Ethics of Fur

[mmsiciliana]

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.

Being entertained by animals is not wrong, i.e., circus, zoo, our own pets. Fighting animals is wrong because of the unneccesary suffering the animal undergoes. Fighting animals is wrong because it’s inhumane. And that would be the reason I personally would have a problem with bullfighting, also.

 

[severus68]

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.

I know domestic dogs came about by an unwritten “contract” between man and wolves. Dogs were the first animals to be domesticated by Man. Dogs are no longer wolves. We cannot turn back the time. There is no problem with having companion animals. God did create animals to be our companions. Dogs were first used to help guard and hunt. They were given food and shelter in return and over the years dogs have shown loyalty to humans. I am no sure about cats, maybe brought in to help with the rats.

We can have animals help us and be our companions. That is ethical. Pets do help humans, physically and emotionally. It has been shown how the blood pressure of a person lowers as he pets an anmal. Dogs have been found to detect cancerous spots. Animals are not killed in order to be our pets.

The issue for me is simple - why breed and kill animals just for their fur, a non essential item. I do accept and I have said this that trapping and bludgeoning animals for their fur are crueler methods.

 

[mmsiciliana]

The issue for me is simple - why breed and kill animals just for their fur, a non essential item.

But do you not see how that can also be applied to companion animals, which PETA was also against at one time (not sure if they still are…). Why breed animals just for companionship–a non-essential item? And companion animals eventually die as well, either by old age or disease (which some minks die from also) or by euthanization. So by breeding them, we bring them into existence into a world that keeps them captive and eventually they will die. As far as strays and rescues are concerned, they also would not exist if it were not for the fact that human beings once “domesticated” cats and dogs.

 

[severus68]

But do you not see how that can also be applied to companion animals, which PETA was also against at one time (not sure if they still are…). Why breed animals just for companionship–a non-essential item? And companion animals eventually die as well, either by old age or disease (which some minks die from also) or by euthanization. So by breeding them, we bring them into existence into a world that keeps them captive and eventually they will die. As far as strays and rescues are concerned, they also would not exist if it were not for the fact that human beings once “domesticated” cats and dogs.

I believe it was/is only one person from Peta with that whacky idea. As I was saying, companionship is essential. How many people have just a pet for companionship day in and out. Human beings with all the things they have to do and own stresses don’t have the time or patience to sit with an elderly or disabled person like a dog will do and willingly. All die eventually. There are strays not because we have cats and dogs as pets but because of people. People abandon their pets when moving, when sick. People do not want to pay for neutering or find homes from the resultant kitttens and puppies and throw them out like rubbish.

 

[mmsiciliana]

I believe it was/is only one person from Peta with that whacky idea. As I was saying, companionship is essential. How many people have just a pet for companionship day in and out. Human beings with all the things they have to do and own stresses don’t have the time or patience to sit with an elderly or disabled person like a dog will do and willingly. All die eventually. There are strays not because we have cats and dogs as pets but because of people. People abandon their pets when moving, when sick. People do not want to pay for neutering or find homes from the resultant kitttens and puppies and throw them out like rubbish.

But you know the majority of pets are not kept by elderly or disabled persons… And how does the elderly or disabled person take care of the dog? So, again, we see the difference is that you and others like you want pets, therefore, you see nothing unethical about having one. At least the one person from PETA who had that (whacky) idea was carrying the animal rights ideology to its logical conclusion. If it’s wrong to eat them, and it’s wrong to wear them, and it’s wrong to have them in a circus or zoo, and it’s wrong to experiment on them (as one animal rights supporter said, "We should experiment on the people on death row–they’re going to die anyway…), then it’s wrong to keep an animal captive in your home just because you want the animal’s companionship.

 

[severus68]

But you know the majority of pets are not kept by elderly or disabled persons… And how does the elderly or disabled person take care of the dog? So, again, we see the difference is that you and others like you want pets, therefore, you see nothing unethical about having one. At least the one person from PETA who had that (whacky) idea was carrying the animal rights ideology to its logical conclusion. If it’s wrong to eat them, and it’s wrong to wear them, and it’s wrong to have them in a circus or zoo, and it’s wrong to experiment on them (as one animal rights supporter said, "We should experiment on the people on death row–they’re going to die anyway…), then it’s wrong to keep an animal captive in your home just because you want the animal’s companionship.

