Ethics of Fur

[vz71]

It advertises what??? That you took Grandma’s old fur and recycled it??? Are you going to put a sign on your back saying “I recycled, but don’t do what I do–BUY NEW!”

I am beginning to wonder if you simply do not get it or will not get it.

If someone looks good wearing a mink coat, other people looking at it may well be impressed to go buy one themselves.

Antique or not is irrelevent unless the observer is aware of it.

Like I said, it advertises.

 

[Marfran]

I am beginning to wonder if you simply do not get it or will not get it.

If someone looks good wearing a mink coat, other people looking at it may well be impressed to go buy one themselves.

Antique or not is irrelevent unless the observer is aware of it.

Like I said, it advertises.

How would the observer be aware of whether it is a new mink, a faux mink, or a recycled mink, without asking the wearer??? Have you seen some of the faux furs??? There is no way of knowing without asking. And a mink coat is expensive–not a casual purchase. Even the faux furs can be expensive. Before making such a purchase don’t you think one would investigate costs and options?

P.S. You’d be surprised at what they are recycling nowadays. I saw a purse made out of recycled fibers. Looked like it was made out of tin foil or something.

"Hey, is that purse made out of tin foil?"

 

[Marfran]

You do not get the point of the argument. Because Jesus did something, it is not morally wrong. You can’t switch it around obviously.

You can’t? Jesus didn’t steal candy from the corner store. Does that mean that we can? Wait a minute, did candy even exist back then??? Snickers bar??? Hershey kisses??? Star burst???

I’ll bet he didn’t condemn people wearing them either.

How could he??? They did not exist in his time. Factory fur farmed mink coats from Bloomingdales???

 

[Marfran]

I will repeat.
Morality is timeless.

What is moral now always was and always will be.
What is immoral now always was and always will be.

Anything less is moral relativism.

And what about things that ***did not exist ***previously??? What about new inventions??? New technology??? New medical procedures??? (Are all those ethical?) Do we get a free pass for anything new that did not exist in the time of Christ?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

((((sigh))))) At least 2 posters claim that if we were meant to wear fur, we would be born with it. We are born naked, obviously we wear clothes.

OK, no, Jesus didn’t have Snickers bars. The Commandment, " Thou shalt not steal," covers anything that doesn’t belong to you. If in the future they invent invisible, flying scooters…we won’t be able to steal one.

Finally, Adam and Eve wore fur, given to them by God, John the Baptist wore camel skins, Pope Benedict wears errmine.

***So it is licit to wear fur.

---

 

[Marfran]

((((sigh))))) At least 2 posters claim that if we were meant to wear fur, we would be born with it. We are born naked, obviously we wear clothes.

OK, no, Jesus didn’t have Snickers bars. The Commandment, " Thou shalt not steal," covers anything that doesn’t belong to you. If in the future they invent invisible, flying scooters…we won’t be able to steal one.

Finally, Adam and Eve wore fur, given to them by God, John the Baptist wore camel skins, Pope Benedict wears errmine.

***So it is licit to wear fur.

---

But is it licit to treat is cruelly and inhumanely when it was alive??? Is it licit to kill 40 animals for vanity??? It is not the wearing of it that is the problem. When you reduce the argument to the “wearing” aspect of it only, you are ignoring the ethical problem with it.

Adam and Eve did not initially wear anything until they screwed up and disobeyed God. We would all still be naked if it weren’t for that. We are on a journey back to God.

What does John the Baptist have to do with the practices of modern factory fur farms??? And we have gone over this Pope situation. The Pope wears a 40, or is it 50 year old robe with ermine–it is an antique–he is not having animals killed for new frocks!!!

The ethical part here is not the “wearing,” it is the current actions of the industry that produce the fur. It is the reason for the choice of fur–the vanity, earthly desire, lack of authentic need to substantiate utilizing animals for this purpose.

The argument can not be reduced to simply “wearing.” I propose that it is ethical to wear a recycled fur, but not ethical to purchase a new one. BTW: I myself would not even purchase a “used” one, but I acknowledge that doing so does not promote continuation of the factory fur farm industry. And I fully anticipate that vegans will disagree with me on that stance.

 

[Marfran]

((((sigh))))) At least 2 posters claim that if we were meant to wear fur, we would be born with it. We are born naked, obviously we wear clothes…Finally, Adam and Eve wore fur, given to them by God, John the Baptist wore camel skins, Pope Benedict wears errmine.

***So it is licit to wear fur. ***

But what does that have to do with the topic of the OP??? “Wearing” something is a neutral act in and of itself. I went back to the OP to see if I included “wearing” in the original question. Here is the original OP:

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?

Any additional thoughts on hunting animals for the sole purpose of trophies, e.g., canned hunts that are designed specifically for the hunter to bring home an exotic trophy skin?? (This may be a related corollary to the fur farming topic–as it is about killing animals for their skins/fur and not for “food.”)

 

[bigfootbob]

Going back to the original post…

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???

