Ethics of Fur

[PeterMuz]

Athansor was speaking about God’s plan, a poerfect world with no violence, no eating of flesh. Eden was vegn, to quoth. Please read Isaiah too on whatis to be.

There would be no problem going nude in His world, God made our bodies. Shame only came in wih sin, our sin. So did violence.

I understand. You should read Genisis 4:2-5, below.

So lets say that someone kills a cow. If you had to pick between eating the meat or letting the cow decompose, what would you do? You know as Catholics, we are supposed to be good stewards and not waste things.

2Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

3So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground.

4Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering;

5but (E)for Cain and for his offering He had no regard

 

[Marfran]

You are giving animals the right to life.

No, I think that honor belongs to God.

Don’t you think all you animal rights folks should focus on pro-life causes for people first. Its very disturbing to me that some/most animals rights people I’ve ever met spend more time fight for the right to life for a dog or a cow than for people.

All the Catholic animal rights folks that I know, focus on** all** inequity, injustice, and wrong that they find in the world, and try to do their part to make a difference in **all **that they do.

Interestingly, it has been my observation that people who feel that animals are ours to be used as commodities, with disregard for their suffering, pain, or well-being, will often use the ***abortion card ***to try to end a discussion on the subject of animal mistreatment. In fact, I have noticed that when posters have trouble in ***any ***discussion, on ***any ***thread, about ***any subject ***they often play the ***abortion card *** as a distraction from the fact that they are not skilled enough to debate the given topic.

Abortion is a well deserving topic for our attention. I believe that there are numerous threads here, where one can join a discussion.

I also belong to a group called Pro-Life Vegans. As many Catholics are turning to vegetarian and veganism (for ethical and health reasons) it is so wonderful to have such a group! We also have a group here at CAF called Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans.

BTW: The topic at hand is:

**Is it ethical for modern, civilized man to raise and kill animals for their fur?

Something like 85% of the fur industry’s skins come from animals living captive in fur factory farms–is this ethical???

Any compelling reasons/moral imperatives to cease procuring animal fur, specifically by these methods?**

 

[severus68]

I understand. You should read Genisis 4:2-5, below.

So lets say that someone kills a cow. If you had to pick between eating the meat or letting the cow decompose, what would you do? You know as Catholics, we are supposed to be good stewards and not waste things.

That came after the fall of Man. I would not have been the one to have killed the cow so why would I have to eat it. I do not believe being good stewards means we are obliged to eat meat. Today, it may well mean the converse although I can understand why it would be difficult for many not to eat meat, having eaten it all their lives. I would be physically sick if I tried to eat meat now, the body adjusts.

 

[vz71]

Interestingly, it has been my observation that people who feel that animals are ours to be used as commodities, with disregard for their suffering, pain, or well-being, will often use the ***abortion card ***to try to end a discussion on the subject of animal mistreatment.

Someone here isn’t paying attention.

I have yet to throw the abortion card into the fray.

 

[severus68]

I think quote from the Catechism posted by your other vegan friend here is great.
You are giving animals the right to life. Don’t you think all you animal rights folks should focus on pro-life causes for people first. Its very disturbing to me that some/most animals rights people I’ve ever met spend more time fight for the right to life for a dog or a cow than for people.

I must agree with Marfran that God gave animals life. When he did He said it was good. God loves what he created.

It is doing God’s will when we try to alleviate suffering , whether of humans or animals.One is not exclusive of the other. Maybe it is my call to help animals, it does not mean I do no not or will not help people. I am pro all lfe as I know are those vegans and vegetarians on this thread. Abortion is not however,the issue n this thread.

 

[vz71]

BTW: The topic at hand is:

**Is it ethical for modern, civilized man to raise and kill animals for their fur? **

Something like 85% of the fur industry’s skins come from animals living captive in fur factory farms–is this ethical???

Any compelling reasons/moral imperatives to cease procuring animal fur, specifically by these methods?

I guess it is eventually going to boil down to the word ‘needless’
What exactly is a needless kill of an animal?

Is my want satisfactory to answer to the definition of needless, or do I need to be starving?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I guess it is eventually going to boil down to the word ‘needless’
What exactly is a needless kill of an animal?

Is my want satisfactory to answer to the definition of needless, or do I need to be starving?

