Pro ALL life -

[bbarrick8383]

I read through one of the articles, watched one of the videos. Cattle prods, the electrical devices it said are used on pigs, we use them on each other when we have one that actually works. They are so stupid, most ranchers do not use them. The best way to get a cow moving is to grab her tail and pull it up and forward. Pigs on the otherhand are a pain in the neck to get moving.

One article talked about pigs squealing so much, that is what they do. You show me a pig that does not squeal when he’s being loaded up, just to go to a show or put in a wash pin to clean him up. They squeal, and its annoying. Raising show hogs is pretty popular around here, I am friends with a breeder. He has 4 mommas, last time I checked 2 of them had given birth to 25 babies. The pens they keep them in are exactly the way they described them in the article. They do that so they can help the momma with the birth, even if she does not need it most will help. And it’s easier for the mom to lay there and feed her pigs and not have to go too far to eat or drink. The mom does not live in that pin though, they usually have a large area when they arent giving birth. I have never in my life seen them do some of the things the article said that they do to pigs.

That stuff may have happened but I dont think it is as common as they make it out to be.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

If I am reading what you are saying correctly I would say there is nothing in the faith that says we must be vegans or that their is greater merit in that. The problem of resources or management of farms certainly can have a moral component, but most of the issues you raise seem more about a particular ideology than anything faith related.

ditto this!

 

[Sair]

I have spotted an important distinction which should probably have been clear to me long before now, but I have now at least stumbled upon the means to articulate it.

Whether or not one considers factory farming and the necessary practices it entails as being unethical is intimately connected to whether one regards other animals as existing primarily for the purpose of human use, or existing as beings with interests in their own right.

If the former, then any use of an animal is justified, provided it benefits humans. In addition, any treatment of said animal which makes using it more convenient to humans is justifiable in the context of the animal’s ultimate purpose being its utility for humans.

If the latter, then any treatment which inflicts unnecessary pain upon the animal (ie: pain that is not for its explicit benefit, eg some medical procedures), or prevents it from exercising its natural behaviours - and thereby causes it stress - is indefensible. Human consumption of animal products is, however, defensible in the context of the natural order, whereby some animals survive by consuming the flesh or eggs of other animals. In this context, small-scale, organic farming that pays heed to the needs of the animals is justified, as it is mutually beneficial, and can cater for the needs, if not the desires, of humans as far as consumption of animal products is concerned; commercial factory farming, where the welfare of the animals is a secondary consideration to their utility, is not justifiable in this context.

This is probably a useful distinction to bear in mind for future arguments…

 

[Sean_Boyle]

I have spotted an important distinction which should probably have been clear to me long before now, but I have now at least stumbled upon the means to articulate it.

Whether or not one considers factory farming and the necessary practices it entails as being unethical is intimately connected to whether one regards other animals as existing primarily for the purpose of human use, or existing as beings with interests in their own right.

If the former, then any use of an animal is justified, provided it benefits humans. In addition, any treatment of said animal which makes using it more convenient to humans is justifiable in the context of the animal’s ultimate purpose being its utility for humans.

If the latter, then any treatment which inflicts unnecessary pain upon the animal (ie: pain that is not for its explicit benefit, eg some medical procedures), or prevents it from exercising its natural behaviours - and thereby causes it stress - is indefensible. Human consumption of animal products is, however, defensible in the context of the natural order, whereby some animals survive by consuming the flesh or eggs of other animals. In this context, small-scale, organic farming that pays heed to the needs of the animals is justified, as it is mutually beneficial; commercial factory farming, where the welfare of the animals is a secondary consideration to their utility, is not.

This is probably a useful distinction to bear in mind for future arguments…

If the latter is true then it would be indefensible to own pets! Spaying and neutering would be indefensible, as would fencing a yard to hold a pet in, as would keeping a pet from its own kind forcing it to live a “human” type life.

 

[maryjk]

That is a good point - people “in charge” do have a great responsibility for their people - but economic pressures are often in force and our choices can drive those pressures. I thought this article did a good job giving more details on that issue:

earthsave.ca/articles/enviro/why_does.html

In order to meet our demand for meat, millions of tonnes of grain are diverted to feed livestock. More than 1/3 of the world’s total grain harvest is fed to livestock. Much of this grain is** imported from developing countries where farmers are encouraged to use land to grow export crops for the West. Even during the famine of the mid 1980’s, Ethiopia was exporting grain that could have been used to feed its own people to the West - feed for livestock.**

Why would the government of Ethiopia do this? Because they wanted the money, they couldn’t have cared less about their people starving. So because of this, I should stop eating meat?

