Ethics of Fur

[mmsiciliana]

The point is that is not a need but a desire so causing sufferng for a needless desire is causing uneccessary suffering.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “It is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing.” Period. It doesn’t say “It is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing unless there are non-animal options.” Therefore, raising fur animals and wearing fur is moral.

 

[mmsiciliana]

We are discussing the actions of “superior” human beings madein the image of God. Tthis thead is about te Ethics of Fur.

Then don’t bring up hunting and make comments such as “the prey hasn’t consented” which is a ridiculous statement.

BTW, I noticed that you put “superior” in quotation marks, as if you are trying to sound ironic. Do you believe human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and animals are not?

 

[mmsiciliana]

What about people who work in cigarette manufacture?? Should we continue to manufacture cigarettes so that people don’t lose jobs? What about the manufacture of an antiquated product?? People have to find work elsewhere. Technology is always changing, industries are always changing–when one door closes another opens. Arguing to continue a cruel industry for a luxury product because there are jobs there, is not good enough reason to let it continue.

Apparently the rules are different for you. It’s OK for you to sidetrack on the issue and bring up another point, but whenever someone who disagrees with you does so, you immediately cry out, “The issue is fur and the ethics of fur!” So, play by your rules and stick to the topic.

 

[mmsiciliana]

why? why phase something out purposfully just because some people see it as wrong?
we all know how well it’s working on the abortion debate!

There’s a huge difference between raising animals for fur and the abortion issue. As the Catechism says, “It is LEGITIMATE to USE animals for FOOD AND CLOTHING.” It also says, “DIRECT ABORTION…is gravely contrary to the moral law.”

 

[4elise]

You’re right–it is completely impossible to be 100% vegan and you have made the choices that you believe are appropriate for you. Please allow us the same latitude and admit that using animals for meat or fur is moral, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, therefore, it is ethical (a word I hate, by the way, because it seems to me to be a way of “teaching” morality without using any morals…).

Please understand that I never have said otherwise - in fact I try to repeatedly acknowledge that good Catholics come to different conclusions on this topic -

I can not however say that I believe it is in keeping with Catholic teaching because - simply it is not necessary - fur is a luxury item in all applications that I am familiar with and therefore **I **could never justify owning one and also feel that I can freely express my opinion about this here - of course you have a unique relationship to this topic having raised animals for fur - it is the way your family provided for itself - so of course you see this differently —

I am also sure that the animals you raised were indeed, as you described raised in a humane way - sadly much fur comes from China where there are issues of gross human rights abuse - so animals are certainly not granted any kind of treatment that could remotely be called humane - hsus.org/hsi/confronting_cruelty/fur/dying_for_fur_recent_investigation_shows_cruelty_at_chinese_fur_farms.html

Peace

 

[mmsiciliana]

Please understand that I never have said otherwise - in fact I try to repeatedly acknowledge that good Catholics come to different conclusions on this topic -

I can not however say that I believe it is in keeping with Catholic teaching because - simply it is not necessary - fur is a luxury item in all applications that I am familiar with and therefore **I **could never justify owning one and also feel that I can freely express my opinion about this here - of course you have a unique relationship to this topic having raised animals for fur - it is the way your family provided for itself - so of course you see this differently —

I am also sure that the animals you raised were indeed, as you described raised in a humane way - sadly much fur comes from China where there are issues of gross human rights abuse - so animals are certainly not granted any kind of treatment that could remotely be called humane - hsus.org/hsi/confronting_cruelty/fur/dying_for_fur_recent_investigation_shows_cruelty_at_chinese_fur_farms.html

Peace

Thank you 4Elise. We will have to agree to disagree, and I do not have an argument with you because you haven’t been stating that animals raised on fur farms are treated horribly and are inhumanely euthanized. I also would have a problem with fur that came from China, but then, I also have a problem with almost EVERYTHING that comes from China. Peace be with you, as well.

 

[severus68]

Then don’t bring up hunting and make comments such as “the prey hasn’t consented” which is a ridiculous statement.

BTW, I noticed that you put “superior” in quotation marks, as if you are trying to sound ironic. Do you believe human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and animals are not?

