There are some animal activists that probably feel just as strongly about the killing of animals, that we feel about abortion. How do you respond to someone who says that animals should have the right to life and shouldn’t be killed, without sounding unsympathetic or even hypocritical?
It is a fact of life that man needs meat to survive. Vegetarians kill plants to eat. Why is plant life less then that of the animals? :shrug:
How do you mean respond? also do you mean to kill animals for food, clothing or entertainment?
BTW people can be very concerned/protective of both animals and humans (unborn humans)
Take a look at the veggie/vegan group on here
I’d probably say, “Some other time; I have a striploin to grill.”
I would ask them why they think that.
And I don’t know what else I’d say until I heard their response.
(and I would try really hard not to slap the mosquito that just landed on my arm during the conversation.)
The Jewish and Christian scriptures tell us that animals are put here for us to eat. For a non-Judeo-Christian person, that may not be persuasive. It is certainly true that animals eat other animals for food so it seems to be the natural order. Perhaps the best argument is that we should be most concerned with human suffering, especially regarding the least among us; the very young and the old. Of course, if an individual wants to adopt a vegetarian diet as a personal choice, that is fine.
Congratulate them on their high standards of ethics.
Wow, many animal rights activists put these furry or not so furry creatures ahead of humans to the extent that support of abortion for humans and not killing animals go hand in hand.
Hitler, it is said, was not only a vegetarian from about 1937, but a dedicated one!
No we don’t, so that is not a good answer as you look uninformed from the get-go.
A better response is to point out that farm animals, at least, are only alive at all because they are raised for food. It is not a choice between that lamb being slaughtered or it living to a ripe old age while the farmer pays for feed and vets bills and land for nothing in return, it is a choice between a short life (to the highest animal welfare standards, ideally) or none at all.
Must be the PETA fanatics and/or the vegetarian/vegan fanatics. They cannot be Catholics because we know God gave us stewardship over the animals and allows their use, among other things, for FOOD.
Personally, I’d say “I agree”.
And no, “killing” plants for food really is not the same. The church recognises that animals have souls, whereas plants do not. What I find really repulsive though is killing animals for entertainment. There are no excuses for that.
Where does it say plants do not have souls? And at what species do you attach a soul to? Muscles? Bugs? Mice? Fish? Do minnows have souls? And what if sponges?
Imagine if these animals are all left alone as is…how fast do you think the animal population would explode?
There is a balance of things in nature. As someone mentioned earlier, animals eat other animals as it is the natural order of things. On top of this, most of mankind subsists on animal meats of varying kinds. Both of these actions help keep the animal populations in check.
Animals can feel pain or excitement and happiness just as humans can. However outside of this emotional box, animals are purposefully not evolved as such to that of humans. Just because an emotion can be detected or something can feel pain, does not automatically mean that they should be given the same rights as humans.
I get this argument a lot with anyone who questions why my wife wears fur coats out all the time…
Killed in what way? I mean there’s poaching, which is asinine.
For food, understandably, but also, it depends on the situation, are you wanting to eat an endangered species? Or an animal that was hurt and treated badly for something like Foie Gras? I mean even when it comes to eating animals there’s the ethics.
First up, I’m vegetarian. It’s a healthy diet. You don’t need to eat meat. Now, that said I don’t have a problem with someone eating steak in front of me. But a guy I dated would always order veal. And that would get at me because, veal man. It’s cruel.
That’s just my perspective.
Sorry dude but I get a person wearing fur if they’re in the Iditarod or something. Or if the fur coat is an heirloom. I have my grandmother’s furs. But never, ever would I buy fur. What animals go through for a fur coat is seriously sickening. In this day and age it’s not necessary to wear it, even if you live at the North Pole.
Um. Did you read Pope Francis’ Laudato Si?
What the animals go through is a giant misconception. Were conditions or methods harsh at some rogue fur farms decades ago? Sure. Fur harvested en masse in China is still fairly brutal. However fur farms in North America as well as in Europe is completely humane. I counted a bit ago and my wife has a total of seventeen fur coats. Are all giant foxes? No, but it keeps her much more warmer than some cheap synthetic blend which is manufactured by machinery that is running of animal by-products in the first place.