I want to live in a house. If a contractor n California decides to beat his wife and family, I shouldn’t buy a house? In fact, no one should buy a house. Because of a contractor that is a criminal? How about we lock up the contractor and the dictator for that matter?

(And I see no one has addressed the fact that I already have a very limited diet. Did you know that researchers have determined that the reason some groups of people have Celiac, is because their ancestors didn’t eat wheat? Guess my body wasn’t designed to eat grains. Or at least most popular grains of today.)

 

[Marfran]

If the latter is true then it would be indefensible to own pets! Spaying and neutering would be indefensible, as would fencing a yard to hold a pet in, as would keeping a pet from its own kind forcing it to live a “human” type life.

I agree in a way with this, but this is perhaps a whole additional topic. My professional background is in wild animals–as opposed to livestock or domestic animals. If anyone wants to have a meaningful discussion on domestic animals you need to familiarize yourself with all relevant info and history.

Human beings domesticated the dog. Cats domesticated themselves–meaning that they discovered on their own that living near people was beneficial to their survival. Cats living alongside humans goes back all the way to the time of the pyramids. Domestication of dogs is a more recent phenomenon.

Both dogs and cats are natural carnivores. A cat is what is called an obligate carnivore.

Cats living in ancient Egypt were not feed “kibble” or “cat food”–no cans of Fancy Feast to crack open, no Cat Chow to pour into a bowl.

Cats in ancient Egypt lived near people and took care of the vermin (mice, etc.), that were attracted by the crops and foods people harvested and stored.

Domesticating the dog and breeding it to look this way and that, is not natural. Dogs and cats are however treated very well by humans.

And have you heard of pet pigs? I hear that George Clooney has one. Pigs are very intellengent animals. Their intellegence has been likened to that of dogs.

How is it that we have such different standards for the treatment of various animals?

We have laws that protect wildlife. We have laws that protect domestic animals. And the livestock should also not be mistreated or abused.

Native Americans hunted to survive in the colder winter climates. They were also very thankful to all animals that gave their lives so that they could survive. Native Americans were respectful to all life, to the planet, and were not wasteful. As a modern society we should consider their example.

And back to Sean Boyle’s suggestion that perhaps there is something amiss in our domestication of dogs–I would agree that there is merit to discussion on the topic.

We domesticated the dog, a carnivore, to help us hunt–since we do not possess the physical ability ourselves (we do not have the claws or teeth or the agility, and we must use devices to accomplish what natural carnivores can do on their own). And somewhere along history, the dog became even more than an instrument of hunting–he became a companion, and now a toy to put in our purse, or a surrogate child… And we treat that dog very well, and his brother the pig…as a piece of meat, not deserving of the attention we give to our dogs. Quite a discrepancy.

As we humans disturb the natural order of the world we create many problems. And what do we feed all these dogs? I am in complete agreement that a vegan diet is the most natural and is the healthiest diet for human beings and promotes natural order in the world. I have seen a book on veganism, in which the particular author suggests that you can put your pets, your dogs and cats, also on a vegan diet. I think this is competely unsound. They are carnivores designed to eat meat, and will not be healthy if they do not eat their natural diet.

So we are breeding them left and right, big and small, apartment dogs, purse dogs, pretty dogs… Something else to think deeply about.

Maybe this is our challenge here–as humans–as stewards of the planet. We are smart enough to screw things up, to denegrate our planet, to destroy the beauty and gifts of God–are we also smart enough to fix our mistakes, to keep this planet in the beautiful condition that it was given to us?

 

[Marfran]

I post here to learn why you guys are vegan, offer my (name removed by moderator)ut and for the most part learn. I have no intention of becoming vegetarian or vegan for that matter. My family history proves that our diet is ok for us. I hope your diet is ok for you.

bbarrick: I think your experience is very valuable. And you are a deep thinker. I like you! and understand that your family business is (dairy) farming. From what I know of you, you are not a cruel or thoughtless person. For you whose business is farming–an increasingly difficult business to survive in–it is beneficial to your survival that you do understand the trends or shifts in consumers that affect your business.

