Ethics of Fur

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marfran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Did you read that biased article? One really horrible statistic really jumped out at me. The article talks about** one** fur farm that that feeds its mink 2 million pounds of expired cheese, and 1 million pounds of damaged eggs. So we are wasting all this food, it’s expiring, we’re feeding it to animals, and PEOPLE are starving all around the world, BUT the mink are fed well so that wealthy women can wear fur.

CCC **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.
Fur farms are places that utilize what is considered to be inedible food for humans whidh would otherwise be thrown away. The article says they are being fed expired cheese. Do you know how old cheese has to be before it’s considered expired? They are fed damaged eggs. Do you want people eating damaged eggs which could then have been infected with salmonella? Very charitable of you, I must say!
 
Exactly. Predators kill. We are made in the image of God. God is compassionate, merciful, loving. God is not a predator. Meat and fur are the products of predation. I choose not to emulate the predator animal, the beast, and to rather show him mercy and extend compassion to him, in the role of steward bestowed upon me.
You’re right, God is not a predator. But God is the first furrier (Genesis 3:21) and the One who commanded that man might eat any animal (Genesis 9:3) and the One who commanded that lamb be consumed at the Passover Supper. (Exodus 12: 1-10)
 
***I ***am dodging the issue? You are participating in a thread that you are admittedly not familiar with the topic being discussed. How can you debate a topic when you are not familiar with it??? To have an honest debate, should you not familiarize yourself with the topic?

FYI: Please point out any appeals that I have made to emotion. This is not my style. I try to have serious debates sans emotion. I say this, you counter with that, I present this, you present that, we each utilize supportive evidence, quotes, links etc. We each use logic, philosophy, ethics, religion, to make our cases. I am actually not emotional about this subject, nor specifically try to appeal to others’ emotions to sway an argument, so I find it ironic that you would suggest thus. Please supply the “appeal to emotion” or the emotional response that you refer to.

Based on your ***thorough knowledge ***of the subject?
I have first hand knowledge of what a fur farm entails. Do you? Have you worked on one? How can you claim to have “knowledge” of what happens on a fur farm when you’ve never set foot on one? The article Mary Gail posted is correct. The animals are well cared for and euthanized appropriately. It would be stupid for a farmer not to care for his animals appropriately. You live in Manhattan. Do I tell you how the subway works and which train takes you to which spot? No, because the only “knowledge” I would have of that would be from an outside source, which may have incorrect information.
 
First of all, the website you are posting is not exactly an “objective” site.

Secondly, have you ever been hunting? I have. Not “canned” hunting–I agree with you that is wrong. And so would any real hunter because in a canned hunt, you pay your money and they let an animal that has been raised by human beings and is used to human beings out of a cage so the hunter who paid the money can shoot it. And it doesn’t run away from the hunter, becaue it has learned not to be afraid of human beings, so it is a “sitting duck.”

In real hunting, believe me, there is fair play. According to your theory, the “playing field” was tipped and skewed to the “guy with the artificial power” once human beings started using weapons. However, many times, in real hunting, the hunter can’t even find an animal in the wild, let alone kill it.
How is this different than animals that have been raised by human beings taken out of the cage and ‘gassed’?
 
Re: Ethics of Fur

Quote:
Originally Posted by rpp
I wear leather gloves driving gloves (for a disability) and have deer-skin ski gloves.

Elise wrote: But no fur?

Leather is fur with the hair rubbed off.
I agree.
 
I am an animal lover and have been appalled many times over each time i see videos of animal cruelty. I even refrain from eating meat if i can though i am not a vegetarian.

I do not consciously buy leather products, but recently i have been gifted with a second hand suede coat which i need. I do not come from a country with 4 seasons, but plan to travel and live in one. So this coat is really a ‘blessing’ in a way.

My question is:
Since this coat was given to me, and i do have a need for something to keep me warm without me spending money (which i do not have), would it be ethical to wear it?

At the back of my mind, this animal had already been sacrificed, why ‘waste’ it by throwing it out, or being ungrateful to the giver of the gift.

Any suggestions?
I think you have found the way to value the gift, acknowledge the need and be grateful that you do not have to spend funds that you do not have to meet a legitimate need -

everyone has to weigh issues as they apply to our own understanding - speaking only for myself - under these circumstances I know that I could justify keeping and using the coat. Once I had the funds to find a replacement, perhaps at a second hand store I know that I would replace personally - offer to return the gift so someone else could make use of it - or perhaps donate it.
 