If you like Grey, feel free to PM me on this issue and I will be more than happy to chat with you about it if you like.
I don’t often respond to people who say that, and they’re never persuaded by what I say anyway.
But we can, and the uninformed should, reflect on this one thing if none other:
Human beings cannot digest grass because the nutrients are encapsulated by cellulose and indigestible.
Fully 1/3 of the habitable parts of the earth will grow nothing but grass, no matter what.
Certain animals like cattle, sheep, goats can digest grass and unlock the nutrients because they have two stomachs; one that ferments the grass and breaks down the cellulose, and another that takes it into their systems. But for those animals, 1/3 of the earth (including the U.S.) would produce no food that humans could use. Imagine removal of most of the dietary protein from human diets. There is nowhere near enough land in the world capable of producing, say, soybeans, to make up for the protein loss.
So how much human die-off are we willing to pay in order not to kill animals?
Not that masses of animals wouldn’t die even if we paid the price. Nature abhors a vacuum, as they say. Before Columbus, there were approximately the same number of buffalo on the American grasslands as there are now cattle. Unless we just killed them all, the grasslands would fill up with buffalo, elk, deer, antelope, some feral cattle, and other animals that can digest grass. Ultimately, all creatures die, and so would they; from disease, parasites, occasional starvation, but mostly from animal predators.
So one has to ask, is it more humane to be killed by an electric shock (as most food animals are) or to be eviscerated slowly by wolves or even more slowly by coyotes when parasite infestation has resulted in near-paralysis? Which is preferable to a grass-eating animal? Are we really being humane in turning the grass-eaters back over to fang and claw?
Say what one will, but it doesn’t seem so to me.
That’s nice of you, but skinning an animal for their coat without also eating them is not humane. Just my opinion, no matter how you look at it. It’s also not necessary with the advanced weather fabric you can buy at REI.
I think it’s grossly vain to wear a fur coat in this day and age for the sake of fashion. Not for nothing. Not judging. Just my opinion.
And seriously. Vegetarianism is a very healthy diet. It’s better for the environment, it’s better for your body, it prevents obesity. Someone mentioned Hitler being a vegetarian. Lol well, so was Plato, so was Buddha, so were the Pythagoreans, Gandhi, etc.
One of my best friends is a Cardiologist and she is vegetarian. She’d straight up tell you how vegetarianism is better for your heart and body, and she’s an expert.
Jesus, it appears, was not a vegetarian. As between Him and Hitler, Plato or Buddha, I think I would be more inclined toward Jesus evident belief about it. As a Jew at the Passover meal, he would have eaten lamb. St. Paul, of course, did not forbid eating animals, but endorsed it. I think I’ll take St. Paul over Gandhi.
Do we really know vegetarianism is better for the environment? A person who understands ranching as well as farming knows there are massively more negative environmental impacts from farming than there is from ranching.
And do we really know vegetarianism is better for the body, particularly if the meat in question is high in the "good fats’ like grass-fed beef and mutton and fish? I have seen the formulae of vegans, and getting enough usable protein is one of the hazards of that diet.
When did our ancestors first start eating meat? Probably from the dawn of human existence. Since, physiologically we’re omnivores like hogs, raccoons, bears and many other animals that readily digest meat and many vegetable products, is there some compelling reason to believe we’ve not adapted to being omnivores while they are?
And while we’re saying no one should ever use fur, are we also giving up leather coats, shoes, polio shots and all other ways in which animal products are employed? And, of course, if we eat bread, we’re consuming the dead bodies of the yeasts that made it rise and provide much of the nutrients in the bread. Other than sentimentality, what are the reasons for going truly vegetarian that really persuade?
Oh gosh, the warmest coat I ever had many years ago was a black seal skin, but it was really heavy. Since then, I think that artificial fibers can be warmer and lighter.