We heard from 2 people that have had firsthand experience with “factory” fur farms, and from what they have said, it is not cruel and unethical.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

But is it licit to treat is cruelly and inhumanely when it was alive??? Is it licit to kill 40 animals for vanity??? It is not the wearing of it that is the problem. When you reduce the argument to the “wearing” aspect of it only, you are ignoring the ethical problem with it.

Adam and Eve did not initially wear anything until they screwed up and disobeyed God. We would all still be naked if it weren’t for that. We are on a journey back to God.

What does John the Baptist have to do with the practices of modern factory fur farms??? And we have gone over this Pope situation. The Pope wears a 40, or is it 50 year old robe with ermine–it is an antique–he is not having animals killed for new frocks!!!

The ethical part here is not the “wearing,” it is the current actions of the industry that produce the fur. It is the reason for the choice of fur–the vanity, earthly desire, lack of authentic need to substantiate utilizing animals for this purpose.

The argument can not be reduced to simply “wearing.” I propose that it is ethical to wear a recycled fur, but not ethical to purchase a new one. BTW: I myself would not even purchase a “used” one, but I acknowledge that doing so does not promote continuation of the factory fur farm industry. And I fully anticipate that vegans will disagree with me on that stance.

I don’t believe that a mink on a farm in the US is treated badly at all. Three different sources just in this thread, mmsiciliana, cassini, and the Fur comission, a non profit interested in the quality of fur, state they are treated humanely while they are alive, I believe them.

Again le’s look at the original latin text:

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

Inutiliter means ADV

uselessly| unprofitably; invalidly (legal); badly| harmfully; inexpediently

The text means that the suffering of the animal is licit, providing it is of use to man.

People who like furs are obviously making use for them.

Finally,The Holy Father could have left them in storage. He doesn’t have a disclaimer on the fur saying that it is not permitted for people to use them now. And 40 years isn’t an antique.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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

Something like 85% of the fur industry’s skins come from animals living captive in fur factory farms–is this ethical??? Yes, it’s ethical because the animals are treated humanely. It reduces the need to trap animals, import fur from China, that may or may not be mink. There is over sight in the fur industry by a non-profit, called the Fur Commission that sets and maintains standards. Also, the use of fake furs may not be ecological, biodegradable, or non toxic.

Any compelling reasons/moral imperatives to cease procuring animal fur, specifically by these methods? No.

The CCC states:2417

God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing

is this better?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I keep my two dogs and one cat outside 100% of the time, rain, snow or shine. I feed them, but that’s about it. They usually live a long time and die suddenly. Maybe I’m cruel, but I don’t think so.

I sometimes visit people who, with the best of intentions, have dogs in a little back yard, tied or fenced, or in a house. They can’t roam free or chase squirrels or drink rainwater or play in the snow or mark out a big territory and guard it or do any of the things dogs seem to want to do. I have seen cats that don’t have claws and don’t get to go catch rodents or birds.

When the well-kept pets get old and get arthritis or hip joint problems or cancer or whatever, people will take them to vets to put them down. The vet injects the animal first with an anaesthetic, and then with a drug that stops respiration.

I’m not entirely sure the fur farms are a bit more cruel than the people who keep pets in their houses or their small yards. I don’t think either one is cruel.

 

[mmsiciliana]

Dude, have you been reading this thread??? We have a factory farm mink rancher here trying to convince us to wear mink!!!

I have never referred to YOU as a “Factory Fur Farmer.” I have never referred to YOU as anything. Your commentaries are unnecessarily personal, you assume personal things about people and post such. This is against CAF rules. Please stick to the topic and debate the topic.

Actually, as you can see from your own quote above, you referred to me as a “factory farm mink rancher” although I told you I grew up on a fur farm and I haven’t worked on one in many years. So, once again, Marfran, follow your own advice and do not refer personally to me and I will refrain from doing the same to you.

I did not!!! Is your name attached??? I have not used YOUR name, and pointed to you in a personal way. You make personal references in all of your posts and ask posters personal questions. Again, stick to the topic. Please show us some evidence that the industry is*** not ***cruel.

My dear Marfran…methinks thou dost protest too much…:yup:
Be PROUD of your work! :clapping:
Let the evidence speak for itself because you most certainly did refer to me as a “factory farm mink rancher.” The evidence is above. It’s your post; it’s your name. And although you didn’t call me by name, you didn’t have to because up until that point I was the only one posting on this thread who had any experience with raising mink.

**As for “showing evidence that the industry is not cruel”…I’ve posted a detailed description of raising mink, and I will also let that evidence speak for itself, rather than the improvisations that some feel compelled to post… **

 

[Marfran]

Going back to the original post…

We heard from 2 people that have had firsthand experience with “factory” fur farms, and from what they have said, it is not cruel and unethical.

And they presented us with photographic evidence? Home video? We have their verified credentials??? I am not saying that they are not giving us their perspective as they see it, but can you draw a conclusion from something that an anonymous poster said??? You ignore all the photographic evidence and links to information posted on this thread in favor of anonymous posters’ personal undocumented accounts???