I have just given one example. I do not agree that the logical conclusion is that we should not keep pets. Yes, I like animals, but alive and well. I treat them well and they give back so much voluntarily. The minks serve just one purpose, to be killed eventually for their fur.

Experimentation on animals is another issue for another thread I have been thinking of starting.

 

[4elise]

Being entertained by animals is not wrong, i.e., circus, zoo, our own pets. Fighting animals is wrong because of the unneccesary suffering the animal undergoes. Fighting animals is wrong because it’s inhumane. And that would be the reason I personally would have a problem with bullfighting, also.

That was my point - some people find ‘using’ animals in fighting is entertaining- some find bullfighting entertaining.

I find rodeos, and circuses also inhumane too, but guess that is a topic for another thread.

 

[4elise]

But do you not see how that can also be applied to companion animals, which PETA was also against at one time (not sure if they still are…). Why breed animals just for companionship–a non-essential item? And companion animals eventually die as well, either by old age or disease (which some minks die from also) or by euthanization. So by breeding them, we bring them into existence into a world that keeps them captive and eventually they will die. As far as strays and rescues are concerned, they also would not exist if it were not for the fact that human beings once “domesticated” cats and dogs.

With hundreds of thousands of pets put down every year in shelters - I certainly do not support anyone breeding animals for pets.

 

[creationlover]

As I said earlier in one of my posts, several years ago I attended a class at the local community college on Animal Rights. One of the things that disturbed me was when the teacher said, “Slavery used to be OK, now we know it’s wrong.” It was as if she was equating animals with human beings, which you cannot do. Human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. Animals are not. There is a hierarchy to creation. By the way, most of the proponents of animal rights in the class were also in favor of legalized abortion, because human beings are a plague on the earth that needs to be wiped out (all human beings except themselves, of course.)

IF animals are in the eschaton, I don’t believe we’ll eat them or wear them; it will be as it was in the Garden of Eden where all creation will live together in harmony. That means lions and tigers, etc. also will not eat other animals. And, if you choose to begin here on earth by not eating animals or wearing them, more power to you. I cannot do that. It’s as simple as that. Short of being forced, I could not survive on a vegan diet.

And finally, based on his letter to Philemon (a very short book in the Bible that doesn’t get much “press”), I don’t agree that the Apostle Paul didn’t condemn slavery.

Hi,

I (as I am sure most everyone on the thread) am a ardent Pro-Life advocate. No, I don’t equate human beings with animals. I agree, their is a hierarchy to creation. But just because I happen to be on the top of that hierarchy gives me no “right” to bring harm to animals for fashionable fur, or any other fur, when there are substitutes that will do just as well if not better.

I don’t believe animals have rights, although they are created as good and therefore to some degree - dare I say - are sacred in light of the fact they were created by God. Please - most Christian veggies and animal advocates are people who want nothing more than to see unnecessary harm to animals and the environment stop. We are simply taking our Pro Life stand as a basis to extend honor to all of God’s creation by taking steps to challenge ourselves and our brothers and sisters to think seriously about our relationships with His creation.

I appreciate your honesty about veganism. Most will not become vegans - it is a strict lifestyle. My hope is that more Christians begin to address the horrendous abuses in the fur industry, not to mention the meat industry. Whatever you do, if you choose, I prayerfully ask that you do something - if nothing but pray.

To come to terms with Philemon, I would say Paul was trying to start a quiet revolution of human dignity and love, that over time, silenced slavery. It made no sense for Christians who are called to serve one another, to “own” another human being. However, Peter told the Christian slaves to be obedient, the masters to be gentle. Over time, slavery among Christians just sort of died out in the days of the early Church. Did Paul agree with it? Probably didn’t. But there was no direct formal challenge of it mentioned in the scriptures.

I take a similar stand regarding fur as Peter and Paul did regarding slavery - if you want to wear a fur coat - wear it. But as Christians, if we are going engage in such a practice, we need to find the best way to do it and have a better justification than God gave mankind dominion over the earth, so I’ll do whatever and however I want.

For me personally, I just don’t see it. Necessity is the key word in my thoughts… Thy Kingdom come…

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.”

