Christian doctrine states that we may not perform abortions on babies if they have serious birth defects that will affect their ability to lead self-sustaining lives in extremely detrimentals ways - eg. down syndrome, cerebal palsy.

These conditions CAN be looked for in a young pre-born baby at about two weeks into the pregnancy. Yet Christian parents who for whatever reason, cannot look after the baby with these terrible conditions, risk ex-communication from the Church if they abort the fetus.

However people who work with animals, especially commercialised businesses, may freely kill animals that are not fit to work without having to face the consequence of legal or religious outrage.

This is completely outrageous. It is utterly condescending that humans (fellow animals in the animal kingdom - in the family Hominidae - the great apes) are allowed to kill other animals, yet we may not kill our own offspring, which are animals as well.

It is simply ironical that the Church has become so condescending that they will happily and quickly ex-communicate somebody who aborts their child, yet anybody on this Earth may kill an animal because of some defect that it suffers.

It is quite obvious that the Church does not want to delve into this area of animal rights as it would cost money.

The Church is a money-making business, it has been since the Crusades.

Even though there are billions of dollars in the Churchs funds they have been completely ignorant to animal rights.

How can they do this?

How can they be so condescending?

The Church is so happy to preach out against the rights of gays because they think it states somewhere in the bible that gays are 'wrong'.

Yet it blatantly states that we as humans are stewards of the Earth and all that inhabits it, yet the Church has blatantly ignored this.

What are your thoughts?



rowmac

I would first say that you haven't researched anything before posting that, and just typed random things off the top of your head.

Animals. ll

You are looking at it from the view point that animals are equal to humans. In the church's view, Humans are better than animals and may do as they wish with them... hence being the stewards of the Earth.

I fail to see the horror.

I am not religious and do not follow the churches views in general... but if you look at their beliefs and their actions in this example, it makes sense... its not hypocritical in any way. What you should really be debating is whether this view is flawed and needs revising due to the modern day view that animals are the equals of humans.

As for the comment about abortions... since animals ar not 'higher' beings like humans, they do not have souls. Yet humans, from the moment of conception do have souls... therefore killing a fetus is killing a person. While killing an animal is killing an animal.

Personally I feel that if we got to the top of the food chain then we must be superior to the others... thats simply logic. Maybe the view that animals are our 'equals' needs to be reviewed?

Im sorry, while I don't support the church and am a staunch believer in evolution and natural selection, I fail to understand where this argument came from. The churchs views have evidently been misunderstood.

Define steward: The one responsible for the protection or usage of something. (www.godonthe.net/dictionary/s.html)

Therefore the Church should be protecting the animals? Can you not see that?

"As for the comment about abortions... since animals ar not 'higher' beings like humans, they do not have souls. Yet humans, from the moment of conception do have souls... therefore killing a fetus is killing a person. While killing an animal is killing an animal."

Who can prove that animals do not have souls?

In fact, who can prove that we have souls?



RowMac

Protection: Rearing and looking after your flock of sheep

Usage: Eating them and using their wool

Whats your point?


As for the comment about souls, your attacking the church from your own view point and then calling them hypocrites because their view doesnt agree with yours. That makes no sense and certainly isnt hypocritical of the church. I still fail to see the logic of this arument. The church believes people have souls and are higher creatures, while animals do not and are there for us to use. Therefore the churchs actions agree with its beliefs. What the problem?

1)'st point, ex-communication is not a doctrine taught or followed by every church which considers itself Christian.

2)Do your research, with the above statement and the opinions of the majority of churches instead of making a hasty generalization. There are many Christians who do not support euthanasia.

3) I believe you are talking about Roman Catholicism and not the Christian Church as a whole. It might help your argument a bit if you make it a bit more specific.

4) If you think we are animals, why are you holding the family Hominidae to a different standard than the Church if it's members are also animals? If we are all animals, why hold ourselves to a binding ethical system? It seems you are arguing about morals, yet state that we should not follow ethics. Explain yourself.

