Is breeding animals wrong?

[JRKH]

You know, If we look at the title of the thread, it seems obvious that we have to say that it is not wrong to “breed animals”. After all if we want more animals they need to breed and will do so freely if given the chance. After all they have been doing so in the wild for quite some time.
What is really being asked is whether it is wrong to breed animals for specific characterisitcs.
Again the answer is, No it is not wrong to breed animals for specific characteristics. This has been done for millenia both by accident and by choice. Goats with the best milk, or least spots were prized animals and their owners considered wealthy and blessed.
The next question then is, are there results of such breeding that should be avoided.
To this the answer is Yes. Characterisitics that are detrimental to the animal or to the owner should be avoided.

When someone breeds cattle or sheep or chickens or whatever to improve the stock there is nothing wrong with this. When someone breeds a dog for herding or hunting, there is nothing wrong with this. Even should someone breed a dog or cat to improve disposition this is fine. And should some of the results be not good ( a pushed in nose for example) the animal may be loved for itself but should not be bred to produce more of this deformity.

The upshot is that the selective breeding of animals and plants is not, in itself wrong. Purposely breeding a sickly or defective animal merely to make money is wrong in my opinion. Of course those who love these types of animals will disagree.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Some plants can be replanted but others only live for a season. I can eat the tomato that falls from the plant without eating the plant, and I can eat the apple that falls from the tree without eating the tree. Yes, the tomato and apple that have fallen still have “energy” in them but it will wither and die probably within days.

Yes you may eat the fruits that fall from the tree without eating the tree, but do not think that you are eating something completely without life or purpose. Eating an Apple is essentially the same thing as eating an egg. It is the next generation of the tree just as an egg is the next generation of the Chicken. In fact the fruit is even more so since the Apple is fertilized whereas the egg is not. You may not eat the actual seed of an apple (like you eat the seed of the wheat or soybean plant), but you do eat the nutrients that surround the seed and are intended to protect the seed and get the seed started.

It does not look at me with emotion in it’s eyes. It does not nuture it’s babies.

We’ll leave emotion out of this, but in point of fact the tree does nuture it’s babies. The fruit falls on the ground encased in the nutrients provided by the tree. In the fall the leaves fall and cover the rotted fruit and seed with more nutrients and moisture holding qualities. The next spring new leaves grow on the tree providing shade to the just sprouted tree preventing it from burning in the bright sun or loosing too much moisture from the ground.
Over the years, the young fruit trees grow taller and actually begin to compete with the parent, who ages withers and dies.

Scientists are not experimenting on plants to find cures because plants are not similar to us in make up.

While this is partially true, it is also true that Scientists are looking to plants for cures, and also using plants to incubate certain chemicals to be used in cures.

I can only say that maybe you have an argument that we were only intended to eat the fallen fruits and nuts. That’s an excellent thought! And a great argument!

As I hope I have demonstrated above, this is not really a very good argument at all. The eating of fruits and nuts is no different than eating any other form of nutrient providing substance whether it be fruit, vegetable or meat.

 

[Marfran]

You know, If we look at the title of the thread, it seems obvious that we have to say that it is not wrong to “breed animals”. After all if we want more animals they need to breed and will do so freely if given the chance. After all they have been doing so in the wild for quite some time.
What is really being asked is whether it is wrong to breed animals for specific characterisitcs.
Again the answer is, No it is not wrong to breed animals for specific characteristics.

The concept here is about purposeful, intentional breeding, human intervention in an animal’s reproductive life. We are not talking about wild animals breeding in nature. Can humans intervene and take over the reproduction of animals? Does purposeful intervention by humans (and often in artificial ways, i.e., artificial insemination) perhaps create situations that have negative consequences? Do we have a responsibility to weigh all aspects and consequences carefully before breeding an animal? Is it wrong to breed dogs, for instance, when there are more than enough dogs that one could choose for a pet from the pound, who will be destoyed if no home can be found? Is it moral to purposefully breed a dog, when this results in other dogs being killed for lack of homes?

 

[Marfran]

When someone breeds cattle or sheep or chickens or whatever to improve the stock there is nothing wrong with this.

