Is breeding animals wrong?

[JRKH]

I would have to disagree with that as many of the animals bred for looks have health problems. Floppy ears and curly hair, pug noses and such do not benefit animals health in any way. And it has no benefit to the humans. It is really just a vanity issue.

Breeding animals is not wrong in and of itself anymore than it is wrong to cross pollinate plants to improve the size texture taste etc of food. Careful breeding of Animals have produced hardier and meatier breeds of Cattle, Sheep, etc.

I do agree with you though that breeding like you describe above should not be done if the health of the animal is compromised. This is simply not good animal husbandry.

Peace
James

 

[Marfran]

Is breeding animals wrong???

I would say in most cases yes, in some cases vehemently yes, and in some cases no. The biggest question is*** why ***are you breeding the animal? For what prurpose? And what are the negative and/or positive consequences to this act of breeding. Is anyone, human or animal, harmed by this act of breeding?

1. Breeding pets would be acceptable, only if, all animals born of this breeding will be cared for properly, and in so breeding this animal, no others will be destroyed for want of homes.

Number of cats and dogs euthanized by shelters each year:
3-4 million (HSUS estimate)

1. Creating specific breeds of “pet” animals, messing with their genes to produced desired traits, is very questionable, and the consequences to the animal should be heavily weighed. If messing with their genes improves their health and life that is one thing. If we mess with their genes to produce frivilous traits for our amusement, that is quite another. And if in breeding these animals, other animals will be destroyed for lack of homes and care, then breeding in this case is wrong.
2. Breeding animals for food (as in meat/dairy/and egg) is wrong if these animals are breed with the intention that they will spend the greater portion of their lives suffering, and will be abused and mistreated, and will lead unnatural lives of confinement.

Breeding animals for food, is perhaps a topic that requires it’s own separate focus. There are many issues and concerns inherent to the breeding of animals for food, including the misuse of resources to feed such animals who are basically “luxury” food items, the global impact of using resources that could be used to feed humans, going to feed animals instead, etc. Both humans and animals are harmed when affluent peoples breed animals as commodities in the luxury food market. The Western diet, and the diseases associated with it, is a testament to the personal harm that comes from eating foods from animals, the globe is impacted by misuse of resources, less affluent peoples subsequently have even more trouble getting adequate nutrition, and the animals themselves are harmed by having to live, suffer, and die in unnatural, distressful, and inhumane conditions and treatment.

1. Breeding animals who are in danger of becoming extinct, after careful consideration of all factors, may be an acceptable reason to intervene.

ADDENDUM: Dominion does not mean dominence. It is more a concept of stewardship. God placed the care of the planet and all of its animals into our hands. I gladly accept this responsibility and will do so with serious consideration, and respect for God. I will not wantonly abuse His creation, I will not partake in torture of His animals for frivilous purposes of vanity, etc. I think that modern man has lost sight of our role here on Earth, and in greed and desire has instituted a lot of abuses to God’s creation. I think that we all need to take a step back and look at our “progress”. To me, it does not seem to be “progress” at all. We make our lives easier in so many ways–but at what cost? Does God smile that we breed cute little dogs with pushed-in faces, only to destroy thousands of others??? Does God smile that we systematically subjugate and torture livestock, so that we can have a quick meal at the Golden Arches for lunch and then dinner too? People will argue that meat eating is allowed in the Bible, but the ***current condition of how “meat” is raised, or how often it is eaten, do not compare in any way to Biblical times. Eating meat is permissible if we need to do so to survive. But that is hardly the case nowadays. Just the opposite is true. Just some thoughts to consider…it’s not too late for us all to improve… I myself, strive to see where I can improve, and what I can personally do better or differently… At the same time that our world, our society, seems to be making strides forward, especially in science and technology, we often take a few steps back morally–and we have to be able to keep this all in check. Scientific manipulation can have positive effects and/or also negative consequences. Stewardship in this time and age is ***very challenging, and the answers are not always so simple, but that is the challenge before us…

 

[JRKH]

Dominion means having control over. Yes we need to excersize good stewardship but that can and does include the modification of our enviornment for our use.

Remember tha man also to subdue the earth.

Peace
James

 

[Ione]

Breeding animals is not wrong in and of itself anymore than it is wrong to cross pollinate plants to improve the size texture taste etc of food.

Why is it such an important thing that food be of a better size and taste. Is it not really just here to sustain us? Why do we depend so much on food to supply us with enjoyment instead of it’s real purpose to supply the body with fuel and energy?