I will not say anymore until you specify whether you are referring to Catholicism or Christianity.

Animals who have conditions that may make them unfit for consumption should be protected not slaughtered.

ps. Mellainius it's true i haven't researched yet. I decided earlier on this morning that i wanted to get some views on this point so i knocked up a few points quickly, sorry for the innacuracy in certain points i simply didn't have the time for conclusive research of these issues.

Yet please feel free to correct me wherever .


RowMac

If they are there for us to use... and we cannot use them, whats the point in wasting time and energy when its something we can live without.... Now youre going into economics which as nothing to do with the church. Once again I fail to see your point here.

Are you trying to say that you believe the church should jump in to stop farmers killing off useless livestock (which is done for various economic reasons) and set up animal sanctuaires or something for retarded animals?

Well maybe if you read, I don't know, the first chapter you'll find where it says gays are 'wrong'. Also all the other times that it is said.

I'm not saying that they should set up animal sanctuaries, i'm questioning the validity of the Catholic Churches view of animals and humans.

Do you think maybe one day we will be able to abort our retarded children because they will cost us too much money?


RowMac

Thats already possible, just not common place. As for they Churchs actions, the make sense if you have their belief. I repeat, instead of saying the church is hypocritical, you should be asking if their point of view is archaic or out moded.... then I might agree and debate against the Church - which is what I usually do. Until a water tight argument is proposed though, Im still going to sit back and point out flaws.

Yeah that's true.

I don't hold their beliefs, therefore to me they make no sense.

Oh and about the argument, i'll get back to you.


rowmac

Lamborgini, it states in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong in some of the books. For example ;

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Anyways...

God created animals for us to rule over. In the Old Testament animals like sheeps and rams, if I recall correctly, were used as sacrifices to God. Man rules over animals, that is the way God made it. Although I love animals and I would never want to harm them, people do it anyways. If you are just judging the church for "harming" animals or w/e, then why not do the same to everyone else.

No i'm questioning the validity of the Churches decisions for not protecting them as they protect human childen.


rowmac

Following the Churchs ethics, Humans are superior and their treatment of animals as property is ethical.

Following Evolutionary theory, Humans are superior due to their place in the food chain - while ethics do not come into the equation.

Following the different ethical idea that Humans and animals are equal, then the treatment is unethical.

Economically, looking after lame animals is non viable and so they are terminated, This does not conflict with the church due to its views.

The view that humans and animal are equal has a different set of ethical views. Though these can be blurred. 'What right do we have to kill lame animal if they are non-economiclly viable' may be a valid ethical question... but it can go further, for example: what right do you have to eat other animal if we are equal to them? what right do we have to keep them as pets? what right do we have to use them for labour?

While archaic, the Church's view is finite and doesnt move its goal posts. Until the Church revises and changes its view that humans are equal to animals (unlikely) then its going to remain the same and animals will be used, eaten, killed and retarded human fetuses allowed to mature.

The Church is well within its rights not to stop people killing animals simply because to them, the animal are there to be used. The view is valid, and funnily enough, supported by non religious views. Now... cruelty to animals, as in torture and neglet... THAT is a point that needs to be revised.

Final point: The reason why humans naturally look after their own kind and allow retarded infants to be born is due to altruism. The religious influence is just an extension of this behaiour.

Yes i agree,



That is to say, what defines cruelty? Is taking the life of a retarded animal cruel? And who is to decide whether it is or isn't?

Obviously you have pointed out that the view of the Roman Catholic church would not say that the killing of a retarded animal is cruel, but what are your views?

* On another point:

Some religious people hold that God decides when we die, keep that in mind while you read this:

Lets say it's millions of years ago and a human is born with a retardation that they later die from.

It would be said that God had decided to take (kill) that person then and there. (according to the belief that God chooses when we die..etc)

Now bring it back to modern day, and a baby has been found to be retarded and is aborted.

Now can it be said that God acted through the doctor and aborted this baby. Or has a human person gone and superceded the power of God and in doing so become a God?