You can grumble about the vegans (a growing segment of the population), that are not drinking your milk, or you can try to understand the foundation of the movement toward this type of diet and lifestyle choice.

There are several reasons for the increasing popularity of veganism. One large reason is health and health concerns. Another is the ethics of how animals in agribusiness are treated and/or mistreated.

If you humanely treat your animals–you can be proud of this. You should be upset if the factory farms are casting a stain on your industry.

If you view the vegan as an enemy, as a threat to your business–then you can not learn from him/her. I have been a vegetarian for several decades and have recently discovered that being a vegetarian is not enough. I have taken the plunge to veganism for both health and ethical reasons. (My health has had a drastic improvement, in a short period of time, by eliminating dairy and eggs. And this is confirmed by quantitative medical tests.)

I am happy to know you–and appreciate your perspectives–and have learned things from you!

The unethical factory farmer would not waste their time even being in this discussion.

If we all possessed the same thoughts and had the same experiences, how could we improve and move forward? It’s great to have likeminded friends–but equally as great to put divergent minds together and see what happens!

 

[Sair]

Human beings domesticated the dog. Cats domesticated themselves–meaning that they discovered on their own that living near people was beneficial to their survival. Cats living alongside humans goes back all the way to the time of the pyramids. Domestication of dogs is a more recent phenomenon.

Both dogs and cats are natural carnivores. A cat is what is called an obligate carnivore.

Cats living in ancient Egypt were not feed “kibble” or “cat food”–no cans of Fancy Feast to crack open, no Cat Chow to pour into a bowl.

Cats in ancient Egypt lived near people and took care of the vermin (mice, etc.), that were attracted by the crops and foods people harvested and stored.

Domesticating the dog and breeding it to look this way and that, is not natural. Dogs and cats are however treated very well by humans.

Actually, it is likely that the dog was domesticated during prehistoric times. Both humans and dogs are highly social omnivores - scavengers, in fact, designed to gain nutrition from what food they can obtain. The relationship between humans and dogs has been mutually beneficial - dogs have superior olfactory capacity, and would have been invaluable assistance to human hunting, and both would have benefitted from the kill.

As to the present-day situation, there are far more domestic-bred dogs and cats than there are people willing to care for them. My dog and our two cats would have been euthanased had we not taken them in. As for sterilisation, its primary purpose is to control the above-mentioned situation - to prevent overpopulation (and I won’t go into the implications of this for humans).

Furthermore, if one compares the behaviour of animals in the wild, especially social animals such as dogs, it is only a relatively small proportion of them that successfully breed, as individuals - and then only after fighting for dominance. So it is a little hard to argue that responsible and caring pet owners are actually depriving their animals of the ability to lead comfortable lives.

Of course, pet ownership does have implications for food consumption, but then I have observed that dogs in particular are far more willing to eat the offcuts and organs, and chew the bones of slaughtered animals than are most humans…

 

[fix]

That is why - in the second post - I tried to go through the points of Catholic Social Teaching as they relate TODAY - IN THE WESTERN WORLD - to food choices - - this has helped me to see how this resonates with my faith

Yes, I understand that is your position. I just do not agree with your interpretation of it.

 

[Marfran]

And I see no one has addressed the fact that I already have a very limited diet.

Dear maryjk: Celiac disease is a very difficult thing, and most, if not all of us in this discussion are not familiar with it in an* expert* kind of way.

The only person that I know of having Celiac disease is Elizabeth, from the program The View. I do not know what she eats, but she refrains from a lot of the taste testing when the show has samples of various cuisines, etc.

I don’t know if you have a WHOLE FOODS in your area. I like to shop there. They sell meat and dairy and everything else. They have very stringent guidelines for their suppliers. What I really like about WHOLE FOODS is that most, if not all products are labeled, not only with a list of ingredients, but they are also explicitly labeled as CONTAINING **NO **WHEAT, or CONTAINING NO SOY, or CONTAINING NO DAIRY, etc.

It is a great place for people with special diets to shop. Diabetics, people with food allergies, Celiac disease, vegans, vegetarians, etc., can easily find foods that fit into their diets.