 

[Marfran]

Dominion means having control over. Yes we need to excersize good stewardship but that can and does include the modification of our enviornment for our use.

Remember tha man also to subdue the earth.

I use the word dominion as was intended in Biblical passage. Dominion means we are in charge and are the responsible party. All the creatures of the Earth are entrusted to our care. We are to consider their well being as well as our own. We are to take care of the planet and see that it continues to flourish. We are allowed to use within reason, and must consider the consequences of all actions that we take. Our polluted waters are testament to our failure as stewards. The boss of the company has dominion over his employees. Does he pay them fair wages and make sure they have healthy working conditions? Or does he whip them into submission, refuse them bathroom breaks, chain them to machinery…?

Many people chose to interpret the word dominion, as permission to do whatever we want, for whatever reason, including selfish and greedy ones. I’m sure that **you, specifically **do not fall into that camp. The attitude that we can do whatever we want, is the reason that we are now facing so many ecological crises.

The book ***Dominion ***by Matthew Scully, is a great read that I recommend. It discusses man’s stewardship of the Earth, and in particular his responsibility to God in his treatment of animals.

 

[JRKH]

Why is it such an important thing that food be of a better size and taste. Is it not really just here to sustain us? Why do we depend so much on food to supply us with enjoyment instead of it’s real purpose to supply the body with fuel and energy?

Well in the case of size, a bigger ear of corn or larger beef animal means we can feed more people. This is certainly a good. As for taste and texture, you are right in that they are not strictly necessary, but I rather imagine that we all gravitate to that which tastes good than to that which tastes bad (to us) but is healthier. If something tastes good and is healthy - so much the better.

Peace
James

 

[Marfran]

Why is it such an important thing that food be of a better size and taste. Is it not really just here to sustain us? Why do we depend so much on food to supply us with enjoyment instead of it’s real purpose to supply the body with fuel and energy?

That is so right on!!!

 

[Marfran]

As for taste and texture, you are right in that they are not strictly necessary, but I rather imagine that we all gravitate to that which tastes good than to that which tastes bad (to us) but is healthier. If something tastes good and is healthy - so much the better.

Taste is an acquired thing. People have to develop a taste for certain foods: like coffee, wine, etc. When trying the cuisine of a different culture one often does not like it, because it is different, but often can develop a liking for it. Vegetables grown in one’s own garden often taste better than the genetically modified and grown produce from the store. We tinker and tinker and tinker with the genes–sometimes to our benefit and good–sometimes just to tinker–and sometimes for friviolous reasons… And sometimes we lose track of everything and why we’re doing it.

 

[JRKH]

Taste is an acquired thing. People have to develop a taste for certain foods: like coffee, wine, etc. When trying the cuisine of a different culture one often does not like it, because it is different, but often can develop a liking for it. Vegetables grown in one’s own garden often taste better than the genetically modified and grown produce from the store. We tinker and tinker and tinker with the genes–sometimes to our benefit and good–sometimes just to tinker–and sometimes for friviolous reasons… And sometimes we lose track of everything and why we’re doing it.

Well there is nothing in here that I can argue with.
Especially since I have my homegrown toamatoes sitting on the window sill right now, and more than 20 pints of homemade sweet pickles downstairs. (YUM!!)

The fact is that man has been tinkering with genetics long before he even knew what a gene was. Cross breeding for strength, endurance, temperment, resistance to disease, quantitiy and quality of milk or meat given, and so on goes back to the time when man first domesticated animals. Man has also taken these domesticated animals and trained them to do his bidding and carry his loads. Even Jesus rode an *** into jerusalem.

No - Tinkering is nothing new and, over all, we are definately the better for it.

There are the other cases, which I think the OP is truly refering to. The development of breeds for purely vain reasons with no health or nourishment benefits for humans. I can certainly see these as being unnecessary, especially when there is a negative impact on the health of the animal.

Peace
James

 

[Lilyflower]

. The development of breeds for purely vain reasons with no health or nourishment benefits for humans. I can certainly see these as being unnecessary, especially when there is a negative impact on the health of the animal.

Peace
James

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

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.

 

[Marfran]

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

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.

Fabulous post!!!

 

[Marfran]

No - Tinkering is nothing new and, over all, we are definately the better for it.

There are the other cases, which I think the OP is truly refering to. The development of breeds for purely vain reasons with no health or nourishment benefits for humans. I can certainly see these as being unnecessary, especially when there is a negative impact on the health of the animal.