But wait. There IS a relationship between animals in the wild and those bred by humans, etc. In the latter, they live much better than in the former. I can’t speak about all animals, but I do know cattle. Cattle can live in the wild. No question about it. They can also live on ranches. Their activities are essentially no different in those activities which they undertake voluntarily. They eat, they drink and they breed. That pretty well sums up their lives in both cases. The difference between those in the wild and those on ranches is that the latter are not plagued by predators, potential starvation, injuries from rivals, diseases and parasites, as are the former. Both die, of course, and there isn’t a whole lot that dying in the wild has to recommend itself over dying in a processing plant…

Now, when it comes to fur farms and the extravagance and all, it may be observed that many, many things are extravagances. Regardless of where a diamond comes from, it really is an extravagance. Yet virtually all women wear them on their fingers at some time in their lives. All jewelry is an extravagance. When you get down to it, so is makeup. Women will not die without makeup or jewelry or diamond rings. Nevertheless, very few people have serious objection to any of those things. Extravagance, of course, is relative. You see some 22 year old kid who works in a poultry plant buying a $1,000 engagement ring for his intended, and nobody goes on a big crusade against it. And they do that all the time. So, some middle-aged guy buys his wife a $5,000 mink coat. So what? He can likely afford it more easily than that 22 year old can buy the diamond. If he buys a new car, $5,000 in value disappears the second he drives it off the lot. And how do we know that middle-aged guy isn’t one of the more generous people in other ways?

I don’t have any problem with people who don’t want to eat meat or wear fur for whatever ethical reason they have for that. If that’s what their consciences tell them, then that’s fine. But there really isn’t all that much virtue or moral authority for people who have those convictions to tell others they should not wear leather shoes, or mink coats, or buy diamond rings or cheap jewelry or makeup, or buy new cars.

Having those convictions and living by them may be rightly considered asceticism. Attempting to impose them on others is, in my mind at least, neo-Puritanism.

 

[4elise]

But you know the majority of pets are not kept by elderly or disabled persons… And how does the elderly or disabled person take care of the dog? So, again, we see the difference is that you and others like you want pets, therefore, you see nothing unethical about having one. At least the one person from PETA who had that (whacky) idea was carrying the animal rights ideology to its logical conclusion. If it’s wrong to eat them, and it’s wrong to wear them, and it’s wrong to have them in a circus or zoo, and it’s wrong to experiment on them (as one animal rights supporter said, "We should experiment on the people on death row–they’re going to die anyway…), then it’s wrong to keep an animal captive in your home just because you want the animal’s companionship.

I understand what you are trying to say about finding inconsistency in our position - however (and I believe others here) really strive for a consistent position - to not eat meat, dairy, eggs, fish, not wear fur or leather, not support animal fighting, circuses, rodeos, bullfighting, (FYI, I’m not from PETA) - and we have a rescue black lab mix - no breed animal - as for the medical experimenting on animals - I think this can be justified in some cases - much of it is redundant and only done to obtain grants - so think there sould be some prudence added to this topic… but since the animals are rescued from being put down at a pound – the option for these pets is life in our homes or death.

 

[4elise]

But wait. There IS a relationship between animals in the wild and those bred by humans, etc. In the latter, they live much better than in the former. I can’t speak about all animals, but I do know cattle. Cattle can live in the wild. No question about it. They can also live on ranches. Their activities are essentially no different in those activities which they undertake voluntarily. They eat, they drink and they breed. That pretty well sums up their lives in both cases. The difference between those in the wild and those on ranches is that the latter are not plagued by predators, potential starvation, injuries from rivals, diseases and parasites, as are the former. Both die, of course, and there isn’t a whole lot that dying in the wild has to recommend itself over dying in a processing plant…

I think (and would agree) the point Marfran was making that IF people didn’t want fur or a rib eye - these animals would not be breed - so they don’t have a choice - ‘farm or wild’ they would just not be breed into existence.

Now, when it comes to fur farms and the extravagance and all, it may be observed that many, many things are extravagances. Regardless of where a diamond comes from, it really is an extravagance. Yet virtually all women wear them on their fingers at some time in their lives. All jewelry is an extravagance. When you get down to it, so is makeup. Women will not die without makeup or jewelry or diamond rings. Nevertheless, very few people have serious objection to any of those things. Extravagance, of course, is relative. You see some 22 year old kid who works in a poultry plant buying a $1,000 engagement ring for his intended, and nobody goes on a big crusade against it. And they do that all the time. So, some middle-aged guy buys his wife a $5,000 mink coat. So what? He can likely afford it more easily than that 22 year old can buy the diamond. If he buys a new car, $5,000 in value disappears the second he drives it off the lot. And how do we know that middle-aged guy isn’t one of the more generous people in other ways?