Chickens are purposefully bred to have large breasts–because this makes more money for the agribussiness industry. The weight of the heavy breast is often too much for the chicken, and she has trouble standing. Many chickens break their legs because their legs can not support the heavy weight. These chickens suffer with pain, and are not given medicinal pain relief (this would be too costly) and spend days (even longer) suffering with broken, uncared for legs before they are sent to slaughter. Is there nothing wrong with this? They are purposefully bred this way, the consequences are suffering, pain, and somebody making more money.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
When someone breeds cattle or sheep or chickens or whatever to improve the stock there is nothing wrong with this.

First of all let us be clear here. SOME chickens are bred for this, though truthfully I had not heard of this before. Other chickens are bred for laying more and better eggs.

I am not a big fan of what they call today “Agri-business”. When I grew up it was around farms and farmers. Care of the land and care of the animals was important. It is the shift from “farming” to “agri-business” that has led to this kind of abuse. The financail pressures on food production in America and can/does lead to this sort of thing.

However, the case that you point out does not negate my statement about breeding to improve the stock. All you have done is point out an instance where breeding has not impoved the stock, or rather has over-improved it to the detriment of the animal.

 

[Marfran]

Yes you may eat the fruits that fall from the tree without eating the tree, but do not think that you are eating something completely without life or purpose. Eating an Apple is essentially the same thing as eating an egg. It is the next generation of the tree just as an egg is the next generation of the Chicken. In fact the fruit is even more so since the Apple is fertilized whereas the egg is not.

Apples were designed to be eaten by animals, and in so doing the seeds are scattered and the tree reproduces. Eating an apple is nothing like eating an egg. Wild birds lay eggs that are fertilized and produce young. Commercially farmed chicken’s eggs are not fertilized, and will never produce a living bird. Humans manipulate the lives of these birds and take their eggs for their own use. A human may argue that he has a right to hijack the birds reproductive system for his own use and palette, but I doubt that if given the choice, many birds would agree to go along with this, and would prefer instead to produce eggs, as intended by our Creator, as a means to continue the survival of their species.

 

[JRKH]

The concept here is about purposeful, intentional breeding, human intervention in an animal’s reproductive life. We are not talking about wild animals breeding in nature. Can humans intervene and take over the reproduction of animals? Does purposeful intervention by humans (and often in artificial ways, i.e., artificial insemination) perhaps create situations that have negative consequences? Do we have a responsibility to weigh all aspects and consequences carefully before breeding an animal? Is it wrong to breed dogs, for instance, when there are more than enough dogs that one could choose for a pet from the pound, who will be destoyed if no home can be found? Is it moral to purposefully breed a dog, when this results in other dogs being killed for lack of homes?

I’m curious why you did not quote my entire post since I addressed the idea of negative consequences although I did not speciically address the issue of animals in shelters. However that was not the question in the OP. The answer to That question, is it wrong to breed animals is simple, “NO” it is not wrong.
After answering that question one can get into issues of when how and why animals should or should not be purposely bred. But those are different questions to the title of this thread.

Peace
James

 

[Marfran]

As I hope I have demonstrated above, this is not really a very good argument at all. The eating of fruits and nuts is no different than eating any other form of nutrient providing substance whether it be fruit, vegetable or meat.

In consuming meat you first have to have a living animal. Most factory farmed food animals live in intensive confinement situations, often in crates where they can barely turn their bodies, and most of them do not see the light of day. These are sentient beings that have brains, pumping hearts, central nervous sytems, and can feel pain, stress, and distress… Meat is much more than a nutrient. It is the dead body of an animal, that was in most cases subjected to abuse and lived an unnatural life in confinement, and died in a very unnatural and frightening way. Is it right for us to breed animals to suffer and die this way so that we can please our palettes??? No comparison can be made here to plant life. Plant life does not suffer or feel pain, as does the more evolved forms of life that have brains and central nervous systems.

 

[JRKH]

Apples were designed to be eaten by animals, and in so doing the seeds are scattered and the tree reproduces.

Your statement here is only partially right. The Apple is not designed to be eaten by animals. It is designed to protect and nourish the seed. Animals eat the apples for the same reasons we do nourishment. It is a secondary benefit that the seeds can be thus scattered.

Eating an apple is nothing like eating an egg.

Sure it is. Part of the egg is the ovum and the rest is the nutrient sac for the chick. You eat the nutrients of the Apple seed and you eat the nutients of the Chick. Same thing. - Only different in that the egg was never fertilized.

