Ethics of Fur

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marfran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
4elise said:
If we do not NEED fur (we have other means to keep warm) - then we are causing animals to die needlessly - and contrary to the teaching of the Catholic church.
Click to expand...
Utilizing that logic, one could readily conclude that to follow Catholic teaching, one must vegan.
 
vz71 said:
Utilizing that logic, one could readily conclude that to follow Catholic teaching, one must vegan.
Click to expand...
:hmmm:

That is in fact the conclusion I’ve come to ---- I do not need fur, neither do I need a steak, ice cream, pork chops - but this OP is about fur, and I have a hard time understanding why anyone ‘needs’ fur?
 
Marfran said:
I bet women would fall all over you if you got one of those little mini pigs as a pet! I guess they’re all the rage in Europe. Take one of those for a walk and women would stop you on the street to ask about the cute little guy!!! What do you feed him??? Does he fetch like a dog??? How often do you have to give him a bath, etc. What a great icebreaker for conversation!!! I meet a lot of people when walking my dog. I imagine that if you were walking a pet pig you’d meet even more fascinated people!!!
Click to expand...
Warning: DRY HUMOR ATTEMPT:

😉 “Does he taste good honey basted?” (only teasing, don’t get offended)
 
vz71 said:
Is there a line being drawn here based on the presence of hair?
Click to expand...
For me the case against fur is the ***‘needless’ ***suffering of animals issue - that goes to the teaching of the Church regarding our role to be the stewards of the animals in creation, - since fur is not needed - then neither is their suffering.

For me the case against leather*** is primarily an environmental issue*** due to the environmental damage in the tanning process - this pertains to our role to protect God’s gift of Creation.
 
vz71 said:
Man has every right to use.

Man has no right to abuse.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I was not clear. I used “use and abuse” conjunctively. I see the use of fur today as mostly the abuse of animals when alternatives are readily available.
 
Marfran said:
Say what, Brother?? Sorry, I guess you didn’t appreciate my comedic reply. A lot of us on these threads appreciate a lighthearted joke now and then, for a break from the serious discussion!! My other brother is a cartoonist, our family does have a sense of humor that often surfaces in the oddest of places! Carry on!!! I think you were discussing leather gloves…
Click to expand...
There was no comedy or humor in your reply. You insult the intelligence of other members when you make such a ridiculous claim. Do you really think people are so stupid to believe that? It was an insult and personal attack plain and simple. It is very sad to see that you treat other people worse than you claim animals should be treated.

You immediate leap to cruelty and insults demonstrates the kind of person you really are. You do not deserve further attention.
 
4elise said:
:hmmm:

That is in fact the conclusion I’ve come to ---- I do not need fur, neither do I need a steak, ice cream, pork chops - but this OP is about fur, and I have a hard time understanding why anyone ‘needs’ fur?
Click to expand...
ascetism.

Wasn’t this written against by the church fathers a few centuries ago?
 
severus68 said:
Sorry if I was not clear. I used “use and abuse” conjunctively. I see the use of fur today as mostly the abuse of animals when alternatives are readily available.
Click to expand...
I can readily see where unnecessary pain and suffering would cause this belief.

But I get the feeling your belief would stand whether or not the animals feel anything at all.

Would I be correct in my assessment that this opinion would be the same no matter what the animal may or may or may not feel?
 
Jesus and John the Baptist wore leather sandals [Corfam not yet invented].

Leather belts.

Ate meat. Lamb. Goat. Fish. Locusts. Honey [mistreatment of the bees!]

Macho guys.

[Don’t know if they actually had “fur” there. Probably too warm for local beaver or mink or ermine or sable. (Doesn’t the Pope wear Ermine?) Maybe some form of rabbit or other rodent. A lot of tropical countries have unique kinds of “rodent”. But a lot of wool and goat hair “products”. Camel hair. Pig skin? ]

[Don’t “Native Americans” wear fur AND leather? From beavers and rabbits and BUFFALO. they would stampede the herds of buffalo off a cliff. A lot safer than getting trampled by a bunch of panic stricken buffalo when hunting them individually. Buffalo robes. Fur?]
 
vz71 said:
I can readily see where unnecessary pain and suffering would cause this belief.

