Ethics of Fur

[Marfran]

But doesn’t it come across to you in just a tiny bit that it might be uncharitable,to state thet ***people who wear fur ***do it to be vain and to impress with the cost.

Again, it is*** not the wearing ***that is the problem. It is the raising of the animals in a caged/captive manner, the killing of those animals for an unneccessary luxury item, it is the industry that produces these items that is the problem and the focus. And by purchasing this item one supports the continuation of animal suffering for a needless product.

***Wanting to wear fur ***and ***wearing expensive fur ***is also an issue of vanity–which is separate, but connected to the discussion. Why are these luxury items even produced? What purpose do they serve? "It might be uncharitable to state that people who wear fur do it to be vain and to impress with the cost." A mink coat costs roughly in the neighborhood of $5,000.00. Big price tag. Why would one spend so much on an item of clothing??? To look good??? What is that if not vanity? Could buy a warm coat for many thousands of dollars less–so why would one make such a purchase??? It is a LUXURY product. And for this LUXURY animals suffer, live in cages, and are killed.

So perhaps it is uncharitable to spend such a volume of money on a luxury product, and to wear such an item of clothing and show it off to others who can not afford such luxury.

 

[cassini]

Here is a picture of a friend of mine torturing one of his starving, mad, insane, SUFFERING wish I was out of here, terrified, miserable mink.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I would point out that there is NO relationship between animals in the wild and animals purposefully breed by HUMANS to live in captivity to serve human desires. The latter group would not even exist, were it not for HUMANS creating this situation.

So. no pet doggy in your life? (dogs all descend from wolves…that were bred… by humans. Please look up the latin term for dog, and then the latin term for wolf… )

 

[Marfran]

Here is a picture of a friend of mine torturing one of his starving, mad, insane, SUFFERING wish I was out of here, terrified, miserable mink.

Yes, looks like they live in the lap of luxury. Got any photos of the inside of the barricks??? Photos of the mink where it actually lives?? Photos of the cages with the animals in them??? Photos of the killing of the minks??? Photos of the skinning??? The bodies without their skin and fur???

 

[mmsiciliana]

Again, it is*** not the wearing ***that is the problem. It is the raising of the animals in a caged/captive manner, the killing of those animals for an unneccessary luxury item, it is the industry that produces these items that is the problem and the focus. And by purchasing this item one supports the continuation of animal suffering for a needless product.

***Wanting to wear fur ***and ***wearing expensive fur ***is also an issue of vanity–which is separate, but connected to the discussion. Why are these luxury items even produced? What purpose do they serve?

So perhaps it is uncharitable to spend such a volume of money on a luxury product, and to wear such an item of clothing and show it off to others who can not afford such luxury.

Are you also protesting the purchase of what you consider to be other luxury items? What about cars? But perhaps you don’t need a car because perhaps you live in a city and can take public transportation. There are others of us who don’t and who have jobs that are more than 15 miles away. Shall we give up our cars, too and make sure that we only take jobs we can walk to, or bike to, or ride a horse to (something else that is probably verboten to you…)?

 

[JaneGrey]

Here is a picture of a friend of mine torturing one of his starving, mad, insane, SUFFERING wish I was out of here, terrified, miserable mink.

It seems like you are making fun of people genuinely concerned about the welfare of animals, not becuase they have set out to put people down for the sake of it. I am not ashamed of being concerned about abuse and shocked about the methods by which animals are killed for thier fur. Your picture was nice, but makes me think about another issue. Though not entirely relevant, I wonder how people can even kill the lives of animals they have cared for?

God bless

 

[Marfran]

I’d just like to say that I hunt animals for meat and sport, I have no problem wearing skins, furs, whatever.

I’ve been around animals, animal husbandy, and game management most of my life. Wild animals primarily expire from starvation or predation. It’s never, ever pretty, and it’s never, ever peaceful. Before the advent of human pest-control programs, a significant number of animals in my area succumbed to parastic worms. We’ve largely controlled that.

**What I find is that people who actually observe animals during their life cycle rarely have problems harvesting and using them. We understand that nature is red in tooth and claw without man ever intervening. ** Besides, and this is really the only point that matters, it’s not a sin to do so.

I would point out that there is NO relationship between animals in the wild and animals purposefully breed by HUMANS to live in captivity to serve human desires. The latter group would not even exist, were it not for HUMANS creating this situation.