Wild birds lay eggs that are fertilized and produce young. Commercially farmed chicken’s eggs are not fertilized, and will never produce a living bird. Humans manipulate the lives of these birds and take their eggs for their own use.
A human may argue that he has a right to hijack the birds reproductive system for his own use and palette, but I doubt that if given the choice, many birds would agree to go along with this, and would prefer instead to produce eggs, as intended by our Creator, as a means to continue the survival of their species.

Wild birds lay eggs regularly, just as human females produce eggs and eject eggs regularly. This occurs whether or not they are fertilized. Yes humans manupulate the lives of Chickens for their own use. My Grandma was very good at it. She kept between 100 and 200 Chickens as well as a couple of milk cows for as long as she lived.
Her hens had a nice coop and yard. Plenty to eat including scraps from the two big gardens and all the bugs they could catch. I never had a store bought egg, or drumstick, or milk/cream/butter, until I was 11 years old.
Grandma cared for those animals, fussed over them, cried when a calf was sent to market, got up early to feed and milk, gather eggs, churn butter, etc etc etc.
We also butchered the Chickens and ate them. That is part and parcel to life and has been for thousands of generations.
I have repeatedly said, though you wish to ignore it, that I do not agree with the nmistreatment of animals or for breeding for the wrong traits or reasons. However, the good husbandry of animals and humane butchering of them for meat feeds millions around the world.
Jesus himself is a product of a meat eating society and uses the analogies of flocks, shepards, etc, even refering to butchering the fatted calf in one of His parables. I doubt if he would object to our using animals for food. I’m sure he would object to how some people treat their animals.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

In consuming meat you first have to have a living animal. Most factory farmed food animals live in intensive confinement situations, often in crates where they can barely turn their bodies, and most of them do not see the light of day. These are sentient beings that have brains, pumping hearts, central nervous sytems, and can feel pain, stress, and distress… Meat is much more than a nutrient. It is the dead body of an animal, that was in most cases subjected to abuse and lived an unnatural life in confinement, and died in a very unnatural and frightening way. Is it right for us to breed animals to suffer and die this way so that we can please our palettes??? No comparison can be made here to plant life. Plant life does not suffer or feel pain, as does the more evolved forms of life that have brains and central nervous systems.

As I said in the post above, if Jesus saw no problem with “Killing the Fatted Calf” in His parable, or performing two miracles of multiplying fishes then I don’t think He would object to our butchering animals and eating meat.
As to anumals suffering, I’m sure he would have something to say to those who abuse animals - And he will say it on their judgement day.

Since I have made my position clear, (breeding is OK, abuse is not) I am going to withdraw from the thread at this point because we will only be arguing personal choices.

Peace
James

 

[jorgeraul3]

In consuming meat you first have to have a living animal. Most factory farmed food animals live in intensive confinement situations, often in crates where they can barely turn their bodies, and most of them do not see the light of day. These are sentient beings that have brains, pumping hearts, central nervous sytems, and can feel pain, stress, and distress… Meat is much more than a nutrient. It is the dead body of an animal, that was in most cases subjected to abuse and lived an unnatural life in confinement, and died in a very unnatural and frightening way. Is it right for us to breed animals to suffer and die this way so that we can please our palettes??? No comparison can be made here to plant life. Plant life does not suffer or feel pain, as does the more evolved forms of life that have brains and central nervous systems.

I live in an agricultural region, and have had first hand experience with what your talking about. Things are not as bad as you make them seem, sure the conditions these animals live in could be better, but they are not the way you describe them.

Have you seen the type of health care these animals receive? I wish I had a doctor on call the way they do.

Have you been to a slaughter house and seen how these animals die? I have and the way they die is much more humane than the way an animal would die in the wild.

But I do agree that the conditions of the pens could be improved.

 

[JRKH]

I live in an agricultural region, and have had first hand experience with what your talking about. Things are not as bad as you make them seem, sure the conditions these animals live in could be better, but they are not the way you describe them.

Have you seen the type of health care these animals receive? I wish I had a doctor on call the way they do.

Have you been to a slaughter house and seen how these animals die? I have and the way they die is much more humane than the way an animal would die in the wild.

But I do agree that the conditions of the pens could be improved.

Thanks for your post. it’s nice to hear from someone who has first hand experience.