I don’t have any problem with people who don’t want to eat meat or wear fur for whatever ethical reason they have for that. If that’s what their consciences tell them, then that’s fine. But there really isn’t all that much virtue or moral authority for people who have those convictions to tell others they should not wear leather shoes, or mink coats, or buy diamond rings or cheap jewelry or makeup, or buy new cars.

Having those convictions and living by them may be rightly considered asceticism. Attempting to impose them on others is, in my mind at least, neo-Puritanism.

When this point comes up I find myself scratching my head. How is it that anyone can attempt to impose convictions on others?

I can share what I’ve learned about blood diamonds from Sierra Leone (I know missionaries who were there when people were having their hands cut off for diamonds - and no, I don’t own one) - how is this an imposition of my convictions? (I wanted to add a PS to this - I guess I managed to impose my conviction on my daughter who told her fiance that she preferred a man made diamond)

I can share what I’ve learned about poultry farms - and share why I don’t eat chicken as a result of that knowledge, but how is this an imposition of my convictions?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think (and would agree) the point Marfran was making that IF people didn’t want fur or a rib eye - these animals would not be breed - so they don’t have a choice - ‘farm or wild’ they would just not be breed into existence.

When this point comes up I find myself scratching my head. How is it that anyone can attempt to impose convictions on others?

I can share what I’ve learned about blood diamonds from Sierra Leone (I know missionaries who were there when people were having their hands cut off for diamonds - and no, I don’t own one) - how is this an imposition of my convictions? (I wanted to add a PS to this - I guess I managed to impose my conviction on my daughter who told her fiance that she preferred a man made diamond)

I can share what I’ve learned about poultry farms - and share why I don’t eat chicken as a result of that knowledge, but how is this an imposition of my convictions?

I do not understand why it’s better that animals never exist than that they exist in conditions better than they would if they happened to exist in the wild.

I have never supported buying blood diamonds. But most diamonds do not come from there, and diamond mining does support people; often better than they would be supported without the mining. It’s fine with me if your fiance buys your daughter a manmade diamond or no diamond at all. It’s none of my business what he does.

Your last statement is the one I have a problem with. You have not said what your source of knowledge is about poultry farms. But your opinion is obviously very negative about them. Perhaps you have been in integrator houses that are horrible. I don’t know. I have been in many big integrator houses and I grew up on a farm where we raised chickens “Old McDonald’s Farm” style. Commercial integrator houses are not cruel. Even processing is not cruel. I have been in poultry plants too, and have watched the process from start to finish. I have seen some of the films put out by some organizations; some linked by people on CAF, and the ones I have seen totally misrepresent what commercial poultry growing is like. The people who made the films I have seen really are trying to impose their moral or ethical beliefs on others by misrepresentation. I do not accuse you of that. But if one’s opposition to eating, say, chicken, is based on some of those phony films, and if one proselitizes people against eating chicken based on those mistaken understandings, then, in my opinion that is, indeed, at least a product of neo-Puritanical attempt to impose one’s moral values on another. Those who make those hoked-up films are definitely doing it. It is akin to those people who imposed the Volstead Act on the U.S. by making it seem that “demon rum” was universally immoral in its effects. It wasn’t, but the real motivation for the Volstead Act were the moral convictions of people who were against alcohol for those reasons. It was just one more exacerbation of a Puritanism that the U.S. seems to find difficult to fully shake. Sometimes, as with the Volstead Act, such people sometimes manage to write their peculiar moral convictions into law.

I have also seen it opined on CAF by some that cattle are typically raised in confinement. I have said before that very, very few are and, except in the case of some veal calves (and I don’t favor that) it’s economically absurd. I raise cattle. I live in an area where ranching is very big. I have traveled widely in other ranching areas. And I know it’s just not true.

So why do people say it is? Some, I am sure, repeat it out of ignorance. Some have their moral positions on eating beef (or any meat, usually) and misrepresent it in order to impose their ethical or religious beliefs on others by making it seem cruel (and thus immoral) when it’s neither.

