Ethics of Fur

[4elise]

Its not “needlessly” if its for food.

This thread is on fur, and that is what I was referring to in this response.

 

[Newbie2]

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.

1. You didn’t ask a question. What is your question?
2. I don’t agree with Marfran’s definition of “animal rights”.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

(Raising hand timidly) did anyone get to see my previous post?

I am not sure what CAFO means (sorry) but when my Dad owned cows (before he immigrated to the US) part of the winter they would be in indoor stalls. The reason being it was cold outside, and the grass was covered with snow. They would eat other feed at that time. 45 days is a month and 15 days.

 

[Marfran]

“Animals should have the right to run if they have legs, fly if they have wings, and swim if they have fins”

I don’t agree with Marfran’s definition of “animal rights”.

I will add that we ***do not ***have to extend to them the right to vote, drive cars, drink alcohol etc.

And I think they have the right to keep their own fur–it looks better on them anyway–don’t you think?

 

[Newbie2]

“Animals should have the right to run if they have legs, fly if they have wings, and swim if they have fins”

I will add that we ***do not ***have to extend to them the right to vote, drive cars, drink alcohol etc.

And I think they have the right to keep their own fur–it looks better on them anyway–don’t you think?

I still disagree with your definition.

 

[Marfran]

(Raising hand timidly) did anyone get to see my previous post?

I am not sure what CAFO means (sorry) but when my Dad owned cows (before he immigrated to the US) part of the winter they would be in indoor stalls. The reason being it was cold outside, and the grass was covered with snow. They would eat other feed at that time. 45 days is a month and 15 days.

LOL You don’t have to be timid here!!! Just shout it out!!!

Which post??? 225??? The one about* needless *vs. useless???

CAFO is Concentrared Animal Farming Operation. Animals are confined indoors in concentrated spaces. In the case of chickens, they are kept in **total darkness **24 hours a day, their entire life, until transport to slaughter. They do not even experience grass beneath their feet–ever.

 

[PeterMuz]

This thread is on fur, and that is what I was referring to in this response.

I understand. But sometimes in a conversation issues come up and people address them. Sometimes the focus changes. I should remind you though that the main topic, or driving force behind the original question, has not changed. This is still all the same ethical question.

Also you will see the quote below from early in the conversation where you said it is the same to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterMuz
So what about leather? Or eating a nice steak?

To me this is the same, I don’t wear leather, I don’t eat steak.

 

[PeterMuz]

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

He I don’t have a problem with people owning pets or spending money on them. I was simply trying to point out some hypocrisy.

One of your vegan friends used that quote to say you should not eat meat. I was just getting at the fact that, IF you are going to use it that way, then you should not spend money on pets. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[4elise]

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”

I believe that may be assumptive of those on this thread / here at CAF.

 

[4elise]

1. You didn’t ask a question. What is your question?
2. I don’t agree with Marfran’s definition of “animal rights”.

Marfran said: “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 - given this exchange that given your comment it seems then that you would agree that there should be an end to factory farms since they can not ‘do these things until you eat them’ :
michigan.sierraclub.org/issue…dustrial-sized

 

[4elise]

I understand. But sometimes in a conversation issues come up and people address them. Sometimes the focus changes. I should remind you though that the main topic, or driving force behind the original question, has not changed. This is still all the same ethical question.

Also you will see the quote below from early in the conversation where you said it is the same to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterMuz
So what about leather? Or eating a nice steak?

You are right - I make this connection - but the post you had issue with was very specifically addressing the issue of the OP

 

[4elise]

He I don’t have a problem with people owning pets or spending money on them. I was simply trying to point out some hypocrisy.

One of your vegan friends used that quote to say you should not eat meat. I was just getting at the fact that, IF you are going to use it that way, then you should not spend money on pets. You can’t have it both ways.

I think most vegetarians/vegans readily admit that it is impossible to be 100% animal cruelty free - you may see this as hypocrisy but earlier someone did a much better job than I clarifying this issue on intentionality.

Not having fur, or leather, or eating beef, pork, poultry, dairy, eggs, since I don’t need them makes sense to me in light of the teaching of the Church. Keeping balance on how I care for a pet requires that I weigh my intention to care for part of God’s creation, vs the issue of resources. There are vegans who do not believe anyone should have a pet - and that position is actually more consistent - I’m not there yet - I enjoy the companionship of pets around the house.

 

[PeterMuz]

You are right - I make this connection - but the post you had issue with was very specifically addressing the issue of the OP

Ha.
OP, means original post, right?

Hey I think to spend a bunch of money on a fur coat is stupid. Its something I would never do. I don’t see why people like them so much. I think its a waste of money, personally. If there is a moral problem I have with it, I would say that the money used to purchase it could have been spent on a number of much better things.