Peace
James

 

[mchale]

Breeding animals to serve man’s vanity is surely as bad as breeding humans [stem cell research] to serve man’s vanity.

I am sorry for jumping into this thread so late, but I have to disagree here. Breeding animals and stem cell research are in no way comperable.

Breeding animals to bring out certain traits within them is simply humans imposing a different type of sexual selection that all animals (and humans) are naturally exposed to. Here it is the breeder and not nature that selects the traits bred for, but essentially humans are simply working within the natural process. For animal breeding to work, the two animals must be genetically compatible (i.e., all dogs are part of the same species). the end to which an animal is bred may or may not be immoral, but I can’t see how breeding the animal itself has any intrinsic moral quandry with the act of breeding itself.

Stem cell research (which from the context you mention above, I take to mean embryonic stem cell research) in contrast is immoral regardless of the purpose. It takes a living human being and destroys its life for human purpose. In other words, it depends upon specifically violating God’s injunction not to murder. Regardless of the end, embryonic stem cell research must be considered illegal.

So far as we know, we are alone in the entire universe of zillions of galaxies, let alone stars of incalculable number. Here we are orbiting an insignificant star, us and the animals are unique. We should be finding ways to live in harmony with them, not exploit them!

Blessings and peace.

We live in a fallen world. Animals don’t live in harmony with each other, and never have. (Ask a lion sometime if it wants to live in harmony with a wildebeast). Species exploiting other species is part of the natural order. I agree we have a responsibility to be good stewards to the animals, but God also gave us use of the animals. Ultimately our needs (and I mean needs here, not wants or desires) must come first if they conflict with the needs of some group of animals.

–
Bill

 

[Marfran]

Sure it is. Part of the egg is the ovum and the rest is the nutrient sac for the chick. You eat the nutrients of the Apple seed and you eat the nutients of the Chick. Same thing. - Only different in that the egg was never fertilized.

That **is exactly **the point. The eggs are not fertilized purposefully by man’s intervention. Eggs produced this way are manipulated by man. Goes to the whole question of breeding. Is it OK or not? Are some circumstances justifiable? Some circumstances not justifiable? Some circumstances irresponsible? Breeding dogs for pets, for example, in my opinion, is not justifiable, and is irresponsible, if other dogs are put to death because there are not enough homes to be found for the dogs currently in animal shelters.

 

[JRKH]

You’ve asked the same questions again so I will give the same answers again.

Goes to the whole question of breeding. Is it OK or not?

YES

Are some circumstances justifiable?

YES

Some circumstances not justifiable?

YES

Some circumstances irresponsible?

YES

Breeding dogs for pets, for example, in my opinion, is not justifiable, and is irresponsible, if other dogs are put to death because there are not enough homes to be found for the dogs currently in animal shelters.

Yes you are right - that is your opinion. Of course if you were the person making your living as a breeder in the pet industry you would probably have a disfferent opinion. That’s how it is with opinions.

Peace
James

 

[Marfran]

I’m curious why you did not quote my entire post since I addressed the idea of negative consequences although I did not speciically address the issue of animals in shelters. However that was not the question in the OP. The answer to That question, is it wrong to breed animals is simple, “NO” it is not wrong.
After answering that question one can get into issues of when how and why animals should or should not be purposely bred. But those are different questions to the title of this thread.

Question on curiousity: time constraints, sorry–just picking out a few things to respond to.

Question in OP: is it wrong to breed animals? You say “No”. I say yes, in some circumstances it is wrong, and in some circumstances it is irresponsible, and in some circumstances it may be OK and may even be a part of good stewardship, as in the case of preventing the extinction of a species of animal.

I don’t think this question can be answered with a simple yes or no. It can be quite complicated and neccessitates the weighing of a lot of facts, scenarios, and consequences.

 

[JRKH]

Question on curiousity: time constraints, sorry–just picking out a few things to respond to.

Question in OP: is it wrong to breed animals? You say “No”. I say yes, in some circumstances it is wrong, and in some circumstances it is irresponsible, and in some circumstances it may be OK and may even be a part of good stewardship, as in the case of preventing the extinction of a species of animal.

I say yes - With exceptions
You say no - With exceptions.
One of our glasses is half full and the other is half empty.

