Babies vs. Animal Rights

[SteveGC]

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.

Thanks for sharing that. It is indeed an eye-opener.

Clevelander:

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!

Sorry. didn’t mean to rush. I should’ve given you more time to respond, but also had a feeling that that was all you were going to say. Do you really think a flint and a tree “suffer”? I realize that an animal’s suffering is of a considerably lesser dimension than a human’s. But I never considered a non-animal, yet living thing, to have a suffering element to it. Perhaps I’ll ponder that further.

 

[severus68]

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.

Well said.

 

[Clevelander]

But I never considered a non-animal, yet living thing, to have a suffering element to it.

Still pondering, but maybe we have there isolated the nub of the question: At what point (if any), short of being a human, does a mere thing cross the line and become a thing with innate rights?

When it acquires an ability to show resistance? A rock does that when it obeys the law of gravity. A tree does that when it emits sap to the cover the wound of my axe blow.

Or is “thing with rights” an oxymoron?

Or have we already been given the answer when we hear that man, and man only, is created in the image and likeness of God? And: “Against you only have I sinned.” Therefore (therefore?), if you cage a lamb because you enjoy sadism, you are sinning, the same as you would be sinning when you throw a $100 bill into the fire. But are you sinning against the lamb, or the money? No, worse. You are sinning against God; so look out! But if you cage a lamb because you enjoy veal, are you sinning against God? THAT’s the only real question, and I’m still pondering.

St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us!

 

[camerong]

Still pondering, but maybe we have there isolated the nub of the question: At what point (if any), short of being a human, does a mere thing cross the line and become a thing with innate rights?

When it acquires an ability to show resistance? A rock does that when it obeys the law of gravity. A tree does that when it emits sap to the cover the wound of my axe blow.

Or is “thing with rights” an oxymoron?

Or have we already been given the answer when we hear that man, and man only, is created in the image and likeness of God? And: “Against you only have I sinned.” Therefore (therefore?), if you cage a lamb because you enjoy sadism, you are sinning, the same as you would be sinning when you throw a $100 bill into the fire. But are you sinning against the lamb, or the money? No, worse. You are sinning against God; so look out! But if you cage a lamb because you enjoy veal, are you sinning against God? THAT’s the only real question, and I’m still pondering.

St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us!

What if we approach this from a good stewardship? We can agree, I imagine, that driving a $150k limited edition Bentley to and from work every day is probably an affront to God because it wastes His resources. I, of course, enjoy it more than driving an old Toyota, but that does not make my imprudent use of His resources acceptable. Does not the same happen when I kill a lamb or calf for food? Arguably, an animal has greater value to its life than a plant. If I can get my meals from taking the lives of plants rather than animals, isn’t this like getting to work by driving an old Toyota instead of a Bentley? Having one pair of sandals instead of two?

What if I really enjoyed a meal that took 15 cows to make it? Say, I enjoyed a stew made from a very small part of a cow, so we had to slaughter many to fill one cup of this stuff. This offends our sense of stewardship, doesn’t it? Using this same logic, isn’t killing one cow worse than killing none?

 

[Clevelander]

But if you cage a lamb because you enjoy veal, are you sinning against God? THAT’s the only real question, and I’m still pondering.

Nope, wrong question.

Yes, “thing with rights” is an oxymoron, as Fr. Pacwa would say. But that’s not the question. Back up—all the way to the beginning: “In the image and likeness of God.” Jesus is God, and no mere image. He is also a man. It is a grave sin to kill my fellow man, from womb to tomb, so I must not. And If I kill him, I must repent and do penance, and not compound my sin by proceeding to eat him. Jesus, though, is unique in all history. I should never have slaughtered him in the first place, but by my sin, I did. And having done so, I must repent and do penance, but I must still eat him. Why? Is it because I am no longer eating a “who” but a “what,” i.e., separated (dead) flesh and blood, and it’s okay to eat a mere thing? That’s a mystery way too deep for me, and perhaps a blasphemy even to venture a guess. But I needn’t go there, because the only answer I need is: Because he who is God commands me to eat him. And unique why? Because nobody else in history ever has or ever will, voluntarily and in advance, permit me to torture him to death, pray for me while I’m doing it, command me to eat him sacramentally, and then resurrect himself in the flesh and walk away.

And Jesus was no vegan. His enemies accused him of gluttony. I can’t recall whether Scripture or sacred tradition specifically say that he ate meat, but he dined with those same enemies, and we know they weren’t vegans, so he must have eaten some. And it was he himself who described Heaven as a wedding feast. If I believe (as I am obliged to believe) in the resurrection of the body, and that he will make all things new, am I free to assume that the “wedding feast” was a mere metaphor? A lot of people adamantly teach that John 6 is a metaphor, and they’re heretics. So, I think it’s at least a possibility, if not a teaching of the Faith (Father Serpa, please help us out here), that if there are animals in Heaven, at least some of them will be sitting on people’s plates with apples stuffed in their mouths. (Sorry, Bambi and Elsi and Tigger.)