Tinkering: In some cases we are the better off for it, but in other cases no. And in some cases it is irresponsible, as in breeding dogs with cute pushed-in faces (who subsequently have respiratory problems because of their short purposefully bred snouts). We breed them to fit into our purses, etc. We breed them for reasons of vanity. And we turn our backs on the animals in shelters, who may not have all the designer qualities, but need a home regardless.

P.S. Sorry to keep picking on the little pug dogs, but they are a good example.

 

[fix]

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. It does not look at me with emotion in it’s eyes. It does not nuture it’s babies. Scientists are not experimenting on plants to find cures because plants are not similar to us in make up. 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!

Sounds like mere emotionalism.

 

[Marfran]

Sounds like mere emotionalism.

I don’t see how you came up with the response. Can you expand on that thought and clarify?

 

[fix]

I don’t see how you came up with the response. Can you expand on that thought and clarify?

I mean there was no moral reasoning asserted, but simply statements about emotion.

 

[jorgeraul3]

Lets take the parable of the talents, but instead of talents use oxen…

So who would get the others oxen the one who didn’t breed the animals, or the one who bred healthier, meatier animals?

 

[Marfran]

Originally Posted by Ione:
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. It does not look at me with emotion in it’s eyes. It does not nuture it’s babies. Scientists are not experimenting on plants to find cures because plants are not similar to us in make up. 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!

Sounds like mere emotionalism.

I mean there was no moral reasoning asserted, but simply statements about emotion.

Say what? You said Ione’s statement was emotionalism. Is see no emotionalism whatsoever. Tomatoes and apples are fruit that falls to the ground. This is physical science and nature. The fruit is not comparable to an animal or a human. It does not have emotion, it does not have babies to feed, it does not have a brain or a central nervous system… It is not a sentient being. We have a moral obligation to do no harm to other humans and to animals too. Ione continues to show that plants are not similar in make-up to us–we do not conduct our experiments on them because they are not sentient beings, do not have similar organs, or do not even process or feel pain as do animals and humans. And she continues to appreciate that there is perhaps an argument for eating only the fallen fruits and vegetables of plants–which would be wasted if not eaten, doomed to die anyway after leaving the tree or plant. Quite a logical thought. What is emotional about that? It seems perhaps that you have thrown the word “emotionalism” out there because you have no logical argument against. BTW, the whole purpose of fruit is that it does fall from the tree and is eaten by animals. The seeds are not edible, or at least not as tasty as the fruit, and are thus scattered about the ground as the animal disgards them. This is how fruit-bearing trees reproduce. They actually rely on animals to take their fruit and scatter their seeds. This is science and nature. Nothing emotional about science and nature.

 

[Ione]

Originally Posted by Ione:
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. It does not look at me with emotion in it’s eyes. It does not nuture it’s babies. Scientists are not experimenting on plants to find cures because plants are not similar to us in make up. 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!

Say what? You said Ione’s statement was emotionalism. Is see no emotionalism whatsoever. Tomatoes and apples are fruit that falls to the ground. This is physical science and nature. The fruit is not comparable to an animal or a human. It does not have emotion, it does not have babies to feed, it does not have a brain or a central nervous system… It is not a sentient being. We have a moral obligation to do no harm to other humans and to animals too. Ione continues to show that plants are not similar in make-up to us–we do not conduct our experiments on them because they are not sentient beings, do not have similar organs, or do not even process or feel pain as do animals and humans. And she continues to appreciate that there is perhaps an argument for eating only the fallen fruits and vegetables of plants–which would be wasted if not eaten, doomed to die anyway after leaving the tree or plant. Quite a logical thought. What is emotional about that? It seems perhaps that you have thrown the word “emotionalism” out there because you have no logical argument against. BTW, the whole purpose of fruit is that it does fall from the tree and is eaten by animals. The seeds are not edible, or at least not as tasty as the fruit, and are thus scattered about the ground as the animal disgards them. This is how fruit-bearing trees reproduce. They actually rely on animals to take their fruit and scatter their seeds. This is science and nature. Nothing emotional about science and nature.

Thank you! At least someone understood it!

 

[Ione]

Lets take the parable of the talents, but instead of talents use oxen…

So who would get the others oxen the one who didn’t breed the animals, or the one who bred healthier, meatier animals?

(Trick question)
Neither. The guy with the most money and inside contacts!
(Sorry, just joking, I just couldn’t resist that one!)

 

[perfectpeach]

The only reason I am against breeding is because we bred our dog and she nearly died. We had to rush her to an animal hospital and only one puppy made it.