindness in animals’ natures, rather than humans’, and makes it a question of rights rather than responsibilities, it rhetorically pits them against us, which is how PETAesque ideologies can arise.

Get off of PETA already. PETA is ONE organization. If you don’t like PETA then skip them. We don’t NEED PETA to guide us.PETA is a secular organization.

The concept of “animal rights” is also found in Christian and Catholic thought and literature, and in Christian and Catholic organizations.

Try Dominion by Matthew Scully tiny.cc/8o2Oo

Try ***School of Compassion ***by Deborah Jones tiny.cc/S0xYr

Try ***Animal Gospel ***by Rev Andrew Linzey tiny.cc/WugTh

Try ***Catholic Concern for Animals ***tiny.cc/F3AGP

DEFINITION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS: The right to run if they have legs, swim if they have fins, and fly if they have wings.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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.

Is there something wrong with being frustrated because someone rejects God’s Word, instead making Him into her own image?

So nobody has an opinion on the fact that GE will be using human embryos instead of lab rats?

I will continue to eat meat and wear fur. I am not a Hindu. The last time I checked, Catholics did not have the same constrictions. We are not constrained to be ‘green’ or hippies.

I am in total opposition to anyone who suggests that animals have ‘rights.’ Human life was made in God’s image. Not the life of a lab rat.

When companies like GE favor lab rats over human embryos, and there is no hue and cry over this on a Catholic board, there is something really wrong with the world.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Get off of PETA already. PETA is ONE organization. If you don’t like PETA then skip them. We don’t NEED PETA to guide us.PETA is a secular organization.

The concept of “animal rights” is also found in Christian and Catholic thought and literature, and in Christian and Catholic organizations.

Try Dominion by Matthew Scully tiny.cc/8o2Oo

Try ***School of Compassion ***by Deborah Jones tiny.cc/S0xYr

Try ***Animal Gospel ***by Rev Andrew Linzey tiny.cc/WugTh

Try ***Catholic Concern for Animals ***tiny.cc/F3AGP

DEFINITION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS: The right to run if they have legs, swim if they have fins, and fly if they have wings.

Good for them. I’ve read some of Scully’s stuff, and agree with it more often than not, though not entirely, and I certainly don’t end up at certain of his conclusions. My point was that “animal rights” is an inherently tendentious phrase, which mixes up the locus of obligations and sets up the debating ground in a way that makes coherent and articulable (along with less invidous views) the views of that organization whose mention makes you so uncomfortable.

And I don’t know much about the organizations you cite–they may well stand for & do excellent things that I admire. But to the extent they’re based on animal-rights arguments, they’ve founded their good works on philosophical sand that is too easily subverted for my taste.

 

[Marfran]

Is there something wrong with being frustrated because someone rejects God’s Word, instead making Him into her own image?

So nobody has an opinion on the fact that GE will be using human embryos instead of lab rats?

I will continue to eat meat and wear fur. I am not a Hindu. The last time I checked, Catholics did not have the same constrictions. We are not constrained to be ‘green’ or hippies.

I am in total opposition to anyone who suggests that animals have ‘rights.’ Human life was made in God’s image. Not the life of a lab rat.

When companies like GE favor lab rats over human embryos, and there is no hue and cry over this on a Catholic board, there is something really wrong with the world.

No one has responded to your comments because you have not provided a LINK.

What does it mean to be made in God’s image??? Is God callous toward His own creation??? Being made in God’s image means we are loving and capable of mercy.

Wearing fur produced through cruelty–leg hold traps, intensive confinement, electrocution… honors God how??? It is an evil abuse of God’s beautiful creation for selfish human wants and desires.

 

[Marfran]

Good for them. I’ve read some of Scully’s stuff, and agree with it more often than not, though not entirely, and I certainly don’t end up at certain of his conclusions. My point was that “animal rights” is an inherently tendentious phrase, which mixes up the locus of obligations and sets up the debating ground in a way that makes coherent and articulable (along with less invidous views) the views of that organization whose mention makes you so uncomfortable.

And I don’t know much about the organizations you cite–they may well stand for & do excellent things that I admire. But to the extent they’re based on animal-rights arguments, they’ve founded their good works on philosophical sand that is too easily subverted for my taste.

You are the one who doesn’t like PETA–so much so–that you are negating the entire concept of “animal rights.” I am saying that you should look to Christian and Catholic thought, literature, and organizations, for the Christian/Catholic perspective.

The entire concept of “animal rights” is strongly rooted in Christianity. And one of the founders of the RSPCA (Royal Society to Prevent Cruelty to Animals) also founded an organization to PREVENT CRUELTY TO CHILDREN.