V
- Status
V
Veronica_Anne
Guest
Can’t read it. The background graphics are so sucky that I can’t make out the letters.
What’s the point of the article?
What’s the point of the article?
P
puzzleannie
Guest
The article is nearly impossible to read, but seems to equate the tactics, strategy and intellectual foundation of the animal rights movement to the anti-abortion movement. Too bad unborn birds and animals on the endangered species list enjoy legal protection, but unborn humans do not.
V
vegetus25
Guest
If you cut/paste the article to Microsoft Word you can read it easier.
God bless and Happy T-giving,
Veg
God bless and Happy T-giving,
Veg
J
john654
Guest
Veg,
I’m going to eat a bird!
John
Happy THANKS GIVING to you too.
I’m going to eat a bird!
John
V
vegetus25
Guest
Hey guys,
I posted this article because I am doing some research on the “link” between animal abuse and human abuse. Does anyone think the way we treat animals has any influence on how we treat each other? If so, what kind of moral obligations does this present to Catholics?
Thanks in advance and God bless,
Veg
I posted this article because I am doing some research on the “link” between animal abuse and human abuse. Does anyone think the way we treat animals has any influence on how we treat each other? If so, what kind of moral obligations does this present to Catholics?
Thanks in advance and God bless,
Veg
S
space_ghost
Guest
need an abridged version… 
M
MariaG
Guest
Biblically, God gave man animals to eat after Noah and the flood. Some argue that we don’t need to do that now with modern times, but that in no way negates the fact that God told man to do it. To compare eating an animal something God told us to do, to an intrinsicly evil act of taking the life of a human being which God has not told us to do is not only ludicrous, it is offensive.
Treating animals inhumanely can never be defended. However, eating animals is not in and of itself and inhumane act. If you choose to disagree with that, take it up with God. He is the one that “changed” the rules.
God Bless,
Maria
Treating animals inhumanely can never be defended. However, eating animals is not in and of itself and inhumane act. If you choose to disagree with that, take it up with God. He is the one that “changed” the rules.
God Bless,
Maria
S
Stephen-Maguire
Guest
Jesus caught fish, and there is life in everything grown, even that darn old cabbage, now i’m in a dilema, what am I going to eat.
Guess I’ll just have to starve to death :banghead:
R
RBushlow
Guest
Eating animals is not abuse. And no, I think the treatment of Human Beings, made in the image and likness of God is on and entirely different scale.
Peace be with you.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
The Catholic Church, in her wisdom, has the correct balance concerning the treatment of animals.
From the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:
Respect for the integrity of creation
2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.
2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
From the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:
Respect for the integrity of creation
2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.
2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
A
asquared
Guest
one of the earliest and most predictive signs of future psychotic or sociopathic behavior in a child is sadistic abuse of animals, (also extreme fascination with fire, cruelty to small children and other specific behaviors). While the sociopath abuses animals directly, most of us pay somebody to raise our food sources in abusive conditions, so we are removed from the process, so we can intellectually absolve ourselves from guilt. We are considered “normal” as are the factory farmers of poultry and cattle.
Some women have always aborted fetuses, killed or exposed newborns, either under duress or for convenience. Now we have institutionalized the payment of someone else to perform that deed, so we are removed from the process, and intellectually absolve ourselves from guilt. We are considered “normal” as are the abortionists and their cohorts.
Some women have always aborted fetuses, killed or exposed newborns, either under duress or for convenience. Now we have institutionalized the payment of someone else to perform that deed, so we are removed from the process, and intellectually absolve ourselves from guilt. We are considered “normal” as are the abortionists and their cohorts.
V
vegetus25
Guest
Thank you for the replies. I was more interested in discussing a possible link between animal abuse/human abuse and what we should do about it, but since you brought it up…
Maria G, if I remember right God said we could eat animals not that we should. As far as taking it up w/ God I will follow St Jerome’s lead. Also, I do not think the article was saying using animals and the abortion of babies was of the same moral weight, but was pointing out some morally relevant similarities and arguments.
The eating of animals may not be an inhumane act, but the way the majority of them are raised is inhumane. If cruelty to animals does lead to cruelty to humans (as both St Thomas Aquinas and St Francis have said) then don’t we have a duty to make sure that if we are going to use animals that we at least treat them kindly. If not for the animals themselves, then for each other?
Stephen-Maguire, There is life in everything, but thanks to mathematics I think I can show you a way that will help you to respect that life and also not to starve. Since it takes 10-16 pounds of plants to produce a pound of flesh, if you don’t eat flesh you can save all that life (both animal and plant life). And since you are life too, I don’t think the Lord will mind you only eating a few plants since that was His original plan. Hope this helps you to stop scarring up your head on that wall
How are we to live out the Cathechism’s guidance on animals? Can we use animals who were treated cruelly? Can we use them if it is not necessary?
asquared, I think you have hit the nail on the head
Most mass murderers first abused/killed animals before abusing/killing humans. The FBI uses animal abuse (along w/ fire setting and late bed wetting) as warning signs of future violent behavior towards humans. This information along w/ the Church’s teachings have gotten me thinking about how this “link” maybe contributing to the aborting of the unborn, human euthanasia, etc.
We have turned a blind eye to institutional animal cruelty for a long time and I think it has contributed to the present state of the world.