Please don’t be ridiculous and read what I responded to. If you are sure you are right, why so much anger shown by your responses?

 

[severus68]

Why would anyone need to “phase out”? The Church teaches it is not immoral to use animals for food or clothing. Period. Whaling was restricted because the whales were endangered, not because it is morally wrong to hunt whales. Fur farmed animals are not endangered.

I was talking about options for other jobs and giving an example. I was not tering a debate on whaling.

 

[severus68]

Then don’t bring up hunting and make comments such as “the prey hasn’t consented” which is a ridiculous statement.

BTW, I noticed that you put “superior” in quotation marks, as if you are trying to sound ironic. Do you believe human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and animals are not?

You noticed. I put the word superior in quotation marks as human beings like to o on about how they have dominion over everythin else, that they are better and superior than animals bu human bings are the deadlest predator in this word and we have made a mess of the environment and everything Since we were made in the image of God, then should we not have more responsibility for God’s creation and have compassion?

 

[severus68]

Marfran;5878444:

What about people who work in cigarette manufacture?? Should we continue to manufacture cigarettes so that people don’t lose jobs? What about the manufacture of an antiquated product?? People have to find work elsewhere. Technology is always changing, industries are always changing–when one door closes another opens. Arguing to continue a cruel industry for a luxury product because there are jobs there, is not good enough reason to let it continue.

Apparently the rules are different for you. It’s OK for you to sidetrack on the issue and bring up another point, but whenever someone who disagrees with you does so, you immediately cry out, “The issue is fur and the ethics of fur!” So, play by your rules and stick to the topic.

Marfra was maing an analogy.

 

[JaneGrey]

I dont get why people get so emotional about their precious fur coats. You dont need them, it doesnt matter if you want them, our wants are meaningless. All sentient beings have the right to not suffer needlessly. Few people need fur, therefore fur farming is needless suffering. That is all there is to it.
This is not about judging people who eat meat or dont personally care for animals etc. Fur is vile. It smells. Even if one has no compassion for animals, at leat pity your fellow humans and not burden them with that-or at least dont offend the majority of people in society who (at least openly) find it replusive.

 

[severus68]

I dont get why people get so emotional about their precious fur coats. You dont need them, it doesnt matter if you want them, our wants are meaningless. All sentient beings have the right to not suffer needlessly. Few people need fur, therefore fur farming is needless suffering. That is all there is to it.
This is not about judging people who eat meat or dont personally care for animals etc. Fur is vile. It smells. Even if one has no compassion for animals, at leat pity your fellow humans and not burden them with that-or at least dont offend the majority of people in society who (at least openly) find it replusive.

A very good way of looking at it.

 

[4elise]

Thank you 4Elise. We will have to agree to disagree, and I do not have an argument with you because you haven’t been stating that animals raised on fur farms are treated horribly and are inhumanely euthanized. I also would have a problem with fur that came from China, but then, I also have a problem with almost EVERYTHING that comes from China. Peace be with you, as well.

I certainly always try to communicate respectfully… but yes we do disagree.
This issue continues to go to “need” for me - and I still do not understand how the need can be justified for fur raised here or in China

 

[vz71]

I dont get why people get so emotional about their precious fur coats. You dont need them, it doesnt matter if you want them, our wants are meaningless.

You do not have the knowledge necessary to make that assessment.
You actually have no idea what the needs or wants of the others here are.

Perhaps that is the crux of the matter. There are a number of judgements going on concerning needs that are completely without basis in reality.
There has been plenty of agreement concerning the needless suffering being wrong, and indeed the CCC as well backs this up.

But it appears that people are not content with what the CCC says, and wish to define for others what exactly my needs and wants are.
That is not your right, it is mine.
It is not the place of anyone else to tell me what I need. That is an authority left to God and his Church.

I hear many vegans speak indignantly that they ‘are not judging other’ yet they fail to see that is precisely what they are doing. As soon as they try to tell others they do not ‘need’ something, they are guilty of telling others what to do.
As soon as they utilize the CCC to justify their own personal choices, they by default place the actions of others that do not act as they do outside of the CCC.
And YES, that is in fact telling others that they are sinning, that is in fact a judgement upon others. And yes, that causes arguments.