I don’t think this question can be answered with a simple yes or no. It can be quite complicated and neccessitates the weighing of a lot of facts, scenarios, and consequences.

Thank you for finally agreeing with what I have been saying all along.

 

[Marfran]

Yes you are right - that is your opinion. Of course if you were the person making your living as a breeder in the pet industry you would probably have a disfferent opinion. That’s how it is with opinions.

You must always consider the greater good of society. The greater good of society outweighs the individual. If what you are doing is harmful to society, or to the environment, or breaks the laws of God, then the fact that you are making a living doing it does not make it justifiable. For your example, you could replace the person making a living as a breeder, to a person making a living as a drug dealer. This is the drug dealer’s livlihood–but society suffers and individuals within that society suffer by how this person makes a living.

In the case of the dog breeder, he can find another form of income whereby his actions do not have a negative impact on society. He is making money, while society must pay to dispose of all the unwanted dogs that are already in shelters.

Puppy mills operate against the greater good of society. That’s why they’re shutting them down all over the country.

 

[mchale]

You must always consider the greater good of society. The greater good of society outweighs the individual. If what you are doing is harmful to society, or to the environment, or breaks the laws of God, then the fact that you are making a living doing it does not make it justifiable. For your example, you could replace the person making a living as a breeder, to a person making a living as a drug dealer. This is the drug dealer’s livlihood–but society suffers and individuals within that society suffer by how this person makes a living.

In the case of the dog breeder, he can find another form of income whereby his actions do not have a negative impact on society. He is making money, while society must pay to dispose of all the unwanted dogs that are already in shelters.

Puppy mills operate against the greater good of society. That’s why they’re shutting them down all over the country.

Just a couple of thoughts here…

1. Not all breeders are running puppy mills. Many breeders are very responsbile and do their best to try and place their dogs with homes where the dogs will be loved and cared for. In many of those cases, the breeder actually doesn’t make a lot of money once expenses are subtracted. They do it for the love of the breed.
2. I think there is some faulty logic here. Just because a breeder is selling dogs, it does not mean that were he to stop breeding, that there would necessarily be fewer dogs in shelters.

I think ultimately the bigggest problem with shelters is that too many people are allowed to keep dogs that have not been spayed or neutered.

There will always be a need for shelters however. Its unfortunate but true that some people simply dramatically underestimate the demands of a pet. This is going to be true regardless of whether the dogs are obtained from shelters or breeders. Ultimately, the only way to get around the problem is to get rid of all dogs… which is hardly a solution at all.

–
Bill

 

[Marfran]

Just a couple of thoughts here…

1. Not all breeders are running puppy mills. Many breeders are very responsbile and do their best to try and place their dogs with homes where the dogs will be loved and cared for. In many of those cases, the breeder actually doesn’t make a lot of money once expenses are subtracted. They do it for the love of the breed.
2. I think there is some faulty logic here. Just because a breeder is selling dogs, it does not mean that were he to stop breeding, that there would necessarily be fewer dogs in shelters.

I think ultimately the bigggest problem with shelters is that too many people are allowed to keep dogs that have not been spayed or neutered.

There will always be a need for shelters however. Its unfortunate but true that some people simply dramatically underestimate the demands of a pet. This is going to be true regardless of whether the dogs are obtained from shelters or breeders. Ultimately, the only way to get around the problem is to get rid of all dogs… which is hardly a solution at all.

–
Bill

1. Many private dog breeders may breed dogs in a nuturing and humane way, not in the way a puppy mill operates. Of course that is true. However, it does not change the fact that millions upon millions of dogs and cats are killed every year in shelters because there are not enough homes for them. So is it still a responsible act, to breed a dog, and bring puppies into a world that already has too many dogs??? All those loving homes that take those puppies could have gotten one of the dogs slated to be euthanized from a shelter instead. Loving the breed doesn’t justify the killing of other dogs. And if so little money is made, perhaps the breeders could take a break from bringing more dogs into the world.
2. If many breeders took a break at the same time, people shopping for dogs would turn to shelters looking for their best friend.

"I think ultimately the bigggest problem with shelters is that too many people are allowed to keep dogs that have not been spayed or neutered."

Absolutely. I am not blaming the breeder for creating the problem, but the breeder is ***part ***of the solution, and his actions of continuing to breed despite the climate of pet over-population can be viewed as contributing to the problem.