Babies vs. Animal Rights

[Prodigal_Son]

Comment on Singer: His premises are flawed, but his argumentation is quite consistent. Goes to show where intellectual virtue will lead you if you don’t couple it with moral virtue and insight.

 

[Marfran]

Comment on Singer: His premises are flawed, but his argumentation is quite consistent. Goes to show where intellectual virtue will lead you if you don’t couple it with moral virtue and insight.

Yes, I agree. Peter Singer’s work is not completely erroneous. He has some good intellectual thoughts, but it is devoid of moral virtue and insight. You put that well, Prodigal Son!

 

[spn82756]

Okay, I propose a reset here. We mostly agree with each other, differing about where the emphasis belongs. Is there anyone here who would disagree that the opinion summarized below, allegedly held by the Australian utilitarian Peter Singer, is the very voice of evil (well-meaning, of course, but aren’t they always). (For the full context, the article from which this was taken is called “While Europe Slept” by Jean Bethke Elshtain in the March 2009 issue of “First Things” magazine, which can be viewed here: catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0242.htm.) Here is the summary of Singer:

“In an interview for a British magazine during the summer of 2005, Singer said that if he faced the quandary of saving from a raging fire either a mentally disabled child, an orphan child nobody wanted, or normal animals, he would save the animals. If the child had a mother who would be devastated by the child’s death, he would save the child, but unwanted orphans have no such value.”

Peter Singer is a very poor soul. I’ve read some of his writings. He has no more respect for human life than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and a number of other atheists. It’s sad. He really needs our prayers. Anything is possible through God and prayer.

 

[Newbie2]

Comment on Singer: His premises are flawed, but his argumentation is quite consistent. Goes to show where intellectual virtue will lead you if you don’t couple it with moral virtue and insight.

Yep. He ain’t stupid, just misguided.

 

[StillWondering]

Peter Singer has some big warps in his thinking. This whole thread started because the original poster was frustrated with the commercials on TV by the ASPCA for the protection of animals, and the absence of commercials against abortion. We pointed out to her that there have been pro-life, anti-abortion commercials for years in the USA (just saw one yesterday on my TV) and that taking her frustrations out on another *just cause *does not advance the pro-life fight against human abortion. We can fight to end abortion and we can also fight for other just causes simultenously.

And yes, Peter Singer’s ideas are flawed (in a big way). We Catholics who do not like cruelty to animals, do not like Peter Singer, and we belong to organizations like Catholic Concern for Animals and do not buy Mr. Singer’s books.

I am concern that not more public messeges are being done on abortion not because other messiges are taking their place, but that the media is afraid to talk about such things and the government are either afraid or unwilling to put out public messiges. I mean the government has those wonderful messages that tells us the danger of drinking and driving and the dangers of drugs. They protect kids and society.

Well unborn babies need protection too and it benefits a society to have new members. On a societal issue 1 million abortions a year is huge!!! On a moral issue, 1 abortion is huge!!! But the government is not a religion per se but it would still behoove them to protect society by not allowing abortion free reign. BTW, lack of sleep I hear causes several times more accidents then drinking so that should really be brought up. But of course people choose not to talk about that and even more so to avoid the issue of abortion as a society.

 

[Marfran]

I am concern that not more public messeges are being done on abortion not because other messiges are taking their place, but that the media is afraid to talk about such things and the government are either afraid or unwilling to put out public messiges. I mean the government has those wonderful messages that tells us the danger of drinking and driving and the dangers of drugs. They protect kids and society.

Well unborn babies need protection too and it benefits a society to have new members. On a societal issue 1 million abortions a year is huge!!! On a moral issue, 1 abortion is huge!!! But the government is not a religion per se but it would still behoove them to protect society by not allowing abortion free reign. BTW, lack of sleep I hear causes several times more accidents then drinking so that should really be brought up. But of course people choose not to talk about that and even more so to avoid the issue of abortion as a society.

I think the key is who pays for the ***air time ***of the commercial. You can probably produce a commercial inexpensively, but the real cost is in air time. A government will view abortion as a religious issue and wants the separation of church and state. Like I mentioned there was one on my TV (a pro life commercial) yesterday. I think the name of the group that sponsored it was Live! I’m going to see if I can look that organization up.