I have found many sources of information, from many posters, on many topics, to be of value. I appreciate all the links and thoughts and often stumble upon new information–all to the thanks of an anonymous poster. I have even read several books on differing subjects–all suggested by anonymous posters on CAF–but I won’t base an opinion on the assurance of an anonymous poster that everything is hunky dory, unless there is other substantive evidence to back it up. And I do believe that the posters that you are referring to said that they were retired, or no longer in the business. I also recall that one of the posters that you are referring to took issue with the term “factory fur farm” which would indicate that the farm in question was not a large operation.

 

[mmsiciliana]

You make personal references in all of your posts and ask posters personal questions.

Marfran, when you make statements that say someone “always” does something “all” the time, or “never” does something, etc., you’re showing everyone else that you’re losing it.

And your reference to asking posters personal questions…would you perhaps be referring to the questions I asked you when you said you had been on a fur farm? Remember? I asked you when and where. I’m sorry, but your credibility is really slipping…:sad_yes:

 

[mmsiciliana]

They are not marketed for warmth, they are marketed for fashion, and they are designed for fashion, not warmth–or they would be designed differently (like zipping all the way up the neck, re-inforced cuffs that cling to the body, etc.)

And dyeing them to get even coloration, how does that enhance warmth???

Furs don’t zip. And they are designed so that you can close them all the way up to the neck. But they don’t have to be worn that way all the time. And you don’t need “re-inforced cuffs that cling to the body” when you’re wearing a fur. You want cuffs that are open enough so that your gloves can slide under the cuffs.

My muskrat coat is dyed navy blue. It’s beautiful. But a good mink coat that’s made properly with matched pelts doesn’t need to be dyed, unless the consumer wanted a funky color like navy blue or orange…

And finally, what’s wrong with wanting to look good? That’s the purpose of “fashion”, correct?

 

[mmsiciliana]

Originally Posted by vz71 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Quality
Longevity
Insulating qualities
resistence to water
biodegradable

Those qualities were suggested. The first three could just as much apply to faux fur. Faux fur may take longer to biodegrade. Anyway there are other options (not real fur).\quote]

Nope. :nope: Sorry, thanks for playing, but the first three definitely do not apply to faux fur. Isn’t “faux” a wonderful word??? Such a sophisticated way of saying “fake*.”** **

 

[severus68]

is this better?

The Fur Commission is not an independent body. If I recall correctly, you said it represents fur farmers.

You talk of need. Why is there a need to trap at all. It is cruel and is indiscriminate. Why import fur products from China, from anywhere?

I came to the conclusion from the time I could reason that fur is not a necessity. Need in the Cathechism must mean something. If we say something is a need just because we want it then there canbe no needless suffering… If that is correct, there would have been no need for such a statement in the Cathechism.

We all have to come to our own conclusions and make our own decisions as to what is or is not ethical. Even if the Cathechism does not set out specifically all the actions that are wrong/ unethical, I choose to make decisions that result in less suffering.

 

[mmsiciliana]

“Virtually since the beginning of mankind, ***fur has been valued for its comfort and beauty ***by people all over the world.”

Yes, fur is comfortable, because it’s soft and warm, and keeps you dry, too. So, now comfort and beauty are bad things in your eyes??? You could wear a hair shirt for penance…oops! No! I forgot! No “fur” for you!

 

[severus68]

Originally Posted by vz71 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Quality
Longevity
Insulating qualities
resistence to water
biodegradable
severus68;5908886:

Those qualities were suggested. The first three could just as much apply to faux fur. Faux fur may take longer to biodegrade. Anyway there are other options (not real fur).\quote]

Nope. :nope: Sorry, thanks for playing, but the first three definitely do not apply to faux fur. Isn’t “faux” a wonderful word??? Such a sophisticated way of saying “fake*.”** *

I am not playing any game. Suffering is a serious matter to me. Faux fur is the term commonly used, not false fur. There are so many other options for clothing other than fur, faux or real.

I am happy if I make someone laugh. So laugh away.

 

[Marfran]

My dear Marfran…methinks thou dost protest too much…:yup:
Be PROUD of your work! :clapping:
Let the evidence speak for itself because you most certainly did refer to me as a “factory farm mink rancher.” The evidence is above. It’s your post; it’s your name. And although you didn’t call me by name, you didn’t have to because up until that point I was the only one posting on this thread who had any experience with raising mink.

As for “showing evidence that the industry is not cruel”…I’ve posted a detailed description of raising mink, and I will also let that evidence speak for itself, rather than the improvisations that some feel compelled to post…

*“The evidence is above. It’s your post; it’s your name.” *WHERE IS YOUR NAME??? I have never referred to **YOU **as anything, anywhere. YOU have not provided the quote where I have done this. That would be YOUR NAME (your screen name) PLUS “factory fur farmer,” which you feel is a derrogatory or not an accurate description. You have referred to me by my screen name and a number of other things including Manhattanite, etc. (Which I assume was meant offensively.) And you have made a lot of innappropriate personal comments/questions–which I assume you do to try to avoid debating THE TOPIC.

I will gladly debate/discuss ***the topic ***with anyone, and when we get sidetracked we can all help each other back to the subject.

I did not see that you posted any ***evidence ***that the industry is not cruel. A personal unverified description does not amount to evidence. Are you saying that that your unverified account should carry more weight than statements made by the HSUS???