So what, then, is the real question. I don’t think it is whether caging lambs for veal is a sin. I think it is answered by reference to the fact that what God has created in his own image and likeness, he longs to have sitting around his table at the wedding feast, and here, yes, stewardship is the answer. If he wants animals there, he will put them there himself, thank you very much, and nothing we do or don’t do will get a single Schnauzer into Heaven that wouldn’t otherwise be there by the Will of God, or tempt one cow to choose Hell . Of all the limited number of things that are within our human power, what accords with his inescapable Will of maximizing the number of wedding guests, except good stewardship, “good” being measured only by what leads my brother to choose Heaven instead of Hell? (In the end, nothing else matters, and no animal faces such a choice.)

Good stewardship, then, means treating all animals and other non-human things in such a way as not to allow my cold, naked, hungry, thirsty, ignorant, imprisoned or lonely brother to succumb to the Enemy’s temptation to rely on that misery as a justification (as many do; cf. C.S. Lewis, “The Great Divorce”)) to choose Hell over Heaven, and so miss out on the wedding feast. It means giving everything we have (as Jesus did, down to the last drop of his blood) to get each other to Heaven, to love one another as he has loved us.

So, the question is not whether caging lambs for veal is a sin because it scandalizes (i.e. diverts from Heaven) my cold, naked, hungry brother. If it does that, my brother’s biggest problem is mere scrupulosity, or sentimentalism, and those are curable. No, the question is whether caging lambs for veal solely for my own consumption, while my hungry brother waits outside getting hungrier, is sinful. Our Lord has already told us that yes, it is, because that brother is in a mysterious way Our Lord himself. “Against you only have I sinned.” Give him nuts and berries, or give him a juicy hamburger if he prefers, but give him food!

 

[spn82756]

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.

I don’t mean to be flip either…but I don’t ever remember hearing that Christ did wrong. I believe He ate a fair share of meat. Fish, lamb, sheep, goat…

Peace

 

[Marfran]

So, I think it’s at least a possibility, if not a teaching of the Faith (Father Serpa, please help us out here), that if there are animals in Heaven, at least some of them will be sitting on people’s plates with apples stuffed in their mouths. (Sorry, Bambi and Elsi and Tigger.)

You must not be familiar with the Bible. Book of Revelation? Isaiah??? Ring a bell? The peacable Kingdom? The lion lying down with the lamb??? learnthebible.org/the-lion-and-lamb.html

 

[Clevelander]

You must not be familiar with the Bible. Book of Revelation? Isaiah??? Ring a bell? The peacable Kingdom? The lion lying down with the lamb??? learnthebible.org/the-lion-and-lamb.html

Great! Then I’ll take mine medium-rare!

This is your thread by now, so I’ll let you have the last word.

 

[spn82756]

Great! Then I’ll take mine medium-rare!

This is your thread by now, so I’ll let you have the last word.

I like mine rare. I wonder how Jesus had his.

 

[severus68]

Nope, wrong question.

Yes, “thing with rights” is an oxymoron, as Fr. Pacwa would say. But that’s not the question. Back up—all the way to the beginning: “In the image and likeness of God.” Jesus is God, and no mere image. He is also a man. It is a grave sin to kill my fellow man, from womb to tomb, so I must not. And If I kill him, I must repent and do penance, and not compound my sin by proceeding to eat him. Jesus, though, is unique in all history. I should never have slaughtered him in the first place, but by my sin, I did. And having done so, I must repent and do penance, but I must still eat him. Why? Is it because I am no longer eating a “who” but a “what,” i.e., separated (dead) flesh and blood, and it’s okay to eat a mere thing? That’s a mystery way too deep for me, and perhaps a blasphemy even to venture a guess. But I needn’t go there, because the only answer I need is: Because he who is God commands me to eat him. And unique why? Because nobody else in history ever has or ever will, voluntarily and in advance, permit me to torture him to death, pray for me while I’m doing it, command me to eat him sacramentally, and then resurrect himself in the flesh and walk away.

And Jesus was no vegan. His enemies accused him of gluttony. I can’t recall whether Scripture or sacred tradition specifically say that he ate meat, but he dined with those same enemies, and we know they weren’t vegans, so he must have eaten some. And it was he himself who described Heaven as a wedding feast. If I believe (as I am obliged to believe) in the resurrection of the body, and that he will make all things new, am I free to assume that the “wedding feast” was a mere metaphor? A lot of people adamantly teach that John 6 is a metaphor, and they’re heretics. So, I think it’s at least a possibility, if not a teaching of the Faith (Father Serpa, please help us out here), that if there are animals in Heaven, at least some of them will be sitting on people’s plates with apples stuffed in their mouths. (Sorry, Bambi and Elsi and Tigger.)