But I get the feeling your belief would stand whether or not the animals feel anything at all.

Would I be correct in my assessment that this opinion would be the same no matter what the animal may or may or may not feel?
Click to expand...
No you would not be correct. I do not believe plants feel pain so use of materials like cotton and hemp is not cruel. If animals do not feel pain and suffering, what wrong would there be even in skinning them alive. But they do feel pain and suffer. My whole reasoning is based on that.
 
fultonfish said:
Jesus and John the Baptist wore leather sandals [Corfam not yet invented].

Leather belts.

Ate meat. Lamb. Goat. Fish. Locusts. Honey [mistreatment of the bees!]

Macho guys.

[Don’t know if they actually had “fur” there. Probably too warm for local beaver or mink or ermine or sable. (Doesn’t the Pope wear Ermine?) Maybe some form of rabbit or other rodent. A lot of tropical countries have unique kinds of “rodent”. But a lot of wool and goat hair “products”. Camel hair. Pig skin? ]

[Don’t “Native Americans” wear fur AND leather? From beavers and rabbits and BUFFALO. they would stampede the herds of buffalo off a cliff. A lot safer than getting trampled by a bunch of panic stricken buffalo when hunting them individually. Buffalo robes. Fur?]
Click to expand...
I looked it up and the pope does wear luxurious ermine fur robes.
 
severus68 said:
No you would not be correct. I do not believe plants feel pain so use of materials like cotton and hemp is not cruel. If animals do not feel pain and suffering, what wrong would there be even in skinning them alive. But they do feel pain and suffer. My whole reasoning is based on that.
Click to expand...
Sinning animals alive is impractical because they squirm around too much.

Besides usually the pelt or skin is a byproduct of meat production. So you stun the animal to stop it from squirming and then you want to bleed it with the heart still going because leaving the blood inside will spoil the meat.

You also want to have the animal calm because an excited animal will result in a mean condition known as PSE. All that adrenalin and other hormones causes the meat to taste funny.

In a lot of Middle Eastern countries, they hold the animal down and cut its throat without first stunning it. But in the United States, we are humane and knock the animal out, with a bolt to the brain or by electric shock.
 
vz71 said:
ascetism.

Wasn’t this written against by the church fathers a few centuries ago?
Click to expand...
While I can not profess to be living an austere lifestyles, I try to live simply and believe that this is in keeping with the teaching of both the church fathers and the saints, and our ultimate role model.

Eliminating the use of animals for clothes or food makes sense to me because of the way animal protein and leather products are produced **today **- not how it was produced 2000 years ago. I live in the US in 2009 and have to live in this place and time and try to reflect my faith with my choices. 🙂
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Warning: DRY HUMOR ATTEMPT:

😉 “Does he taste good honey basted?” (only teasing, don’t get offended)
Click to expand...
Good to see people have a sense of humor here! But this is not DRY humor! It’s kind of STICKY! That little pig as a pet idea is a good one. I’ll have to think about getting one. In my climate it would have to wear a sweater though.
 
4elise said:
Eliminating the use of animals for clothes or food makes sense to me because of the way animal protein and leather products are produced **today **- not how it was produced 2000 years ago. I live in the US in 2009 and have to live in this place and time and try to reflect my faith with my choices. 🙂
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
4elise said:
It is the utmost of vanity to kill something so as to impress others with one’s wealth or status. I can understand that there was a time when people didn’t have options, but really today I can think of NO reason to justify the wearing of fur for fashion.
Click to expand...
So let’s say the fur only cost $5.00… That would eliminate the vanity side of things. Do you still think it is wrong?
 
Tosk said:
I looked it up and the pope does wear luxurious ermine fur robes.
Click to expand...
Yeah but it’s not new. The ermine garments that he wears are from the 1960’s. He did get some flack from an Italian animal group about it. He is an animal lover. There’s some story about some book/biography about Pope Benedict “written by a cat”. Anybody know anything about that? I have to check it out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top