What are your thoughts?


Rowmac

My personal views are as follow:

It is not cruel to kill a retarded animal or fetus while unborn.

It is not cruel to kill an animal or human that is suffering

It is cruel to allow the suffering to continue, or to enhance it.

Humans are superior to animals due to their position in the food chain.

Because humans can control animals, doesnt mean anything, since they can, they can. It is merely fact. Any views or behaviour displayed after that fact - which is ethical or otherwise - is down to individual discretion and cultural behaviour rather than any innate sense of comradship since there is a species barrier

Ethics are fluid and change from person to person.

Thanks Fish, please re-read my post above as i have added to it.


RowMac

The religious person would say that the man has acted in the place of God and therefore gone against the laws of God and taken life 'before its time'. If the child is born naturally and dies, or dies before birth naturally, then it is 'Gods work'.

Either way, I dont believe that personally. Its down to natural selection in both cases.

Ah yes i see... well i can call this topic closed.

Soon i shall open up a new one i promise this time it will be alot more water tight and clear.

thanks to all who posted .


rowmac

Since this concerns the Roman Catholic Church, I most likely will not attend this debate for that point. However, Sir Fisher, you state that religion is an extension of altruism. If this is true, why do so many religions require sacrifice?

Humanism and some principles concerning atheism can be considered altruistic.

If you ask me, Humanism is indeed contradictory to evolutionary theory's principle of survival of the fittest (which defeats the point of social Darwinism), however, the treatment of the animals is the choice of the human. Though it is unethical in the extent that we are hurting them, violence leads to other things. Some murderers started with harming small creatures and ended with the murder of a human. Therefore, this violent path of unethical treatment can bring on other temptations, as we observe the past.

Sir Fisher, I can see that you support euthanasia, but I really do not see how you can say humans are superior to animals when evolutionary theory states that we are animals. Explain your syntax or choice of words please.

I personally find this wrong, animals are living things too.

Gladly.



With this particular example, I was referring to Catholicism. The view to protect members of your own species is altruistic. The religious view is merely an extention of such a compulsion. Some other religions sacrifice members of other tribes to their Gods, not their own members. This is also classed as altruistic behaviour. A few religions go against this trend, for example the druids used to kill blonde children of their own tribe. This was due to dogma and social views, as well as the fact that the druids thought themselves better than the common people (druids never killed druids)




True, it does follow in line with altruism.




1: 'Survival of the fittest' is an incorrect term shunned by people who have studied evolution. It is more a case of survival of those with the adaptations required for the environment and able to reproduce.

2: Social Darwinism is a theory that has some correct summations, and some incorrect summations. Unlike Religious beliefs, scientific ideas are succeptible to change as new evidence is brought to light. For this reason the argument against evolution is flawed since the evidence used against it has been determined to be flawed.

3: Murdering your own species is against altruistic behaviour displayed by humans, this is a mental illness. This does not automatically mean that person will harm animals as well. Everything is down to circumstances.

None of these points prove or disprove my statement...





Humans are at the top of the food chain.... therefore we are superior in our current environment. If gigantic ants were at the top of the food chain, then they would be the superior species. I believe you assumed I thought humans were different from animals, when I was simply referring to their efficiency and predatory ability. Im not sure how that ties in with euthanasia though?


Ok I really need to sleep, its nearly 5AM.

Notice how it's only athiests that do that... Pretty much.

Christianity doesn't have a clean slate i'll have you know.

Thousands of people have been under the banner of Christianity, i would rather be part of a small group of rational and critical thinkers than a massive conglomeration of people that in the past has showed themselves to be downright nasty, bloodthirsty extremely vicious.

There is absolutely no way you can deny this, historians of old prove it all to be too true.


rowmac

Are you forgetting the Aztec Civilization who sacrificed the faithful? Religion is not the extension of altruism, but altruism is indeed a principle affiliated with various religions. If it was the other way around, many religions which we see today would try to help others. Take radical Islam for an example. They sacrifice their own members and those of other religions, much like the Aztecs.