So what, then, is the real question. I don’t think it is whether caging lambs for veal is a sin. I think it is answered by reference to the fact that what God has created in his own image and likeness, he longs to have sitting around his table at the wedding feast, and here, yes, stewardship is the answer. If he wants animals there, he will put them there himself, thank you very much, and nothing we do or don’t do will get a single Schnauzer into Heaven that wouldn’t otherwise be there by the Will of God, or tempt one cow to choose Hell . Of all the limited number of things that are within our human power, what accords with his inescapable Will of maximizing the number of wedding guests, except good stewardship, “good” being measured only by what leads my brother to choose Heaven instead of Hell? (In the end, nothing else matters, and no animal faces such a choice.)

Good stewardship, then, means treating all animals and other non-human things in such a way as not to allow my cold, naked, hungry, thirsty, ignorant, imprisoned or lonely brother to succumb to the Enemy’s temptation to rely on that misery as a justification (as many do; cf. C.S. Lewis, “The Great Divorce”)) to choose Hell over Heaven, and so miss out on the wedding feast. It means giving everything we have (as Jesus did, down to the last drop of his blood) to get each other to Heaven, to love one another as he has loved us.

So, the question is not whether caging lambs for veal is a sin because it scandalizes (i.e. diverts from Heaven) my cold, naked, hungry brother. If it does that, my brother’s biggest problem is mere scrupulosity, or sentimentalism, and those are curable. No, the question is whether caging lambs for veal solely for my own consumption, while my hungry brother waits outside getting hungrier, is sinful. Our Lord has already told us that yes, it is, because that brother is in a mysterious way Our Lord himself. “Against you only have I sinned.” Give him nuts and berries, or give him a juicy hamburger if he prefers, but give him food!

God only decides who or what goes to heaven. Whn Gd create the world it was perfect, with no violence and no eating of flesh. It is Man with his free will who changed it. So why would heaven not resemble what was in God’s plan and resemble Man’s corrupted world?

 

[Clevelander]

God only decides who or what goes to heaven.

In a certain sense this is true. It’s his decision, and he already made it, and it stands: When the invited guests show up for the feast, the ones who chose to come worthily dressed will be allowed to stay (cf. Matthew 22:11). The Church teaches that among his creatures, angels and man are unique in having that choice.

When God created the world it was perfect, with no violence and no eating of flesh.

Who is the one who knows what it was like in the beginning? It is Jesus, who was there (cf. Proverbs 8:30; John 8:58). For example, he knows what the design of the marital union of man and woman has been about from the beginning (cf. Mark 10:6).

So then Jesus, the only eyewitness to the beginning, goes on to teach about the mercy of his Father in probably his first or second most famous parable, the return of the prodigal son (the other being the good Samaritan). The repentant son returns, and what does the father do? Among other things, he orders the fatted calf slaughtered in preparation for the biggest party you’ve ever seen. To make sure we get the point, St. Luke mentions it three times (Luke 15:23, 15:27, 15:30). Slaughtered why? To eat it, of course (cf. Luke 15:23).

Now you have to ask yourself, would God tell a scandalous parable to teach his people about himself? Would Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, ascribe scandalous behavior to his Father, the first person of the Trinity, even by analogy? If you are trying to sanctify your listeners, wouldn’t that be rather counter-productive?

And I’m sorry, but a “fatted” calf? Kinda sounds to me like Jesus has a taste for veal, no?

So no, if God says it’s okay to eat fatted calves in the first century A.D., then God, who doesn’t change, must have thought the same thing eons earlier, “in the beginning.” For this we have the word of the only living eyewitness.

 

[SteveGC]

Clevelander,

flash forward 2000 years now. Are we as a society (or atleast as members of His Church) living that reality here? We’re not saving our fatted calves for momumental conversions of heart, or even for faith-related events. We are hitting the Mickey-Ds drive-thru on our way home or indulging in steak simply because it tastes good. And we partake in this sort of consumption regardless of our recent behavior, righteous or wicked. What sort of balance do you feel should be achieved here?

 

[Clevelander]

flash forward 2000 years now.

We should hope for so many!

Are we as a society (or atleast as members of His Church) living that reality here? We’re not saving our fatted calves for momumental conversions of heart, or even for faith-related events. We are hitting the Mickey-Ds drive-thru on our way home or indulging in steak simply because it tastes good. And we partake in this sort of consumption regardless of our recent behavior, righteous or wicked. What sort of balance do you feel should be achieved here?