OK, I was thinking similarly…perhaps we should go to the original Latin.

2418 Humanae dignitati est contrarium animalibus inutiliter dolores inferre et eorum dilapidare vitas. Indignum pariter est pro illis pecuniae expendere summas quae potius hominum miserias deberent sublevare. Animalia amare licet; affectio solis personis debita ad ea averti non deberet.

I believe the Latin, “Inutiliter” is closer to “useless”. The Italian inutile, means useless. I am not a Latin scholar, I did take Latin in highschool. Any Latin scholars out there?

vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p3s2c2a7_lt.htm#ARTICULUS 7* SEPTIMUM PRAECEPTUM

 

[athansor]

I think quote from the Catechism posted by your other vegan friend here is great.
You are giving animals the right to life. Don’t you think all you animal rights folks should focus on pro-life causes for people first. Its very disturbing to me that some/most animals rights people I’ve ever met spend more time fight for the right to life for a dog or a cow than for people.

How does not eating meat take time away from pro-life causes?

 

[athansor]

I guess it is eventually going to boil down to the word ‘needless’
What exactly is a needless kill of an animal?

Is my want satisfactory to answer to the definition of needless, or do I need to be starving?

Do you need to eat meat? If so, then your killing an animal for meat, or paying someone to do it for you, wouldn’t be needless. If you don’t need to eat meat, then killing an animal for meat or paying someone to do it for you is needless.

I don’t think starvation enters into it, unless for instance, you are stranded in the wilderness and its either trap a rabbit or starve.
If you’re hungry, then there are lots of things you could eat to satisfy your need. On a global scale, cows are inefficient, in that you could feed a lot of people on the corn fed to a cow.

 

[4elise]

Nope.

I don’t agree with the definition of animal rights put forth by Marfran.

Marfran wrote: “run if they have legs, fly if they have wings, and swim if they have fins”

Your replied “*So then if they can do these things until we eat them, we’re respecting their rights.” *

My question to you - with a link to information - “CAFO animals are confined at least 45 days or more per year in an area without vegetation.”

In their confinement they do not have freedom of movement — so per your comment above - **since they can not do these things ‘until you eat them’ ** - there is no respect.

 

[4elise]

I guess it is eventually going to boil down to the word ‘needless’
What exactly is a needless kill of an animal?

Is my want satisfactory to answer to the definition of needless, or do I need to be starving?

What does ‘needless’ mean? : **not needed **: **unnecessary **

(This reminds me of something I heard somewhere 'Depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is")

I do believe we all know what needless means -

We who have other ways to keep warm do not NEED fur. Therefore killing animals for fur is needless and not in keeping with the teaching of the Catechism

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

 

[4elise]

How does not eating meat take time away from pro-life causes?

 

[PeterMuz]

No, I think that honor belongs to God.

All the Catholic animal rights folks that I know, focus on** all** inequity, injustice, and wrong that they find in the world, and try to do their part to make a difference in **all **that they do.

Interestingly, it has been my observation that people who feel that animals are ours to be used as commodities, with disregard for their suffering, pain, or well-being, will often use the ***abortion card ***to try to end a discussion on the subject of animal mistreatment. In fact, I have noticed that when posters have trouble in ***any ***discussion, on ***any ***thread, about ***any subject ***they often play the ***abortion card *** as a distraction from the fact that they are not skilled enough to debate the given topic.

Abortion is a well deserving topic for our attention. I believe that there are numerous threads here, where one can join a discussion.

I also belong to a group called Pro-Life Vegans. As many Catholics are turning to vegetarian and veganism (for ethical and health reasons) it is so wonderful to have such a group! We also have a group here at CAF called Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans.

BTW: The topic at hand is:

**Is it ethical for modern, civilized man to raise and kill animals for their fur?

Something like 85% of the fur industry’s skins come from animals living captive in fur factory farms–is this ethical???

Any compelling reasons/moral imperatives to cease procuring animal fur, specifically by these methods?**

I did not play the abortion card as a distraction. I believe it was YOU that asked me a question about what I meant by animal rights. You did the typical liberal response where you get upset and insult the a person when they use your own logic/reasoning against you.

