Pope: on animals

[stray bullet]

Oh brother.

That's the position of the Church.

 

[Open Heart]

That's the position of the Church.

No it's not. Pope Francis in his latest encyclical stated that animals have intrinsic worth and argued that therefore we should be concerned about things like endangered species.

 

[ebia]

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

It's precisely because we are God's image in and for creation that we need to care for it, and that we are damaged when we refuse to be that.

 

[Open Heart]

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

It's precisely because we are God's image in and for creation that we need to care for it, and that we are damaged when we refuse to be that.

He said it was the church's position that it's only important to avoid harming animals only because what doing so does to humans. This is contrary to the Pope's position that we avoid harming animals because they have intrinsic worth. They cannot both be right.

 

[ebia]

He said it was the church's position that it's only important to avoid harming animals only because what doing so does to humans. This is contrary to the Pope's position that we avoid harming animals because they have intrinsic worth. They cannot both be right.

He was wrong to put the word "only" in there. The rest of his reason and what Francis said aren't mutually exclusive but complementary.

 

[stray bullet]

No it's not. Pope Francis in his latest encyclical stated that animals have intrinsic worth and argued that therefore we should be concerned about things like endangered species.

There is a difference between protecting a species and having inhumane treatment.

 

[Open Heart]

He was wrong to put the word "only" in there. The rest of his reason and what Francis said aren't mutually exclusive but complementary.

I agree. If he hadn't meant ONLY I would have agreed with him. Unfortunately, the whole point of his post was to disagree with the notion that animals were not to be abused because they have intrinsic worth. I consider the latter to be the primary reason.

 

[Open Heart]

There is a difference between protecting a species and having inhumane treatment.

You just aren't connecting the dots. You do remember that Rome made a statement against modernity's abusive treatment of animals about 10 years ago. The present encyclical, by declaring animals have intrinsic worth, clears up any questions about why abuse would be wrong.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I remembered something about chickens...
they dont lay eggs in the winter.
Sorry for going back on this.

The only way to get them to continue to lay eggs would be to cage them securely and keep a sunlight on them to keep them warm and keep the season 'warm' for them.
Or we wouldnt see [in the north anyway] any eggs.
So they cannot 'free range' in the cold and ice. They have to eat the feed provided which is nutritional...and has shells ground for harder eggs rather than soft.

My one chick hated the feed and her eggs became soft and inedible.

I was thinking about them today [missing them] and remembered keeping the last one i had in the garage in a cage over the winter instead of alone in the outdoor coop that didnt provide heat. She had no one to cuddle with at night. [Yes it was insulated] but alone she would have been sad. So i got to see her in her cage. She was content.

 

[Open Heart]

So they cannot 'free range' in the cold and ice.

I did some googling on this. Apparently I was mistaken to say that the eggs are all free range. California law doesn't say you can't provide housing for your chickens. But the cages must be of a humane size, roughly twice as big as industry standards. Remember also that southern California isn't known of its snow and ice. My neighbor's chickens lay eggs year round.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Our whole economic system, from top to bottom, is screwed up because the majority of companies don't care at all about the quality of what they produce, they only care about profits. While the majority of consumers are either to clueless, or to busy to notice and likewise only care about how cheap they can get something.

Setting aside animal cruelty for a moment, consider that the majority of the food supply in the US is manifestly unhealthy. We are, for the first time in recent memory, seeing a populace that is less healthy than the generations that went before them. We as a culture, value indulgence more than health.

Our food industry isn't even producing food that's good for us, let alone having any concern for the animals involved. The ultimate reason for this is because that's what we, as consumers, want.

If we want to change this, we need to change our culture at the most basic level and change what people value. We need consumers who value health both of their own bodies and of the land and the animals. We need companies that take pride in what they produce and value the resources involved as more than just resources for profit.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I did some googling on this. Apparently I was mistaken to say that the eggs are all free range. California law doesn't say you can't provide housing for your chickens. But the cages must be of a humane size, roughly twice as big as industry standards. Remember also that southern California isn't known of its snow and ice. My neighbor's chickens lay eggs year round.

Thats why i said up north. [where i live]

 

[bill5]

Oh I can't agree with that. Animals have intrinsic worth simply by being God's creation. That's why it is wrong to abuse them.

But eating them is not in itself abusing them. Fortunately; I'd make a lousy vegetarian.

Abusing animals is wrong because of what it does to the human person.

No, abusing animals is wrong intrinsically, ie because it is by definition causing pointless pain and suffering to the animal. This should be like a water-is-wet statement.

 

[Open Heart]

But eating them is not in itself abusing them. Fortunately; I'd make a lousy vegetarian.

Absolutely. Hard core carnivore here.