P.S. Tried to look it up. Came up with nothing. Is it the ***National Right to Life ***organization? I specifically remember at the end of the commercial there were some credits and it said “Live!” Yes, Live with an exclammation mark.

 

[Ione]

I too think that this is wierd. I see those advertisements on tv, and then think of how little there is done about abortions. It is amazing how much radical left people are burning fur coat factories, protesting for animals for vote, want to let prisioners free and less harsh judges for criminals etc…and the same day going to a rally that supports the murder of the unborn. People need to get their priorities straightened out.
-Abortion: It’s a Human Rights issue that is against the first right: The right to life.

I think it is very unfair to say that just because someone is for animal rights that they are pro choice. Seems more that they would be pro life as they are trying to help save the lives of animals as well as humans. As for myself, and I’m sure many others, we can support more than one issue at a time. I would think that pro life ads would be allowed on tv (not sure if they are allowed or not). Maybe someone from the pro life groups should get out there and put an ad on. Just because the animal people went ahead and did it doesn’t mean it’s wrong or that they are for abortion. They just took the steps to put something together and get it aired. Put something together and advertise it. I’m not so sure what is so hard about that. I would think that would be freedom of speech. I’m sure someone will probably have to put up some money for it as the animal people probably did too. If you feel so strongly for something, go out and do something about it. And if it is illegal to put an ad about abortion then go out and fight against that. You obviously are not going to sit in front of a tv and hear all ads about pro life. There are other things going on in the world as well. Yes, pro life is important but other things are going to be shown on tv too. What about mayo commercials? Not real important but well, they’re there and they are trying to convince people to buy their product. Should we stop all advertisements if they don’t pertain to an important issue. That just makes no sense at all. There are many issues out there. Pick the ones that are most important to you and go fight for them. Sitting there whining about an animal advertisement isn’t going to change anything.

 

[Ione]

How long will the land lie parched and the grass in every field be withered?
Because those who live in it are wicked, the animals and birds have perished." Jeremiah 12:4
God created all the animals (Psalm 104).

“Then God commanded, 'Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life; domestic and wild, large and small, and it was done. So God made them all, and He was pleased with what He saw.” Genesis 1:24, 25

All animals belong to God (Psalm 24:1).

“All the animals in the forest are Mine and the cattle on thousands of hills. All the wild birds are Mine and all living things in the fields.” Psalm 50:10, 11

God cares for the animals (1 John 4:16).

“Look at the birds flying around . . . your Father in Heaven takes care of them” Matthew 6:26

“He gives animals their food and feeds the young ravens when they call.” Psalm 147:9

The Bible describes the Angels around God’s throne as having features and characteristics like those of a lion, a bull and an eagle (Ezekiel 1). God Himself is likened in Scripture to a lion, a leopard, a bear (Hosea 13:7, 8), and to an eagle (Deut. 32:11).

Jesus is described as “The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” John 1:29
Jesus identified Himself with all the innocent animals who had been sacrificed for the sins of mankind and declared that His was the final sacrifice. Jesus abolished animal sacrifices and so Christianity has always rejected the need for further bloodshed of animals (Hebrews 9:12, 26).

“For the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sins. For this reason, when Christ was about to come into the world, He said to God: You do not want sacrifices and offerings, but You have prepared a body for Me. You are not pleased with animals burnt whole on the altar or with sacrifices to take away sins. Then I said, ‘Here I am to do Your will, O God.’” Hebrews 10:4-7

The Scriptures reveal God’s anger against man’s sinfulness. God condemned the type of wholesale slaughter of animals in Judaism as a cover-up for their disobedience
(Psalm 40:6-10).