And I am noticing that mainstream grocery stores are also, in addition to listing ingredients (some of which we can not even pronounce or know what they are), are also beginning to label products as CONTAINS **NO **WHEAT, SOY, EGGS, NUTS, etc.

In the past, many manufacturers covered their butts by blanket statements such as MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF TREE NUTS, MADE IN A FACTORY THAT ALSO PRODUCES…blah, blah, blah… The trend is now to spell it out in totality…because consumers are demanding it.

I would be happy to do some research for you of companies that produce products that are Celiac friendly.

 

[Marfran]

As to the present-day situation, there are far more domestic-bred dogs and cats than there are people willing to care for them.

Yes, absolutely. Another example of our poor job of stewardship over this planet. Dominience gone amuck.

 

[maryjk]

Dear maryjk: Celiac disease is a very difficult thing, and most, if not all of us in this discussion are not familiar with it in an* expert* kind of way.

You missed my point. It wasn’t that I have Celiac and need to avoid wheat, rye, barley and oats. I am well versed in that. It is that 4elise seems to think that a vegan diet it the way to go. That our bodies aren’t designed to eat meat. Well, my body wasn’t designed to eat many grains.

Vegans then mention all the wonderful things everyone can eat. Like Total cereal to make sure you have enough B12. Sorry, Total cereal has wheat and barley in it.

Then you said.

More calories are spent/consumed raising chickens/cows than in feeding the grains directly to the people!

Again, sorry, I can’t eat most of those grains. No one seems to have a solution to that problem.

(and the closest Whole Foods, is over an hour away. But sometimes I make a day of it.)

 

[Marfran]

You missed my point. It wasn’t that I have Celiac and need to avoid wheat, rye, barley and oats. I am well versed in that. It is that 4elise seems to think that a vegan diet it the way to go. That our bodies aren’t designed to eat meat. Well, my body wasn’t designed to eat many grains.

Vegans then mention all the wonderful things everyone can eat. Like Total cereal to make sure you have enough B12. Sorry, Total cereal has wheat and barley in it.

Then you said.

Again, sorry, I can’t eat most of those grains. No one seems to have a solution to that problem.

(and the closest Whole Foods, is over an hour away. But sometimes I make a day of it.)

Dear maryjk: I’m sorry if I missed your point. I am not familiar enough with Celiac disease to make comments on it, or tell you what you should or shouldn’t eat. It sounds like you take offense to the suggestion of 4elise that our bodies aren’t designed to eat meat. You feel that your body is. I can not speak for **4elise **, but I think the point is that from a scientific perspective, humans are not physiologically designed to eat meat. We don’t have the claws, talons, type of teeth to tear or shred meat, the enzymes in the stomach to digest and/or deal with bacteria inherent to meat, the length of intestines appropriate to meat eating…etc., etc.

You have a condition which makes it difficult for you to get proper nutrition from your food. You need to take extra care in doing so. If you were a wild animal whose primary sustinance was food X, and you were allergic to food X, and all of your fellow animals ate and survived eating food X, you in following their example and programming, would perish.

So you have an advantage, being a human, and understanding the intricacies of your condition. And there are many people that have medical conditions that set them apart from the mass of people–and they must do things differently for their own health/survival.

I suspect, though, maryjk, that you you do not have claws or sharp teeth–and that you use a knife and a fork to cut your meat!

And I don’t know who said something about* Total *cereal. I was so mad when I saw their commercial bashing Kashi cereal. Total cereal is the perfect example of misleading advertising. Total cereal uses enriched grains. It is NOT a Whole Food type of product. Enriched means that in the processing, the nutrients are stripped out and re-added back. Kashi cereals use ingredients in their natural, whole form. They don’t overprocess, strip nutrients out and add them back. Total cereal is not vegan, by the way. Did someone infer that it was? Some Kashi cereals are vegan, some are not.

So maryjk, if more people choose a vegan lifestyle or diet–for whatever various reasons–that does not change* your *health situation, or the fact that you must be very careful on what you eat.

As a planet we can move this way or that, consider the benefit to the most people, the benefit to the less affluent members of our society, and the benefits to the health of the planet as a whole. But that in no way detracts from you, maryjk! You have specific needs for survival–and we other humans, of course want you to survive!!!

 

[4elise]

You claim that your opinion are more in line with Catholic Social Teaching. This is your opinion backed by your opinion of Catholic Social Teaching. Your foundation is clearly built on sand.