Possibly I am overreacting to some of the posts in here. Can’t say which ones and I’m too tired to go back and check them all again. But I get the distinct feeling that some are trying to make Catholics believe meat-eating or fur-wearing are immoral, when the Church doesn’t teach anything of the sort. The premise some use to cause others to deviate from the Church actually teaches is to maintain that it’s cruel and abusive in practice and is immoral for that reason, in the same sort of way that setting kittens on fire for fun would be considered immoral by the Church. One would not be unreasonable in concluding that doing so could be rightly considered an imposition of moral idiosyncrasies.

 

[mmsiciliana]

I do not understand why it’s better that animals never exist than that they exist in conditions better than they would if they happened to exist in the wild.

I have never supported buying blood diamonds. But most diamonds do not come from there, and diamond mining does support people; often better than they would be supported without the mining. It’s fine with me if your fiance buys your daughter a manmade diamond or no diamond at all. It’s none of my business what he does.

Your last statement is the one I have a problem with. You have not said what your source of knowledge is about poultry farms. But your opinion is obviously very negative about them. Perhaps you have been in integrator houses that are horrible. I don’t know. I have been in many big integrator houses and I grew up on a farm where we raised chickens “Old McDonald’s Farm” style. Commercial integrator houses are not cruel. Even processing is not cruel. I have been in poultry plants too, and have watched the process from start to finish. I have seen some of the films put out by some organizations; some linked by people on CAF, and the ones I have seen totally misrepresent what commercial poultry growing is like. The people who made the films I have seen really are trying to impose their moral or ethical beliefs on others by misrepresentation. I do not accuse you of that. But if one’s opposition to eating, say, chicken, is based on some of those phony films, and if one proselitizes people against eating chicken based on those mistaken understandings, then, in my opinion that is, indeed, at least a product of neo-Puritanical attempt to impose one’s moral values on another. Those who make those hoked-up films are definitely doing it. It is akin to those people who imposed the Volstead Act on the U.S. by making it seem that “demon rum” was universally immoral in its effects. It wasn’t, but the real motivation for the Volstead Act were the moral convictions of people who were against alcohol for those reasons. It was just one more exacerbation of a Puritanism that the U.S. seems to find difficult to fully shake. Sometimes, as with the Volstead Act, such people sometimes manage to write their peculiar moral convictions into law.

I have also seen it opined on CAF by some that cattle are typically raised in confinement. I have said before that very, very few are and, except in the case of some veal calves (and I don’t favor that) it’s economically absurd. I raise cattle. I live in an area where ranching is very big. I have traveled widely in other ranching areas. And I know it’s just not true.

So why do people say it is? Some, I am sure, repeat it out of ignorance. Some have their moral positions on eating beef (or any meat, usually) and misrepresent it in order to impose their ethical or religious beliefs on others by making it seem cruel (and thus immoral) when it’s neither.

Possibly I am overreacting to some of the posts in here. Can’t say which ones and I’m too tired to go back and check them all again. But I get the distinct feeling that some are trying to make Catholics believe meat-eating or fur-wearing are immoral, when the Church doesn’t teach anything of the sort. The premise some use to cause others to deviate from the Church actually teaches is to maintain that it’s cruel and abusive in practice and is immoral for that reason, in the same sort of way that setting kittens on fire for fun would be considered immoral by the Church. One would not be unreasonable in concluding that doing so could be rightly considered an imposition of moral idiosyncrasies.

Very well said! I agree, this puritanical mindset is meant to make the rest of us feel as if we aren’t Catholic enough. And, they’re even more Catholic than the Pope, who also wears fur! (And I believe if Pope Benedict was given a new fur, he would wear it.) As VZ said earlier, “Are you feeling insulted yet?” It’s a well known fact that animal rights groups have decided to start with attempting to destroy fur farming first when it comes to agriculture, because they feel there is less support for fur farmed animals as opposed to animals bred for food.

 

[severus68]

Hi,

I (as I am sure most everyone on the thread) am a ardent Pro-Life advocate. No, I don’t equate human beings with animals. I agree, their is a hierarchy to creation. But just because I happen to be on the top of that hierarchy gives me no “right” to bring harm to animals for fashionable fur, or any other fur, when there are substitutes that will do just as well if not better.

I don’t believe animals have rights, although they are created as good and therefore to some degree - dare I say - are sacred in light of the fact they were created by God. Please - most Christian veggies and animal advocates are people who want nothing more than to see unnecessary harm to animals and the environment stop. We are simply taking our Pro Life stand as a basis to extend honor to all of God’s creation by taking steps to challenge ourselves and our brothers and sisters to think seriously about our relationships with His creation.