No, you are misrepresenting the teaching of the Catholic Church and the Catechism. The Church does not teach that it is OK to consume animal products “if necessary.” The Church specifically says in #2417, “It is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing.” Period. Nothing said about if it is “necessary” to do so.
However, in #2418, it says, “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.” Needlessly means if you are not using them for food or clothing, or medical care, etc. This teaching of the Catholic Church means that it is not right to abuse an animal.
First, I certainly want to say that I for one appreciate that you were kind enough to share that you were raised where animals were raised for fur, because your position is clearly influenced by that experience. I love the image of the little critters ‘sunning’ themselves.

I. who have an understanding of 2418 as supporting a vegan choice - completely understand the position of individuals like yourself, Catholic ranchers,hunters and others that I have communicated with, who accept 2417 to justify their use of animals.

Needless in my understanding - I do not need meat - fur - leather - therefore if animals suffer or die for my non need that is not in keeping with this teaching
 
I am an animal lover and have been appalled many times over each time i see videos of animal cruelty. I even refrain from eating meat if i can though i am not a vegetarian.

I do not consciously buy leather products, but recently i have been gifted with a second hand suede coat which i need. I do not come from a country with 4 seasons, but plan to travel and live in one. So this coat is really a ‘blessing’ in a way.

My question is:
Since this coat was given to me, and i do have a need for something to keep me warm without me spending money (which i do not have), would it be ethical to wear it?

At the back of my mind, this animal had already been sacrificed, why ‘waste’ it by throwing it out, or being ungrateful to the giver of the gift.

Any suggestions?
I personally do not think you would be wrong to use it especially if finance is an issue Ys, it would be a waste to throw it away but if youare not comfortable wearng it, yu can alwys gift it to someone. Thank you fr having compassion.
 
First of all, the website you are posting is not exactly an “objective” site.

Secondly, have you ever been hunting? I have. Not “canned” hunting–I agree with you that is wrong. And so would any real hunter because in a canned hunt, you pay your money and they let an animal that has been raised by human beings and is used to human beings out of a cage so the hunter who paid the money can shoot it. And it doesn’t run away from the hunter, becaue it has learned not to be afraid of human beings, so it is a “sitting duck.”

In real hunting, believe me, there is fair play. According to your theory, the “playing field” was tipped and skewed to the “guy with the artificial power” once human beings started using weapons. However, many times, in real hunting, the hunter can’t even find an animal in the wild, let alone kill it.
Where is the consent of the prey. An unwlling participant, certainly not fair play.
 
You keep saying we kill them inhumanely. That is not true. Gassing them is not inhumane. Minks are not killed by electrocution.
I have heard that many pounds/ humane socieies have stopped using gas as i was found to take a long me wth some left alive after some time
 
Many European countries are discussing accepting Sharia laws, too. Europe is increasingly being seen as being post-Christian. Is that what you would like to see for America? Just because they “do” something in Europe doesn’t make it right…
Which European country is considring accepting Sharia law please? France for example has banned Muslim girls from covering up in schools. Perhaps you shuld not make such statements about people in other countries, especially if you want to how Christian charity.
 
I have first hand knowledge of what a fur farm entails. Do you? Have you worked on one? How can you claim to have “knowledge” of what happens on a fur farm when you’ve never set foot on one? The article Mary Gail posted is correct. The animals are well cared for and euthanized appropriately. It would be stupid for a farmer not to care for his animals appropriately. You live in Manhattan. Do I tell you how the subway works and which train takes you to which spot? No, because the only “knowledge” I would have of that would be from an outside source, which may have incorrect information.
We may not have visited fur farms but I have watched videos of baby seals beng killed. One was hooked in the face and dragged on to the ship while still alive. For what purpose? To make money and indulge the tastes of some people with money.
 
Where is the consent of the prey. An unwlling participant, certainly not fair play.
An assumption that the animal is capable of that higher reasoning.
They are not, therefore the question would be moot.

My mother used to play an interesting game with the dog.
She would ask it if it wanted its throat cut.
The more descriptive of the mortal wounds, the more excited the dog would become.
We would be describing a hefty cut going ear to ear an eventually severing the head, and the dog would jump up and down, bark, wag its tail, etc. in excitement.

Is it capable of reasoning that it may or may not want its throat cut?
NO. It is simply reacting to our voice.

Are there any more human traits you apply to animals?
Just asking so a proper response can be drawn up.
 
We may not have visited fur farms but I have watched videos of baby seals beng killed. One was hooked in the face and dragged on to the ship while still alive. For what purpose? To make money and indulge the tastes of some people with money.
So you concede that fur farms are fine?