I see the question. Are we presuming to reward ourselves with the good things of the Earth when we don’t necessarily deserve them? Maybe so. Maybe God wants us all to do penance from birth 'til death, eating only … I don’t know … brussel sprouts or something. (Now there’s a penance.) I guess you would have to ask Holy Mother Church why she urges us to abstain from meat only on Fridays and Ash Wednesday, and why Lent isn’t 52 weeks long.

God made it, “and it was very good.” I don’t think he wants us to lay off of his treats (hamburgers, whatever) completely, but that’s a different issue, and I’m pooped. New thread, anyone?

 

[Clevelander]

Are we as a society (or atleast as members of His Church) living that reality here? We’re not saving our fatted calves for momumental conversions of heart, or even for faith-related events. We are hitting the Mickey-Ds drive-thru on our way home or indulging in steak simply because it tastes good. And we partake in this sort of consumption regardless of our recent behavior, righteous or wicked. What sort of balance do you feel should be achieved here?

I see your point now. Yes, we are glutted, and we “super-size” everything. We should consume a lot less of everything, starting with food. But I don’t think the answer is to make fewer hamburgers, necessarily. Make the same quantity, or maybe more, but share them with the hungry.

 

[JaneGrey]

We should hope for so many!

I see the question. Are we presuming to reward ourselves with the good things of the Earth when we don’t necessarily deserve them? Maybe so. Maybe God wants us all to do penance from birth 'til death, eating only … I don’t know … brussel sprouts or something. (Now there’s a penance.) I guess you would have to ask Holy Mother Church why she urges us to abstain from meat only on Fridays and Ash Wednesday, and why Lent isn’t 52 weeks long.

God made it, “and it was very good.” I don’t think he wants us to lay off of his treats (hamburgers, whatever) completely, but that’s a different issue, and I’m pooped. New thread, anyone?

God did not make hamburgers. From your words I think one of your main issues with vegetarianism is that the thought of having to change your diet and lifestyle so drastically is difficult to swallow. Im not judging here. I havent completely made the change myself, and im sure the amount of alcohol i used to consume with friends would be considered gluttony. I used to get so annoyed at people who would regale me with the dangers of it. No one is forcing you to give up meat but really, I dont think there is anything holy or natural about McDonalds and most of the places people commonly get their meat fix from.

 

[JaneGrey]

We should hope for so many!

I see the question. Are we presuming to reward ourselves with the good things of the Earth when we don’t necessarily deserve them? Maybe so. Maybe God wants us all to do penance from birth 'til death, eating only … I don’t know … brussel sprouts or something. (Now there’s a penance.) I guess you would have to ask Holy Mother Church why she urges us to abstain from meat only on Fridays and Ash Wednesday, and why Lent isn’t 52 weeks long.

God made it, “and it was very good.” I don’t think he wants us to lay off of his treats (hamburgers, whatever) completely, but that’s a different issue, and I’m pooped. New thread, anyone?

God did not make hamburgers. From your words I think one of your main issues with vegetarianism is that the thought of having to change your diet and lifestyle so drastically is difficult to swallow. Im not judging here. I havent completely made the change myself, and im sure the amount of alcohol i used to consume with friends would be considered gluttony. I used to get so annoyed at people who would regale me with the dangers of it. No one is forcing you to give up meat but really, I dont think there is anything holy or natural about McDonalds and most of the places people commonly get their meat fix from.

God bless

 

[Marfran]

I dont think there is anything holy or natural about McDonalds and most of the places people commonly get their meat fix from.

That would make a good new thread.*** Is there anything holy or natural about McDonald’s?*** If one were to examine the business practices of McDonald’s, the content of the food, etc…

 

[JaneGrey]

That would make a good new thread.*** Is there anything holy or natural about McDonald’s?*** If one were to examine the business practices of McDonald’s, the content of the food, etc…

I agree! It would make an interesting thread.

 

[StillWondering]

That would make a good new thread.*** Is there anything holy or natural about McDonald’s?*** If one were to examine the business practices of McDonald’s, the content of the food, etc…

McDonald is like that breast cancer awareness group that supports abortion (I cannot spell the lady’s last name).

McDonald does provide a quick and cheap meal for improvised families particular ones that do not know of other options. I have friends who upon coming to America did not have a home with a kitchen (very tragic the lack of support there are to much of the poor when our nation produce more than enough food for the entire world every year). They ate at McDonald’s for a long time. However, McDonalds harms those same families with the food and while they have charities, would be better for the world if they changed their practices.

The breast cancer awareness groups fund breast cancer research and yet support abortion and “the pill” which both causes a great deal of physical and mental difficulties for woman and *greatly *increase a woman’s chance to get breast cancer.

We, as a whole, are twisted and blind.

 

[Marfran]

We, as a whole, are twisted and blind.

A lot of the ease and convenience in the world comes at a cost. I agree we need to pay attention to what’s going on in our world, and refuse to be a part of, or support cruelty, injustice, harmful practices, chemical additives to our food, etc., etc…