How would you argue that abortion was wrong w/ an atheistic Pro-Choice person? How would you convince them an unborn baby has personhood? When I have done this I have used most of the same arguments that I would to show we have obligations to animals. If the arguments are the same then I think we need to consider more seriously our obligations to animals. Especially, if there is a “link” and in light of the duties the Cathechism of the Catholic Church gives to us.
In saying this I am not saying that a baby and an animal are on the same level. But when so many of the arguments supporting the unborn also support animals how can we expect an atheistic Pro-Choice person to respect the unborn if we are not willing to respect animals?
God bless,
Veg
Maria G, if I remember right God said we could eat animals not that we should. As far as taking it up w/ God I will follow St Jerome’s lead. Also, I do not think the article was saying using animals and the abortion of babies was of the same moral weight, but was pointing out some morally relevant similarities and arguments.
The eating of animals may not be an inhumane act, but the way the majority of them are raised is inhumane. If cruelty to animals does lead to cruelty to humans (as both St Thomas Aquinas and St Francis have said) then don’t we have a duty to make sure that if we are going to use animals that we at least treat them kindly. If not for the animals themselves, then for each other?
Stephen-Maguire, There is life in everything, but thanks to mathematics I think I can show you a way that will help you to respect that life and also not to starve. Since it takes 10-16 pounds of plants to produce a pound of flesh, if you don’t eat flesh you can save all that life (both animal and plant life). And since you are life too, I don’t think the Lord will mind you only eating a few plants since that was His original plan. Hope this helps you to stop scarring up your head on that wall
How are we to live out the Cathechism’s guidance on animals? Can we use animals who were treated cruelly? Can we use them if it is not necessary?
asquared, I think you have hit the nail on the head
Most mass murderers first abused/killed animals before abusing/killing humans. The FBI uses animal abuse (along w/ fire setting and late bed wetting) as warning signs of future violent behavior towards humans. This information along w/ the Church’s teachings have gotten me thinking about how this “link” maybe contributing to the aborting of the unborn, human euthanasia, etc.
We have turned a blind eye to institutional animal cruelty for a long time and I think it has contributed to the present state of the world.
How would you argue that abortion was wrong w/ an atheistic Pro-Choice person? How would you convince them an unborn baby has personhood? When I have done this I have used most of the same arguments that I would to show we have obligations to animals. If the arguments are the same then I think we need to consider more seriously our obligations to animals. Especially, if there is a “link” and in light of the duties the Cathechism of the Catholic Church gives to us.
In saying this I am not saying that a baby and an animal are on the same level. But when so many of the arguments supporting the unborn also support animals how can we expect an atheistic Pro-Choice person to respect the unborn if we are not willing to respect animals?
God bless,
Veg
T
TobyLue
Guest
Animals have no rights such as humans do. I don’t understand why some go to all lengths and campaign for “animal rights” when God gave man dominion over animals. There is no sin in killing an animal. It is a sin to treat an animal with cruelty and to kill it just for fun or for “sport”. The CCC states it as it really is. Look as the American Indians, they killed buffalo for their needs and only what they needed. Along comes white man and slaughters them out of greed. That is sinful. If some people insist that animals have “rights” then are they not supposed to do all in their power to make sure that the “rights” of zebras, antelopes, wildebeast, etc., are not violated by those mean, dastardly, lions and hyenas?. Imagine how they cruelly run down and start eating poor wildebeasts alive before they are even dead. They must persecute them to the full extent of the law!!! After all, they say animals have rights.
I find it truly amazing that in my city thousands go and protest in front of the animal shelter because too many dogs are euthanized, yet let one person stand in front of an abortatorium and he is hauled away and jailed as a criminal. Where are our priorities?
P.S. I don’t believe in leasing a deer lot, go year round to feed them, then come hunting season hide in a deer blind and shoot the animal while he goes to feed to the place where he has now gotten used to. But, then again, the deer population has to be reduced, otherwise if there too many, some deer will starve to death.
I find it truly amazing that in my city thousands go and protest in front of the animal shelter because too many dogs are euthanized, yet let one person stand in front of an abortatorium and he is hauled away and jailed as a criminal. Where are our priorities?
P.S. I don’t believe in leasing a deer lot, go year round to feed them, then come hunting season hide in a deer blind and shoot the animal while he goes to feed to the place where he has now gotten used to. But, then again, the deer population has to be reduced, otherwise if there too many, some deer will starve to death.
S
Stephen-Maguire
Guest
Thanks for the advice, after all that headbanging I feel quite hungry, if it moves I’m eating it, infact even if it does’nt move i’m eating it.Stephen-Maguire, There is life in everything, but thanks to mathematics I think I can show you a way that will help you to respect that life and also not to starve. Since it takes 10-16 pounds of plants to produce a pound of flesh, if you don’t eat flesh you can save all that life (both animal and plant life). And since you are life too, I don’t think the Lord will mind you only eating a few plants since that was His original plan. Hope this helps you to stop scarring up your head on that wall
http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/cheeseburger.gif
J
John_Higgins
Guest
If God didn’t mean for us to eat animals, why did He make them out of meat?
John
John
E
Exporter
Guest
IMHO this article favors animal rights over human rights. They try for legitimacy by attempting to tie the animal rights crowd to the Right to Life people.
This is as logical as trying to say Alkiada is the same as the Cab Drivers Union …they both drive cars, Alkiada just puts bombs in them.
This is as logical as trying to say Alkiada is the same as the Cab Drivers Union …they both drive cars, Alkiada just puts bombs in them.
- Status