Let me help you remember. I used the quote that you or one of you vegan friends used to make an argument. I responded to your question about animal rights. You got bent out of shape.

I think it bothers you that the Catechism says that you should not spend money on animals when they can use that money to go to relief of human misery.

 

[PeterMuz]

What does ‘needless’ mean? : **not needed **: **unnecessary **

(This reminds me of something I heard somewhere 'Depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is")

I do believe we all know what needless means -

We who have other ways to keep warm do not NEED fur. Therefore killing animals for fur is needless and not in keeping with the teaching of the Catechism

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

Its not “needlessly” if its for food.

 

[PeterMuz]

That came after the fall of Man. I would not have been the one to have killed the cow so why would I have to eat it. I do not believe being good stewards means we are obliged to eat meat. Today, it may well mean the converse although I can understand why it would be difficult for many not to eat meat, having eaten it all their lives. I would be physically sick if I tried to eat meat now, the body adjusts.

The being a good steward means not letting the food go to waste,no matter what it is. I don’t throw away food. My parents taught me when I was little to only put food on my plate if I was going to eat it.

 

[PeterMuz]

How does not eating meat take time away from pro-life causes?

It doesn’t. If you read what I wrote, I was talking about people spending more time arguing for animal rights than human right/right to life.

“some/most animals rights people I’ve ever met spend more time fight for the right to life for a dog or a cow than for people”

 

[Brendan]

Actually *you *should study up on St. Thomas Aquinas. He definitely had his good qualities and insight, but some of his thoughts which have influenced the Catholic Church, are not even Christian and do not even have a Biblical basis.

That is an interesting accusation about the Angelic Doctor. What ‘non Christian’ thoughts are you refering to exactly?

St. Thomas had a utilitarian view of animals based on the views of Aristotle. …

Yes, and? St. Thomas was certainly influenced by Aristotle, but St. Thomas differed from Aristotle whenever Aristotle was contrary to the Catholic Faith.

You will notice that the Church is now recognizing and incorporating more of St. Francis and his thinking, his approach to stewardship of the earth and animals, into the Catechism, etc.

I am also familair with the writing of St. Francis. Which teachings of St. Francis in specfic do you find contrary to St. Thomas Aquinas?

 

[vz71]

Do you need to eat meat? If so, then your killing an animal for meat, or paying someone to do it for you, wouldn’t be needless.

We who have other ways to keep warm do not NEED fur. Therefore killing animals for fur is needless …

I submit that neither of you have looked at the question in any of the detail that you should for such a judgement. You both make claims concerning legitimate need that are way too simplistic. Particularly when placed in light of what precisely animals are.

Anything beyond basic survival is a direct betrayal of what you both define.

I doubt that is what either of you mean, so I suggest a little more thought be applied.

 

[athansor]

I submit that neither of you have looked at the question in any of the detail that you should for such a judgement. You both make claims concerning legitimate need that are way too simplistic. Particularly when placed in light of what precisely animals are.

Anything beyond basic survival is a direct betrayal of what you both define.

I doubt that is what either of you mean, so I suggest a little more thought be applied.

I don’t follow you here. What is a legitimate need to eat meat, one that can not be met by eating plants? The only judgment I am making is one with regards to my lifestyle. I have no needs that cannot be met without animal products. So, therefore I don’t eat them.

As for the pets thing asked about upthread, I guess the point is that no Catholic should own a pet because the money spent on pet food is money that could be spent on the poor. Ok, that would be a reasonable assumption, we should all think about what we spend our money on and try to find more to share with the poor or on other worthwhile causes. One could say that the money spent on a pet is different from say, donating to an animal rights cause, though, since one gets something in return from having a pet.
I don’t see how if someone is vegan or vegetarian, though, it makes them somehow hypocritical to have a pet.

 

[4elise]

I think it bothers you that the Catechism says that you should not spend money on animals when they can use that money to go to relief of human misery.

Hi Peter - I know I struggle with this part of the Catechism - we have a black lab that was going to be put down at a shelter - she is 9 now - and she recently had an ear infection - it is very hard for me not to spend the money to make her well - although I rejected an option for a ‘full diagnostic adult dog’ testing - she is such a sweet dog, but I think it is the balance on this issue - not wanting her to suffer and not spending ‘too’ much money