I appreciate your honesty about veganism. Most will not become vegans - it is a strict lifestyle. My hope is that more Christians begin to address the horrendous abuses in the fur industry, not to mention the meat industry. Whatever you do, if you choose, I prayerfully ask that you do something - if nothing but pray.

To come to terms with Philemon, I would say Paul was trying to start a quiet revolution of human dignity and love, that over time, silenced slavery. It made no sense for Christians who are called to serve one another, to “own” another human being. However, Peter told the Christian slaves to be obedient, the masters to be gentle. Over time, slavery among Christians just sort of died out in the days of the early Church. Did Paul agree with it? Probably didn’t. But there was no direct formal challenge of it mentioned in the scriptures.

I take a similar stand regarding fur as Peter and Paul did regarding slavery - if you want to wear a fur coat - wear it. But as Christians, if we are going engage in such a practice, we need to find the best way to do it and have a better justification than God gave mankind dominion over the earth, so I’ll do whatever and however I want.

For me personally, I just don’t see it. Necessity is the key word in my thoughts… Thy Kingdom come…

Excellant Post. “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

 

[severus68]

But wait. There IS a relationship between animals in the wild and those bred by humans, etc. In the latter, they live much better than in the former. I can’t speak about all animals, but I do know cattle. Cattle can live in the wild. No question about it. They can also live on ranches. Their activities are essentially no different in those activities which they undertake voluntarily. They eat, they drink and they breed. That pretty well sums up their lives in both cases. The difference between those in the wild and those on ranches is that the latter are not plagued by predators, potential starvation, injuries from rivals, diseases and parasites, as are the former. Both die, of course, and there isn’t a whole lot that dying in the wild has to recommend itself over dying in a processing plant…

Now, when it comes to fur farms and the extravagance and all, it may be observed that many, many things are extravagances. Regardless of where a diamond comes from, it really is an extravagance. Yet virtually all women wear them on their fingers at some time in their lives. All jewelry is an extravagance. When you get down to it, so is makeup. Women will not die without makeup or jewelry or diamond rings. Nevertheless, very few people have serious objection to any of those things. Extravagance, of course, is relative. You see some 22 year old kid who works in a poultry plant buying a $1,000 engagement ring for his intended, and nobody goes on a big crusade against it. And they do that all the time. So, some middle-aged guy buys his wife a $5,000 mink coat. So what? He can likely afford it more easily than that 22 year old can buy the diamond. If he buys a new car, $5,000 in value disappears the second he drives it off the lot. And how do we know that middle-aged guy isn’t one of the more generous people in other ways?

I don’t have any problem with people who don’t want to eat meat or wear fur for whatever ethical reason they have for that. If that’s what their consciences tell them, then that’s fine. But there really isn’t all that much virtue or moral authority for people who have those convictions to tell others they should not wear leather shoes, or mink coats, or buy diamond rings or cheap jewelry or makeup, or buy new cars.

Having those convictions and living by them may be rightly considered asceticism. Attempting to impose them on others is, in my mind at least, neo-Puritanism.

Buying a diamond is not supporting an industry of cruelty unless it is a blood diamond from Sierra Leone and now Namibia. That is the difference. I agree, extravagance is relative to many things and I don’t think I want to go into indulgences. We cannot know a person’s motivations. However if you know buying a product is supporting cruelty and/or suffering and that product is not essential to say your health and life, should you buy it?

We can’t impose our convictions on others, we can only share how we feel.

 

[vz71]

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

Hey look everyone.
Another judgement based upon fallacious interpretation of the Catechism.

 

[vz71]

I don’t think anyone is making personal personal attacks on anyone or on your father.

Sure looks that way.

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???

At the very least one can hear the sarcasm dripping from the words.

 

[vz71]

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.

So what.
It is our prerogative to bend nature to our will.

The plants and animals are a precious resource put in place by God to for us to use.

 

[vz71]

I think (and would agree) the point Marfran was making that IF people didn’t want fur or a rib eye - these animals would not be breed - so they don’t have a choice - ‘farm or wild’ they would just not be breed into existence.

I fail to see the logic in providing a choice to an animal that lives to serve us.