 

[mmsiciliana]

You noticed. I put the word superior in quotation marks as human beings like to o on about how they have dominion over everythin else, that they are better and superior than animals bu human bings are the deadlest predator in this word and we have made a mess of the environment and everything Since we were made in the image of God, then should we not have more responsibility for God’s creation and have compassion?

This is a good example of why this discussion or debate is so frustrating to me. You use the Bible to say we are made in the image and likeness of God, but you reject the part of the Bible that says “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.” Genesis 1:28 Jesus ate meat. He cooked fish for the apostles and ate some in front of them. You cannot take the parts of the Bible you like and quote them, and then discard the parts you don’t like–that makes you a Protestant.

Others have done the same thing with the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states, “It is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing.” Yes, further on, it says “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.” But in order to utilize animals for food and clothing, sometimes animals have to die. The Catechism does not say that it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing only if you don’t kill them. So, again, you cannot take the parts you like out of the catechism and discard the parts you don’t like.

 

[mmsiciliana]

I dont get why people get so emotional about their precious fur coats. You dont need them, it doesnt matter if you want them, our wants are meaningless. All sentient beings have the right to not suffer needlessly. Few people need fur, therefore fur farming is needless suffering. That is all there is to it.
This is not about judging people who eat meat or dont personally care for animals etc. Fur is vile. It smells. Even if one has no compassion for animals, at leat pity your fellow humans and not burden them with that-or at least dont offend the majority of people in society who (at least openly) find it replusive.

The “majority of people in society” “find it repulsive”? Where do you get that idea? As I said, I have an old muskrat coat that I love. I’ve never had anyone say anything negative to me about wearing it, and the looks I get when I’m wearing it are anything but negative.

 

[Marfran]

Marfran, we put a male and a female in the same cage. Sometimes they breed. Sometimes they don’t. We don’t practice artifical insemination and the animal is never forcibly bred, so, you see, it really is their choice whether to breed or not.

I think that the operative word here is CAGE. How natural is a cage???

Also, Fur is not just beautiful, it’s warm. Much warmer than any “faux” fur, or cotton, or hemp.

Fur is beautiful–on the living animal it grows on. Humans adorning themselves with dead animals as a fashion statement, or as testament to their “wealth” is something entirely of a different color.

 

[Marfran]

Sorry if I missed the point - you said:
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.”

What I was asking and trying to understand was why you see there is a difference between a canned hunt - which you acknowledge as wrong - animal raised to be killed by someone who pays to do so - and raising animals for furs that someone pays for??

The animals raised for fur are surely ‘sitting ducks’ - no option to get away I would guess.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[just_me_1]

There’s a huge difference between raising animals for fur and the abortion issue. As the Catechism says, “It is LEGITIMATE to USE animals for FOOD AND CLOTHING.” It also says, “DIRECT ABORTION…is gravely contrary to the moral law.”

easy trigger!

I was not saying that at all. I don’t think fur should be illegal or phased out! if the demand for fur drops to the point where it is no longer profitable to produce it, that’s one thing, but for do-gooders to step in and try to stop it in a free country because THEY think it’s wrong is different!

I only mentioned the abortion issue because us pro-lifers have been trying to force our opinion of the wrongs of abortion on society and it hasn’t even slowed the pro-death crowd down! just comparing that to the person who suggested that because some on here believe killing mink for fur is wrong that all of society should not be allowed to buy a mink coat! it’s just not a logical expectation!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I think that the operative word here is CAGE. How natural is a cage???

People put their beloved pets in cages often. A pet hamster or gerbil, even dogs have cages that they are put in on occasion. We live in houses, houses are not necessarily natural. Most pet dogs can’t sleep outside in the winter. Would that be natural? Their ancestor, the wolf sleeps outside…

Fur is beautiful–on the living animal it grows on. Humans adorning themselves with dead animals as a fashion statement, or as testament to their “wealth” is something entirely of a different color.
Maybe the fur wearer likes it, it keeps them warm, worked really hard to save money to buy it and likes it for personal preference…not to brag about their wealth.