This plan, which God will complete when the time is right, is to bring all creation together, everything in heaven and on earth, with Christ as head." Ephesians 1:10

“Wolves and sheep will live together in peace, and leopards will lie down with young goats, calves and lion cubs will feed together, and little children will take care of them. Cows and bears will eat together, and their calves and cubs will lie down in peace. Lions will eat straw as cattle do . . . The land will be as full of knowledge of the Lord as the seas are full of water.” Isaiah 11:6-9

“Search in the Lord’s book of living creatures and read what it says. Not one of these creatures will be missing and not one will be without its mate. The Lord has commanded it to be so; He Himself will bring them together. It is the Lord who will divide the land among them and give each of them a share. They will live in the land age after age, and it will belong to them for ever.” Isaiah 34:16, 17

When the revealed Word of God teaches us that God’s eternal plan is for “all creation” to be brought together under Christ then it includes all wildlife too. When God says “everything”, He means everything - animals included.

When He says that they will live for “age after age”, “forever”, this means eternal life. Only one place will last forever, and that is Heaven.

Praise Him, hills and mountains, fruit trees and forests; all animals, tame and wild, reptiles and birds." Psalm 148:9, 10

“Be glad, earth and sky! Roar sea and every creature in you: be glad fields and everything in you! The trees in the woods will shout for joy.” Psalm 96:11, 12
All animals belong to God. What gives us the right to torture them to satisfy our curiosity in the name of “science”?

We are answerable to God for our treatment of animals. What are we going to say about trapping animals for furs, forcing them to do unnatural acts in circuses, confining and abusing them for our amusement? How can smokers justify the torture and killing of thousands of dogs and monkeys in “tobacco research”?

“A good man takes care of his animals, but wicked men are cruel to theirs.” Proverbs 12:10

The Bible says that God has fixed a day in which He will judge the whole world with justice (Acts 17:31). It is well to remember that although man was created in the image of God, the whole message of the Bible is that all mankind has fallen into sinful rebellion against God.

“They are quick to hurt and kill; they leave ruin and destruction wherever they go. They have not known the path of peace, nor have they learnt to fear God . . . Everyone has sinned and is far away from God’s saving presence.” Romans 3:15-17, 23

That is probably one of the best posts I have ever read on this forum!

 

[Marfran]

What about mayo commercials?

That’s where the money is–in the mayo–I mean the big corporations have big advertising bucks. I swear I hear a commercial for Walmart every 15 minutes on the TV. Who’s got money??? Have to wonder about a company that sells cheap products but has a big advertising budget. But that’s another thread.

Sitting there whining about an animal advertisement isn’t going to change anything.

Yes, exactly true.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Originally Posted by Marfran
How does being cruel to animals reflect God’s image???

I completely do not follow you. You posted a quote of mine and I do not follow the logic of your response. People on this thread have made statements about being made in the image of God and my question is how does being made in the image of God promote animal abuse??? I can not understand how being made in the image of God entitles us to abuse animals. Being made in the “image of God” means that we are called to and should be capable of ***caring for ***God’s creation (in a way in which animals are not), we are capable of being compassionate and merciful–qualities of our Lord

I see your how you could be confused. Your response was to a poster whose point was that within the subject of “babies vs animal rights”, the obvious answer is babies. Because humans are created in the image and likeness of God. Animals are not.

At no point did “animal cruelty” come into play on the posters side. But it did in yours. You interjected a whole new subject matter as a answer to the statement which had no bearing on the conversation. see the confusion…

 

[Marfran]

I see your how you could be confused. Your response was to a poster whose point was that within the subject of “babies vs animal rights”, the obvious answer is babies. Because humans are created in the image and likeness of God. Animals are not.

At no point did “animal cruelty” come into play on the posters side. But it did in yours. You interjected a whole new subject matter as a answer to the statement which had no bearing on the conversation. see the confusion…

If you want something addressed (within context) you need to include all pertinent quotes (within context). This thread is about the air time that the ASPCA commercials are getting, and the original OP wonders why anti-abortion commercials do not get similar air time.

If there are quotes you want to review, address, expand on, please include. I tried to scroll back, but there is too much stuff here.

 

[caper]

I have to defer as well: I don’t think showing gruesome aborted fetus pictures really gets the point across. To me, they’re just disgusting (I’d say something comparing aborted baby pictures with splatter-horror movies, but that’s a whole other rant). I’m all for animal rights as much as I am for human rights: I believe all life, not just human life and not just animal life, is sacred and all living creatures needed to be treated with respect contingent upon what the creature is. Animals were given to us to be our servants and companions and need to be treated with care, even livestock on a farm. We are called to be wise and prudent stewards toward them.