You need to stop making this assertion because it can not be part of Truth as revealed by God thru his Church.

Feel free to claim that it is part of 4elise Social Teaching because that is all this is.

I guess I don’t understand Sean why you react so strongly to this? Are you saying I should eat meat because the Church doesn’t tell me to be vegan?
Just not following your thought on this?

 

[4elise]

The point was if you can claim that vegans are more in line with Catholic Social Teaching for the lifestyle they lead, then I can claim that vegan that consume more calories than need to sustain life are NOT really living a better lifestyle according to the same criteria that you profess. Who sets the bar in your mind on what is an is not in line with Catholic Social Teaching, you or me. If it me, then no matter what, you eat to much. If it’s you then I consume to many resources by consuming meat.

My point is just as valid as yours. They are two extremes in the realm of diet. Why should we follow your idea as an extreme and not mine (of paring your diet down to next to nothing to eat) to a greater Catholic Social Teaching?

Let me try to say this more clearly - you chose to eat a diet that includes meat and consume X amount of calories (don’t want to put a number in and get into a big discusion again on BMI)
A vegan with your same age and build eats the exact number of calories from a plant based diet -
The vegan diet choice uses less resources to produce the **same amount of calories. **

 

[Marfran]

The vegan diet choice uses less resources to produce the **same amount of calories. **

Inarguably true.

 

[4elise]

Dear maryjk: I’m sorry if I missed your point. I am not familiar enough with Celiac disease to make comments on it, or tell you what you should or shouldn’t eat. It sounds like you take offense to the suggestion of 4elise that our bodies aren’t designed to eat meat. You feel that your body is. I can not speak for **4elise **,

First - I want to thank Marfran for the respectful way you engage people in this discussion and to bbarack (sp?) for you willingness to look into something so different for you and do it respectfully - I hoped Catholic Answers site would be where a discussion like this could be held without (too many ) side-tracks so thanks to everyone for trying to be kind in your responses.

Just for clarification I don’t think I ever suggested that our bodies aren’t designed for meat, although I can see you points Marfran - and truly appreciate the dietary restrictions that some others face being a big challenge if they were interested in looking into making changes.

I have a question to those of you who do eat meat - is there anything in the second post on this thread that resonated for you at all?

If you just don’t think the facts are correct, I guess that is one thing. For example, if you don’t believe the resources I and others have provided, or you think it is all biased.

But if you were to consider that even some of it is true even some of the time would Catholic Social Teaching point to a different choice even some of the time?

 

[bbarrick8383]

I have a question to those of you who do eat meat - is there anything in the second post on this thread that resonated for you at all?

Yes and no, I’m a firm believer in the perfect balance. An omnivore diet can be unhealthy if it weighs heavily on red meat. I can see how a vegan diet can be unhealthy too if not careful. Ultimately, too much worry can cause health problems so, we fix our dinners usually with a meat(usually white) and two sides(Was rice and carrots tonight). But I enjoy a good hamburger, or steak or whatever and I do not worry about it. Plus, family history needs to be taken into consideration here.

Now on the second post, who can not agree with most of that, and you have done a nice job translating it into what suites you. As long as you are happy, and you stick with it and you pray for it and you feel that God is taking you down that road then keep it up. Gods got me going in a totally different direction right now. I’m doing pretty well for myself back here on the family farm, but can you believe about four years ago I was broke eating whatever I could get my hands on in Florida trying to go to school and work a full time job.

If you just don’t think the facts are correct, I guess that is one thing. For example, if you don’t believe the resources I and others have provided, or you think it is all biased.

A California study found that a single dairy cow “emits 19.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per year, making dairies the largest source of the smog-making gas, surpassing trucks and passenger cars.”(23)

I’m sorry, but if they took in the fact that the tractors and other equipment used in the production of foods, from planting to sowing, semi taking it to storage or shipment. The fact that a 100 acre farm would likely, unless dissimilar seeds are used, only be able to use 75 acres for crops. There are so many factors and coming from Cali, it wouldnt suprise me if they were against cows a little. But if they actually layed it out, counting each and every factor, a cows farts are not going to outweigh the output of the giant diesel engines.

And I dont believe in global warming, or that cows farts have anything to do with it. Why would god create an animal that destroys his earth?