Else you shouldn’t be trying to change the subject like that.
People on an illegal baby seal hunt are an entirely different thing from people raising animals as a commodity.
 
ok I apologize because I didn’t read all of this thread, it’s a longy!

I come from the beef industry point of view and I believe animals that are bred and raised for a purpose, whatever that may be, and then used for that purpose to be fine. these animals for fur are not malnourished and mistreated. if they were, their coats would not be as nice and thus, less valuable. so honestly, what difference does it make (to the “emotional” animal :rolleyes: ) if it is killed for meat or for it’s hide? I’m thinking it’s a bad day for fluffy either way, but it comes down to business. harvesting a fur to make an honest living and support your family is not “cruel” in my eyes.

that said, nice horned longhorns are bred and raised for their head and hide, not just meat. yes, the meat is good, lean and always used, but if they were breeding solely for meat, the breeder would probably use an angus or hereford… and those nice even huge sets of horns are worth a pretty penny!

Trophy bucks are not shot for their tough old meat. you ever eat one? :eek: but it’s all part of population control and yes, sport. my family hunts and I don’t feel guilty or sinful over it. we have a freezer full of deer meat that everyone including the dogs and chickens benefit from, as well as some cool racks on the wall. and not a single animal on our farm is mistreated or abused. and I don’t feel guilty when the time comes to butcher them. that’s what I have raised them for.

the whole “animal rights” movement, IMHO has gona a bit overboard. I would never advocate mistreatment of an animal, but using one for it’s intended purpose seems fine to me.

ok I’m gonna go brace myself now for the stoning I’m about to get… :o
 
The life of a captive “fur” animal is NOT all about suffering. They are very well cared for with adequate food, shelter, water, etc. They are solitary animals in the wild, only coming together to breed and the female raises her young by herself.
Since you do have first hand experience, wouldn’t the mistreatment of the minks cause an inferior product, and an economic loss? To me it doesn’t seem logical that mink farmers would treat their animals cruelly.

My Dad farmed. Some of the sheep in the farm were destined for dinner. He didn’t mistreat them prior.
 
ok I apologize because I didn’t read all of this thread, it’s a longy!

I come from the beef industry point of view and I believe animals that are bred and raised for a purpose, whatever that may be, and then used for that purpose to be fine. these animals for fur are not malnourished and mistreated. if they were, their coats would not be as nice and thus, less valuable. so honestly, what difference does it make (to the “emotional” animal :rolleyes: ) if it is killed for meat or for it’s hide? I’m thinking it’s a bad day for fluffy either way, but it comes down to business. harvesting a fur to make an honest living and support your family is not “cruel” in my eyes.

that said, nice horned longhorns are bred and raised for their head and hide, not just meat. yes, the meat is good, lean and always used, but if they were breeding solely for meat, the breeder would probably use an angus or hereford… and those nice even huge sets of horns are worth a pretty penny!

Trophy bucks are not shot for their tough old meat. you ever eat one? :eek: but it’s all part of population control and yes, sport. my family hunts and I don’t feel guilty or sinful over it. we have a freezer full of deer meat that everyone including the dogs and chickens benefit from, as well as some cool racks on the wall. and not a single animal on our farm is mistreated or abused. and I don’t feel guilty when the time comes to butcher them. that’s what I have raised them for.

the whole “animal rights” movement, IMHO has gona a bit overboard. I would never advocate mistreatment of an animal, but using one for it’s intended purpose seems fine to me.

ok I’m gonna go brace myself now for the stoning I’m about to get… :o
I was curious on what the horns were used for?
 
An assumption that the animal is capable of that higher reasoning.
They are not, therefore the question would be moot.

My mother used to play an interesting game with the dog.
She would ask it if it wanted its throat cut.
The more descriptive of the mortal wounds, the more excited the dog would become.
We would be describing a hefty cut going ear to ear an eventually severing the head, and the dog would jump up and down, bark, wag its tail, etc. in excitement.

Is it capable of reasoning that it may or may not want its throat cut?
NO. It is simply reacting to our voice.

Are there any more human traits you apply to animals?
Just asking so a proper response can be drawn up.
What a sad game.
This same game could be applied between two people who spoke different languages?

From what I’ve observed with our pets it is the tone of voice, our facial reactions, body movements that they ‘read’ - not being able to understand language - their ‘language’ interaction with humans requires observation of behavior and tone.

This is not to anthropromorphize - but rather an understanding that these animals show care and respond to the humans that they live with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top