So. no pet doggy in your life? (dogs all descend from wolves…that were bred… by humans. Please look up the latin term for dog, and then the latin term for wolf… )

ipwn said: **What I find is that people who actually observe animals during their life cycle rarely have problems harvesting and using them. We understand that nature is red in tooth and claw without man ever intervening. ** I said: I would point out that there is NO relationship between animals in the wild and animals purposefully breed by HUMANS to live in captivity to serve human desires. Meaning that what one observes in the wild–the cruelties of nature–have NO RELATIONSHIP to raising animals in captivity. We are creating an unnatural condition that does not follow the laws of nature. We subject animals to live in captivity for our DESIRES and WISHES. They do not live in the wild to fulfill our desires and wishes–they only live this way in this situation of our creation. Hence there is no relationship between these two ways of the existence of animals.

And you said: ***“So. no pet doggy in your life? (dogs all descend from wolves…that were bred… by humans. Please look up the latin term for dog, and then the latin term for wolf…” ***

I don’t know if understand your point accurately. We have a) wild animals, and b) agri-animals raised in captivity–that I point out have NO RELATIONSHIP to one another, and the latter situation is not one of nature. So dogs would then be category c) domestic pets–which are yet another situation. And yes, of course domestic dogs are all descendants of the wolf. (Every breed of dog contains the DNA of the wolf. Every breed from the Chihuahua to the Dalmation all originate the the same source of DNA.) And yes, that could be, and has been, the topic of a thread–why are we breeding all these domestic animals–so many that there are not enough homes for them and they have to be destroyed and euthanized…

 

[Marfran]

Are you also protesting the purchase of what you consider to be other luxury items? What about cars? But perhaps you don’t need a car because perhaps you live in a city and can take public transportation. There are others of us who don’t and who have jobs that are more than 15 miles away. Shall we give up our cars, too and make sure that we only take jobs we can walk to, or bike to, or ride a horse to (something else that is probably verboten to you…)?

Absolutely, we should have a discussion about LUXURY items. The ethics of LUXURY items. And that can be another thread. The points of these threads is to debate the topic–and often other issues must be explored as they relate to the topic. But yes, we are discussing fur here, and that much fur is a LUXURY item, especially furs like mink and fox–and yes, that is a whole topic, in and of itself–LUXURY items and the related issues.

 

[Marfran]

I wonder how people can even kill the lives of animals they have cared for?

They do not treat them as pets. They do not spend significant portions of their time with each animal. They feed and water them, and clean the feces and urine, but they do not bond with them. Notice in the photo how the gentleman holds the animal, and notice the protective glove. He is concerned for his safety, as this is not a pet and is probably not accustomed to being held–he may have never even picked this specific animal up before.

 

[mmsiciliana]

They do not treat them as pets. They do not spend significant portions of their time with each animal. They feed and water them, and clean the feces and urine, but they do not bond with them. Notice in the photo how the gentleman holds the animal, and notice the protective glove. He is concerned for his safety, as this is not a pet and is probably not accustomed to being held–he may have never even picked this specific animal up before.

This animal has been picked up before. It was picked up when it was first born, to see if it had milk in its stomach. It was picked up again, at least once, to be vaccinated, and, in some cases, they are vaccinated more than once. And it was picked up again when it was moved to its own cage, since mink are solitary animals and need their own space. And you don’t “hold” a mink, unless you want bites in your stomach. Their teeth are like little needles. They are not pets, true. And you would protect yourself against a mink, just as you would protect yourself against a bull or a cow, or even a dog.

 

[mmsiciliana]

Originally Posted by cassini forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Here is a picture of a friend of mine torturing one of his starving, mad, insane, SUFFERING wish I was out of here, terrified, miserable mink.

It seems like you are making fun of people genuinely concerned about the welfare of animals, not becuase they have set out to put people down for the sake of it. I am not ashamed of being concerned about abuse and shocked about the methods by which animals are killed for thier fur. Your picture was nice, but makes me think about another issue. Though not entirely relevant, I wonder how people can even kill the lives of animals they have cared for?

God bless

He’s not making fun of people who are genuinely concerned about the welfare of animals. That mink farmer is genuinely concerned about the welfare of his animals. What Cassini was doing was using the words that proponents of animal rights use to describe fur farmed animals. Looking at the picture, you can see that’s not so. The animal is well fed. It’s clean. Its eyes are clear, it’s calm–no sign of madness. And it doesn’t appear to be suffering in any way, does it?