My first post was in response was a question about your first statement about vanity. From there I asked about leather and food. And thus the conversation evolved. Evolved…evolution… maybe we should start a new thread and talk about evolution. I am getting rather tired of this and clearly no body is changing their minds on this.

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.

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?

 

[Marfran]

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?

??? St. Francis loved animals. He called the animals and birds his brothers and sisters. That’s 180 degrees away from St.Thomas’ attitude that animals are here for us to do whatever we want with, because we have the power of reasoning, and they don’t (those thoughts come from Aristotle, not the Bible.)

 

[Brendan]

??? St. Francis loved animals. He called the animals and birds his brothers and sisters. That’s 180 degrees away from St.Thomas’ attitude that animals are here for us to do whatever we want with, because we have the power of reasoning, and they don’t (those thoughts come from Aristotle, not the Bible.)

St. Francis also ate lamb with the Sultan of Egypt, he even complemented him on the dish.

And St. Thomas never said that we could do anything we wanted with them, only that the animals were created for our needs. Which includes food, clothing and even companionship.

And yes, the concept that animals cannot reason IS from the Bible. It comes from the very fact that we alone were created in the Image of God. God IS knowledge.
Being created in the Image of God does NOT mean we physically look like Him. Rather, it means that we, and we alone, may Reason, Love, be Angry and have all the powers of a Rational soul. Animal may not do this. They may experience passions, such as attraction, or dislike, but they may not Reason. They cannot arrive at the logical conclusion they they EXIST (another aspect of God, He is Existance). Animals cannot do that, they concept of metaphysics is foreign to their natures.

Also, as I mentioned, if animals have reason, then they too are Moral actors, thus in need of Baptism and the forgiveness of their sins. Where exactly do you find such a command in the Bible?

BTW, St. Francis also called the Sun and Moon his brother and sister as well, that doesn’t mean that he accorded them the same rights as humans created in the Image of God.

 

[athansor]

He I don’t have a problem with people owning pets or spending money on them. I was simply trying to point out some hypocrisy.

One of your vegan friends used that quote to say you should not eat meat. I was just getting at the fact that, IF you are going to use it that way, then you should not spend money on pets. You can’t have it both ways.

I still don’t see the hypocrisy. The quote says that you probably shouldn’t give money to animal causes at the expense of the poor. So, if you have, say $100 to spend on charitable causes, you probably shouldn’t send it to PETA instead of Food for the Poor.

So, two questions…is paying for pet food the same thing as donating to animal causes? And, can we donate money to any cause that doesn’t directly feed the poor or work to end abortion? In other words, is it improper to donate to an arts foundation? Or give money to buy new little league uniforms? How does one not eating meat make them more hypocritical when it comes to owning pets, if by your interpretation, no Catholic should own a pet?

 

[severus68]

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.

I do not put on my plate what I will not eat. You asked about someone killing a cow.

 

[4elise]

(Raising hand timidly) did anyone get to see my previous post?

I am not sure what CAFO means (sorry) but when my Dad owned cows (before he immigrated to the US) part of the winter they would be in indoor stalls. The reason being it was cold outside, and the grass was covered with snow. They would eat other feed at that time. 45 days is a month and 15 days.

CAFO - confined animal feeding operation / AKA factory farm

 

[Newbie2]

Marfran said: “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 - given this exchange that given your comment it seems then that you would agree that there should be an end to factory farms since they can not ‘do these things until you eat them’ :
michigan.sierraclub.org/issue…dustrial-sized

You still didn’t ask a question. You gave a statement. I’d be happy to answer any question you’d like.

 

[Marfran]

St. Francis also called the Sun and Moon his brother and sister as well, that doesn’t mean that he accorded them the same rights as humans created in the Image of God.

St. Francis called the Sun, Moon, animals and birds his brothers and sisters, because he recognized the connection that ALL creation has to God. I have no idea what your usage of the term “same rights” means here. All creation has the “right” to live as God intended them to. If God created an animal to fly, then it should fly. If God created an animal to run then it should run, etc. And being created in the image of God, is ***exactly ***why we should care about, and be kind to animals and not abusive.

Only we humans are capable of compassion, love, and mercy, because we are made in the image of God.

Humans, created in the image of God should be selfish, materialistic, gluttonous, vain, hedonistic and cruel??? Or humans created in the image of God should be loving, compassionate, merciful and peace-loving? Being made in the image of God is exactly why we should extend our compassion and mercy to those beneath us, just as Christ suffered & died for us, just as he cared about us, who are beneath and inferior to him.

Being made in the image of God is exactly what theologians Andrew Linzey and Deborah Jones give us as the reason to be kind and merciful to our lesser brothers and sisters (St. Francis term).

P.S. Without the Sun there is no life here on Earth. We ARE all connected.