Babies vs. animals just seems like a colossal case of “apples and oranges”.

Animals were given to us to be our servants and I dearly love animals and i am grateful to God for such loyal companions Children were given to my husband and I to be returned to God and we hope that we have done all that is within our power to make that happen. And in making that happen, I do not choose to terminate their lives. God will decide those things

 

[Marfran]

Animals were given to us to be our servants and I dearly love animals and i am grateful to God for such loyal companions Children were given to my husband and I to be returned to God and we hope that we have done all that is within our power to make that happen. And in making that happen, I do not choose to terminate their lives. God will decide those things

I would totally disagree with your attitude toward animals. I can not imagine it possible to truly “love animals” yet call them “servants.” St. Francis referred to animals and birds as his brothers and sisters, not as “servants.” They were entrusted to our care, and we are stewards of God’s creation, and hopefully we can return all that God has created back to him in well-cared for condition.

And I have no disagreement with your feelings about children.

This thread is about the air time that the ASPCA commercials are getting as opposed to anti-abortion ads. The original poster had complained that there were none on TV. We pointed out that in the USA there are many such ads, and they have been airing as far back as the 1980’s.

Maybe someone heard all of our chatter, because I have just noticed an increase in pro-life, anti-aborion ads in my locale. Today the same anti-abortion ad showed up on my TV a total of 4 times. I only saw the ASPCA ad once. I am trying to figure out who is sponsoring the pro-life ad. Does anyone know?? At the very end of the ad it says** L!fe**–with an exclamation mark for the i. A woman in the ad talks about how some women think nothing of having one abortion after the other, and use abortion as “birth control.” Anyone seen this new ad?

 

[Clevelander]

Here is a link to the enlightening homily given by Fr. Mitch Pacwa S.J., in the EWTN morning Mass yesterday, October 22, 2009, on the memorial of St. Peter Alcantara (a Franciscan, by the way): ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?audiofile=th_10222009.mp3.

Enlightening because Father confirms that the teaching of the Church is what many posters here have already said, namely, that while it is not only possible but mandatory to love animals, they and all creation are nevertheless man’s servants, through which man is to give glory to God according to their purposes and state in life.

(The homily begins at about 4:45 into the audio program.)

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Here is a link to the enlightening homily given by Fr. Mitch Pacwa S.J., in the EWTN morning Mass yesterday, October 22, 2009, on the memorial of St. Peter Alcantara (a Franciscan, by the way): ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?audiofile=th_10222009.mp3.

Enlightening because Father confirms that the teaching of the Church is what many posters here have already said, namely, that while it is not only possible but mandatory to love animals, they and all creation are nevertheless man’s servants, through which man is to give glory to God according to their purposes and state in life.

(The homily begins at about 4:45 into the audio program.)

Thanks— I was just going to mention that homily. It was wonderful.

Note that Father states (correctly) that animals have no ‘rights,’ and that the world was created for Man.

Worship of the created rather than the Creator is pagan.

 

[SteveGC]

Here is a link to the enlightening homily given by Fr. Mitch Pacwa S.J., in the EWTN morning Mass yesterday, October 22, 2009, on the memorial of St. Peter Alcantara (a Franciscan, by the way): ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?audiofile=th_10222009.mp3.

Enlightening because Father confirms that the teaching of the Church is what many posters here have already said, namely, that while it is not only possible but mandatory to love animals, they and all creation are nevertheless man’s servants, through which man is to give glory to God according to their purposes and state in life.

(The homily begins at about 4:45 into the audio program.)

Sailor Kenshin:

Thanks— I was just going to mention that homily. It was wonderful.

Note that Father states (correctly) that animals have no ‘rights,’ and that the world was created for Man.

Worship of the created rather than the Creator is pagan.

And I fully agree. But I wonder what you guys’ thoughts are about balancing our love for animals with the notion of enjoying them as food in the midst of inhumane treatment of them leading up to their slaughter. I’m not an expert on the realities of this treatment, but I am led to believe it exists, and I am troubled (myself a meat-eater) when I consider my abundant enjoyment of meat when I recognize the potential that the meat on my plate came from an animal that suffered greatly (and needlessly) before it was delivered to me. Any thoughts on that? Not trying to set up a guilt trip…really I’m not…I’m just curious if you guys think we (as meat-eaters) should be more actively involved in supporting efforts to keep their slaughter humane.