 

[mmsiciliana]

Yes, looks like they live in the lap of luxury. Got any photos of the inside of the barricks??? Photos of the mink where it actually lives?? Photos of the cages with the animals in them??? Photos of the killing of the minks??? Photos of the skinning??? The bodies without their skin and fur???

It’s against the teaching of the Catholic Church to spend money on animals that could better be spent on humans, so why would you think a mink would “live in the lap of luxury?” Especially coming from you, who is so down on any type of luxury! Do your pets live in the “lap of luxury”?

And notice the inflammatory language you use: “barricks” [sic] They’re called sheds and they provide protection for the animals from inclement weather such as rain, sleet, and snow but still give them fresh air and light. You’ve been told they have to be kept in cages to protect them from each other and to prevent them from harming one another since they are solitary animals. Photos of the killing? Everything dies eventually. The point is, is it a humane death? It was not pleasant for me to be present when the vet euthanized my pet, but it had to be done. And what point would there be to showing photos of the skinning and the bodies without their skin and fur? They’re dead then; they are in no pain.

 

[bigfootbob]

Yes, looks like they live in the lap of luxury…Photos of the killing of the minks??? Photos of the skinning??? The bodies without their skin and fur???

I may be wrong, but I don’t think you actually want to see that… even if it is humane.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

They do not treat them as pets. They do not spend significant portions of their time with each animal. They feed and water them, and clean the feces and urine, but they do not bond with them. Notice in the photo how the gentleman holds the animal, and notice the protective glove. He is concerned for his safety, as this is not a pet and is probably not accustomed to being held–he may have never even picked this specific animal up before.

You do not know the man in the photo. You do not know how much time he spends with each animal or how he treats them. You say that he wears a glove because he is concerned for his safety. In just a few words you show your disdain for anyone that farms.

My father farmed, he took raised cattle, sheep, pigs, goats horses and mules. He would give his last bit of bread to anyone. and yes, he slaughtered the animals for food, personally. It actually bothers me that you could think he did something wrong, illicit or sinful.

He worked in the food industry from when he was 8 or 9 until literally the day he died. He worked long hours, on his feet, so his family could have a better life.

I dare you to tell me he did something wrong.

 

[ipwnuathalo]

I would point out that there is NO relationship between animals in the wild and animals purposefully breed by HUMANS to live in captivity to serve human desires. The latter group would not even exist, were it not for HUMANS creating this situation.

So? We raise animals for meat, too.

Mmmm, mmm…love that animal.

 

[4elise]

But doean’t it come across to you in just a tiny bit that it might be uncharitable,to state thet people who wear fur do it to be vain and to impress with the cost.

I don’t have a fur, maybe one day I will buy one. If I chose a real fur, I believe that it is more ecological, considering it is biodegradable, reneawble and non toxic.

Right now, if I need to buy a sweater, I will probably buy a wool sweater, it might cost more than a polyester sweater or an acrylic sweater. I am buying it because of the quality, the comfort, and the longevity of the piece, not to brag or to show off that I have money.

Again look at the word “needless.” I’ll post the phrase in Italian (I know Italian better than latin):

2418 È contrario alla dignità umana far soffrire inutilmente gli animali e disporre indiscriminatamente della loro vita

Inutile means useless. While utile, means useful. There is also a phrase that does not appear in the English version…to take their lives indiscriminately.

So do English speaking people have a different Catechism than Italians? Does the word “need” have to be interpreted very strictly for English speaking Catholics?

The Church is teaching us one thing, irrespective of the langage.

You might not like fur, like meat, wear wool or anything that has to do with animals. It is your own personal preference.

But the Church does not teach that using fur raised on farms is illicit, sinful or anything to that degree. What it teaches is theat if the animal is killed, there should be a use for it.

If there are any other linguists that can show me where I am wrong, please do so.

You are right - and I stand corrected - to assume that someone wants something just for vanity is wrong - of course we can never know another persons motivation or what is in their heart - but likewise - I could say that someone who doesn’t hold the same opinion is also judging my opinion, my motivation … so in these discussions I really always try to chose words that are not charged so as to avoid that, if I’ve failed to do so - I’m sorry.

I understand that when something is translated there are subtle differences - but I would suggest that the translation is done by the Church - and while in it is both - inutilmente = useless) / indiscriminatamente = indiscriminately - I could take the text and substitute
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die uselessly and indiscriminately

I would guess that if the Church felt that it more closely reflected the meaning they could have said it the second way.