 

[maryjk]

It seems that we can feed more people, given the limited resources of our world, work to ensure the future of the planet for our children and grand children - if we eliminate animals and their products from our diet -

Again this won’t work because the reason people are starving isn’t because there isn’t food. It is because of Dictators.

I’m sorry if it seems that I am advocating something so elemental as sending the grain that is used to raise cattle to feed the hungry - it may be that simple - but I think it is about the sustainable use of resources, exactly what you note would be preferable -

This would not be a one time - don’t raise this cow / send the grain to a poor person - swap idea - but rather if more (dare I hope all) people were to switch to a plant based diet the sustainable resources go further right?

Again, this won’t work because many people have issues eating some of the most common plants. Much like I tried to explain, I have Celiac. That means no wheat, rye, barley or oats. Dare I hope that everyone stops eating these grains? It would make my life much easier.

If you do - and are not open to any information that points otherwise, there is really nothing else that I can share with you, nor do I think anyone else who has made this choice would be able to - you are not, as you say interested in making any changes yourself - so my question again, is then I guess I still don’t understand why this is a topic that continues to be something you feel the need to defend?

Because every time I turn around, there is another thread started by you, Marfran or Sair about how wonderful it is to be vegan. We can’t get away from it.

In order to meet our demand for meat, millions of tonnes of grain are diverted to feed livestock. More than 1/3 of the world’s total grain harvest is fed to livestock. Much of this grain is** imported from developing countries where farmers are encouraged to use land to grow export crops for the West. Even during the famine of the mid 1980’s, Ethiopia was exporting grain that could have been used to feed its own people to the West - feed for livestock.**

Why is a country selling its grain when their people are starving? Can you say dictator?

Just for clarification I don’t think I ever suggested that our bodies aren’t designed for meat, although I can see you points Marfran - and truly appreciate the dietary restrictions that some others face being a big challenge if they were interested in looking into making changes.

You are right, that was Marfran. I am glad you truly appreciate the challenge. I have a challenge for you. Since you seem, from your posting here, to want people to try the vegan diet, I would love for you to try the gluten free diet. I will admit, I won’t be trying the vegan diet. All in all, I think it is silly. And pretty much impossible while being gluten free. Unlike you, I couldn’t cheat with the gluten free diet.

I have a question to those of you who do eat meat - is there anything in the second post on this thread that resonated for you at all?

If you just don’t think the facts are correct, I guess that is one thing. For example, if you don’t believe the resources I and others have provided, or you think it is all biased.

But if you were to consider that even some of it is true even some of the time would Catholic Social Teaching point to a different choice even some of the time?

No, it had no impact. God put my eyes in the front of my head, that makes me a predator.

 

[Sair]

Again this won’t work because the reason people are starving isn’t because there isn’t food. It is because of Dictators.

Also, global economics are complicated. Generally speaking, there is no balance - the greatest part of the world’s wealth is concentrated in the hands of a relatively tiny number of people (as compared to the global population). Certainly there are dictators in developing countries who have made a complete balls-up of their responsibilities (Mugabe, as an example that immediately springs to mind) and have squandered what resources they do have, or directed them all to military interests. There is also the issue of Western corporations who take advantage of the cheap labour costs in developing countries, and import products at the lowest possible prices - these tend to be things like coffee, chocolate and tobacco which are grown at the expense of food crops.

So there may well be enough food-producing land to feed the world, if it were all actually directed to that end.

Because every time I turn around, there is another thread started by you, Marfran or Sair about how wonderful it is to be vegan. We can’t get away from it.

So far I’ve counted three, across all the forums, all begun independently (although I did start mine in response to a suggestion on another thread). Also, I haven’t been pushing veganism, and I am not a vegan, although I certainly see nothing wrong with it. Neither do I advocate for a diet high in animal protein - as with so many things in life, balance is the key. The common concern to all three threads dealing with food production is the ethical issues involved, regarding both humans and other animals.

God put my eyes in the front of my head, that makes me a predator.

He also gave you blunt teeth and a long gut for extracting nutrition from vegetable matter, which would tend to point to a largely vegetarian diet, supplemented with animal protein and fat. Incidentally, many species of monkey have eyes in the front of their head (useful for judging distances between branches), and they live primarily on fruit…