Also…another troubling thing for me…and I’ve expressed this on this thread earlier…

Is there a perilous line that we cross when we move from finding meat a true necessity in our lives, to seeking it out as the primary want of our diet? IOW, are we loving animals when we could sustain ourselves nutritionally with many other non-animal foods, yet choose to consume meat? Is it loving animals to want them primarily for their flavor, as opposed to their nutrition?

 

[Clevelander]

But I wonder what you guys’ thoughts are about balancing our love for animals with the notion of enjoying them as food in the midst of inhumane treatment of them leading up to their slaughter.

A very good question. With no flippancy intended, I will keep in mind while pondering it that Jesus is the Lamb of God who, just before I sacramentally consume his true flesh and blood, has been most inhumanely slaughtered.

 

[SteveGC]

A very good question. With no flippancy intended, I will keep in mind while pondering it that Jesus is the Lamb of God who, just before I sacramentally consume his true flesh and blood, has been most inhumanely slaughtered.

Interesting. And so, that perhaps justifies our inhumane treatment of animals before our consumption of them? Or, perhaps we should actually seek to inhumanely slaughter them, in keeping with our Eucharistic reality?

I’m truly trying not to inject flippancy either, btw. How are we meeting our obligation to love animals in light of our consumption of them as they needlessly suffer? I understand that not all of them suffer…perhaps it’s the minority…or a negligible percentage. But it sounds as if you lean to the side of consuming them even if they all suffer…or perhaps you believe they are all supposed to suffer, and that’s their role?

 

[camerong]

And I fully agree. But I wonder what you guys’ thoughts are about balancing our love for animals with the notion of enjoying them as food in the midst of inhumane treatment of them leading up to their slaughter. I’m not an expert on the realities of this treatment, but I am led to believe it exists, and I am troubled (myself a meat-eater) when I consider my abundant enjoyment of meat when I recognize the potential that the meat on my plate came from an animal that suffered greatly (and needlessly) before it was delivered to me. Any thoughts on that? Not trying to set up a guilt trip…really I’m not…I’m just curious if you guys think we (as meat-eaters) should be more actively involved in supporting efforts to keep their slaughter humane.

Also…another troubling thing for me…and I’ve expressed this on this thread earlier…

Is there a perilous line that we cross when we move from finding meat a true necessity in our lives, to seeking it out as the primary want of our diet? IOW, are we loving animals when we could sustain ourselves nutritionally with many other non-animal foods, yet choose to consume meat? Is it loving animals to want them primarily for their flavor, as opposed to their nutrition?

As a vegetarian for ethical reasons, I always found the following argument the most persuasive, and though it is based on an emotional response, I think powerful logic underlies it:

Our love for animals is best expressed in our affection for a beloved pet. I love my dog. This is, ideally, the feelings we ought to have for all animals. Even meat-eaters, however, would find it horrible to eat a pet. It is unthinkable because of the suffering it would cause the animal, but more so because it necessarily puts our desires at odds with the life of the animal. When we can get by just fine without meat, this taking of the light of life God has placed in all creatures is unjustifiable and wrong. When we are OK with eating a cow, its only because we are distant from the cow and don’t care about it. If you had it for a pet as a year, it would likely disgust you as much as eating a pet dog. And that is because you would become intimately familiar with that creature’s LIFE, and would acknowledge that this life is special and worth more than a tasty meal.

 

[Clevelander]

Interesting. And so, that perhaps justifies our inhumane treatment of animals before our consumption of them?

Yes, truly interesting, but don’t rush me, I’m still pondering. A flint suffers when I strike it for flame, a tree suffers when I cut it for shelter, a lamb suffers when I cage it for veal, and an embryonic baby suffers when I abort him for … convenience. Each one gives off different manifestations of his suffering. Some I care about, and some I don’t, but where do I draw the line? Do I do without heat, a dry place to sleep, a meal to look forward to? (I’ll stop there.) This is a lot to compute!