Looking just at uselessly - It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die uselessly - this would - taken on it’s own - justify any treatment of an animal if there were a “use” for that… to some it is useful to be entertained by dog fighting - but when the “indiscriminately” is added IMHO this use gains the weight of need - using ‘need’ seems to be clearly expressed by uselessly and indiscriminately put together.

It isn’t that I don’t like fur, or like meat, or like fish, it isn’t just a matter of personal preference to me - there is the issue of how animals are raised, the use of resources, (both what is used to produce the fur, meal, etc and my own use of my personal resources) the impact on the environment, I believe I have to subjugate my preference in favor of the better choice.

You are right, the Church does not teach that using fur raised on farms is illicit, sinful or anything to that degree. It also does not teach that we shoudn’t buy diamonds from conflict areas… it does not teach us that we should recycle our cans and bottles, or try to carpool ----*** living our faith ***calls us to apply our faith to our daily choices and IMHO, and this is one of the ways I have found to do so.

 

[severus68]

You do not know the man in the photo. You do not know how much time he spends with each animal or how he treats them. You say that he wears a glove because he is concerned for his safety. In just a few words you show your disdain for anyone that farms.

My father farmed, he took raised cattle, sheep, pigs, goats horses and mules. He would give his last bit of bread to anyone. and yes, he slaughtered the animals for food, personally. It actually bothers me that you could think he did something wrong, illicit or sinful.

He worked in the food industry from when he was 8 or 9 until literally the day he died. He worked long hours, on his feet, so his family could have a better life.

I dare you to tell me he did something wrong.

I don’t think anyone is making personal personal attacks on anyone or on your father. From what you say he was a hardworking and generous man. This thread is just about one issue, the ethics of fur. Calling someone mad, if you did not do that , my apologies, is not productive, just provocative.

 

[severus68]

You are right - and I stand corrected - to assume that someone wants something just for vanity is wrong - of course we can never know another persons motivation or what is in their heart - but likewise - I could say that someone who doesn’t hold the same opinion is also judging my opinion, my motivation … so in these discussions I really always try to chose words that are not charged so as to avoid that, if I’ve failed to do so - I’m sorry.

I understand that when something is translated there are subtle differences - but I would suggest that the translation is done by the Church - and while in it is both - inutilmente = useless) / indiscriminatamente = indiscriminately - I could take the text and substitute
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die uselessly and indiscriminately

I would guess that if the Church felt that it more closely reflected the meaning they could have said it the second way.

Looking just at uselessly - It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die uselessly - this would - taken on it’s own - justify any treatment of an animal if there were a “use” for that… to some it is useful to be entertained by dog fighting - but when the “indiscriminately” is added IMHO this use gains the weight of need - using ‘need’ seems to be clearly expressed by uselessly and indiscriminately put together.

It isn’t that I don’t like fur, or like meat, or like fish, it isn’t just a matter of personal preference to me - there is the issue of how animals are raised, the use of resources, (both what is used to produce the fur, meal, etc and my own use of my personal resources) the impact on the environment, I believe I have to subjugate my preference in favor of the better choice.

You are right, the Church does not teach that using fur raised on farms is illicit, sinful or anything to that degree. It also does not teach that we shoudn’t buy diamonds from conflict areas… it does not teach us that we should recycle our cans and bottles, or try to carpool ----*** living our faith ***calls us to apply our faith to our daily choices and IMHO, and this is one of the ways I have found to do so.

You have set out your position well.

 

[4elise]

You have set out your position well.

thanks - reread it twice just trying to make sure it was clear

 

[mmsiciliana]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marfran forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I would point out that there is NO relationship between animals in the wild and animals purposefully breed by HUMANS to live in captivity to serve human desires. The latter group would not even exist, were it not for HUMANS creating this situation.

Yes, you said it: “There is NO relationship between animals in the wild and animals purposefully breed [sic] by HUMANS to live in captivity to serve human desires. The latter group would not even esixt, were it not for HUMANS creating this situation.”

Therefore, as Mary Gail attempted to bring to your attention, cats and dogs would not exist. They were bred to live in captivity to serve human desires. But you have pets, so you believe that’s an “ethical” use of animals, even though you are thereby expending unneccessary monetary resources on animals that could be spent on human beings–which is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. In short, by owning a pet, you are doing exactly what you accuse fur wearers of doing–spending “needless” money on a LUXURY–something neither they nor you NEED to have. You do not NEED to have a pet. You desire to have a pet, therefore, you believe it’s ethical for you to have a pet.