1. Natural selection is an interchangeable word with survival of the fittest. Natural Selection is also the Mechanism for evolution. The term is not necessarily incorrect, but is uncommonly used, much like how we use the word 'you' instead of 'thou.'

2. Actually Social Darwinism, much like evolution, is accepted by several Neo-Darwinists today. This point in the argument was against euthanasia and Neo-Darwinism, not so much biological evolution. The point indeed still stands that Social Darwinism is against Humanism. This is logical.

Natural Selection- The Strong and Most Suitable Survive, the weak die.
Humanism- The Weak are helped by the strong to survive.

3. I think you have my statement backwards. Various murderers begin with small animals and move to "larger victims." You stated that "It is cruel to allow the suffering to continue, or to enhance it," now if the murderers start with 'euthanasiac' murder, could it not be possible that this sparks later events?

If you notice, none of these arguments were even pointed at you in the first place, but I will answer what you said. However, the next point was.



What I am asking is this: Where do we draw the line when euthanasia for the better of one organism is ethical, and where is it not? If there is a line to begin with, who should decide to draw it? Now, if we humans, at the top of the food chain, decide to draw the line, is euthanasia still ethical if we become lower in the food chain? Does our position on the food chain decide ethics involved with murder? If a higher organism were to take our place on the food chain, and one of us was dying, would it be ethical to kill you even if you could not tell thim you did not want to die? The point is, can it be true that the ethical status of euthanasia is tied to our place on the food chain?

Aztecs used to sacrifice members of other tribes. If their enemies could not be captured, they sacrificed their own as a last resort... to PROTECT themselves from the wrath of the Gods. Is that not altruistic? to protect the majority by making a few sacrifices? The Aztecs did'nt have the benefit of knowing their God was fake, just like modern Christians dont have the benefit of knowing their God is real or not, hence they pray in the hope he is and that he will cure or help others mentioned in those prayers. Maybe if the bible said that God needed human sacrifices, then Christians would sacrifise a few to protect the many.
As for the idiots who blow themselvs up in the name of radical Islam, they think they are doing it for God and to protect members of their religion (yet more tribe mentality evident). Its still altruism.



No it is not interhangable. Only people who dont study/havnt studied this topic would think that. Im sorry but Natural selection is different to survival of the fittest. While you may think that they are the same, I assure you, they are not. There are numerous subtle differences between them. 'Survival of the fittest' as you think of it comes under the heading of natural selection, it is a sub division. Survival of the fittest is also an incorrect term for what it is implying as it gives the wrong impression.




Look at your choice of words... NEO Darwinists. Ergo, they follow the new theory a proposed by recent evidence. Humanism and Darwinism are not against eachother. Humanism is merely a factor to take into consideration in Neo - Darwinism which is not purely about only the single toughest survive. Of course Neo Darwinists would accept PARTS of social Darwinism as its part of the foundations its built upon, its just that they follow the revised version. The view that they conflict is not logical.





I fail to see why you think A+B is the same as X-Y. Just because a couple of nut cases kill small animals and then humans, does not mean those in the medical profession who euthanase patients in agnoy - who consent to it - are going to go on a killing spree.This make no sense what-so-ever and seems like grasping at straws in order to discredit a view.



While the arguments were not pointed at me, they are pointed at what I have a degree in so I am merely stating what I know and what is in my text books/journals. So disagreeing with me is also disagreeing with the majority of bioscientists and psychologists in the world. Im just regurgitating facts and observations.




You ask a human if they want the agony to stop. With an animal, you cant, so an educated decision must be made... what, you think if an animal is soo mangled its going to die in a few days, you shouldnt kill it humanely to end suffering? The line is drawn where man says it should be drawn, we cant leave everything up to God, otherwise nothing would get done, everyone would be dying of disease and suffering.

Euthanasia has nothing to do with our position in the food chain. I fail to see the association.