Tinkerlina Posted January 30, 2009 Author Posted January 30, 2009 Cmotherofpirl I respect you and everyone else's opinions, but is there compelling dogma that requires I do not believe that animals have eternal souls? I don't see why I'm not free to believe this. I think my emotions are in check, although on many threads you have made reference to things I say and do as "emotional"-which is fine, however, I don't see that I've made an emotionally based argument. I've made an ethical argument. Yes, emotions enter into all of our arguments-part of being human is our wonderful capacity to become impassioned in standing up for what we believe to be right. I'm sorry if you think I'm too emotional, but I yam what I yam. -Katie
cmotherofpirl Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766706' date='Jan 30 2009, 01:35 PM']Cmotherofpirl I respect you and everyone else's opinions, but is there compelling dogma that requires I do not believe that animals have eternal souls? I don't see why I'm not free to believe this. I think my emotions are in check, although on many threads you have made reference to things I say and do as "emotional"-which is fine, however, I don't see that I've made an emotionally based argument. I've made an ethical argument. Yes, emotions enter into all of our arguments-part of being human is our wonderful capacity to become impassioned in standing up for what we believe to be right. I'm sorry if you think I'm too emotional, but I yam what I yam. -Katie[/quote] Ok, I am not saying all this applies to you. Animal rights activists and anti-testing people usually start with the assumption that humans are merely a variety of animal and on par with them when it comes to "rights". THis can lead to confusion on the importance of animals vs humans, and the idea that animal welfare is just as important as human welfare. This is fueled by the idea from the activists that science is somehow mean to animals by testing drugs , procedures etc them instead of humans. I have also actually had people tell me if their dog isn't meeting them at the pearly gate they are not going in! I try to stick to catholic teaching. Catholic teaching states that Man is created in the image and likeness of God, not man and animals. When Adam names the animals he finds none like him, he is unique. Animals are created to be subservient to man [Genesis 1:28]. We have permission to kill and eat animals. [Genesis 9:3-4] but not people [Genesis 9:5-6] 1 Cor 15 states"“All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes”". Animals have souls in the sense they are animated creatures, but they are not immortal souls. There is nothing wrong with emotions, but they must be subservient to reason. The line is becoming more blurred on a daily basis - like the people who want to give apes legal rights. Its good to stand up for what you believe in, but as a catholics we need to form our beliefs in line with catholic teaching. Teaching on animals should be based on the fact that God has told us to take care of them instead of the belief they have immortal souls like us. However this doesn't preclude having our pets with us in heaven, since God can do anything and he does love us. One of my favorite stories is the Great Divorce by C S Lewis where a person meets all the animals she loved in her lifetime.
Tinkerlina Posted January 30, 2009 Author Posted January 30, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1766764' date='Jan 30 2009, 03:08 PM']Ok, I am not saying all this applies to you. Animal rights activists and anti-testing people usually start with the assumption that humans are merely a variety of animal and on par with them when it comes to "rights". THis can lead to confusion on the importance of animals vs humans, and the idea that animal welfare is just as important as human welfare. This is fueled by the idea from the activists that science is somehow mean to animals by testing drugs , procedures etc them instead of humans. I have also actually had people tell me if their dog isn't meeting them at the pearly gate they are not going in![/quote] I don't think that humans are merely a variety of animal. However, I think we share the beauty of consciousness with our fellow animals. This does not diminish the unique human status; that is, being made in the image and likeness of God. I[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1766764' date='Jan 30 2009, 03:08 PM']try to stick to catholic teaching. Catholic teaching states that Man is created in the image and likeness of God, not man and animals. When Adam names the animals he finds none like him, he is unique. Animals are created to be subservient to man [Genesis 1:28]. We have permission to kill and eat animals. [Genesis 9:3-4] but not people [Genesis 9:5-6] 1 Cor 15 states"“All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes”". Animals have souls in the sense they are animated creatures, but they are not immortal souls. There is nothing wrong with emotions, but they must be subservient to reason. The line is becoming more blurred on a daily basis - like the people who want to give apes legal rights. Its good to stand up for what you believe in, but as a catholics we need to form our beliefs in line with catholic teaching. Teaching on animals should be based on the fact that God has told us to take care of them instead of the belief they have immortal souls like us.[/quote] I don't think I've made unreasonable arguments here. I don't think that believing that animals have souls is a far off assumption, as God's "Breath of Life" given to them would seem to me in some way to imbue them with some immortal existence. Animals having immortal souls would not preclude human souls from maintaining unique status. [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1766764' date='Jan 30 2009, 03:08 PM']However this doesn't preclude having our pets with us in heaven, since God can do anything and he does love us. One of my favorite stories is the Great Divorce by C S Lewis where a person meets all the animals she loved in her lifetime. [/quote] I would of course love to have my pets in heaven with me, but I don't see why it's wrong to believe that all conscious beings have some form of eternal existance. I don't see that an all loving God, the source on creation, would "breathe life" into something that was not meant to exist for eternity-why bother in the first place? -Katie
Tinkerlina Posted January 30, 2009 Author Posted January 30, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' post='1766558' date='Jan 30 2009, 02:32 AM']That's a good point. Animal Labs are TREMENDOUSLY expensive.[/quote] Another good reason to ditch them and promote more cost efficient, modern and ethical methods of testing. -Katie
cmotherofpirl Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766896' date='Jan 30 2009, 06:26 PM']I don't think that humans are merely a variety of animal. However, I think we share the beauty of consciousness with our fellow animals. This does not diminish the unique human status; that is, being made in the image and likeness of God. [color="#4169E1"]Consciousness refers to a moral conscience and personal identity which is not something we share with animals. [/color] I don't think I've made unreasonable arguments here. I don't think that believing that animals have souls is a far off assumption, as God's "Breath of Life" given to them would seem to me in some way to imbue them with some immortal existence. Animals having immortal souls would not preclude human souls from maintaining unique status. [color="#4169E1"]Sure it would, because our soul immortal soul is what distinguishes us from the animals.[/color] I would of course love to have my pets in heaven with me, but I don't see why it's wrong to believe that all conscious beings have some form of eternal existance. I don't see that an all loving God, the source on creation, would "breathe life" into something that was not meant to exist for eternity-why bother in the first place? -Katie [color="#4169E1"] It goes against Catholic teaching. And remember we get a new heaven and earth, so that everything here except humans is destined to be replaced, so therefore it can't be eternal.[/color][/quote]
Tinkerlina Posted January 30, 2009 Author Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) Conscious doesn't mean conscience. It means some level of awareness of self and others. Like I said, I don't think that the fact that our souls are immortal is soley what distinguishes us from animals. Two souls can have different natures and both be immortal. I don't think the reference to all things passing away definitely excludes animals-it's somewhat vague and open to interpretation, imo. My case against animal testing has nothing to do with whether or not they have a soul, but the fact that they feel pain (and, of course, I believe it is often detrimental to human safety) but in any case, I do believe that animals have an eternal soul. -Katie Edited January 30, 2009 by Tinkerlina
picchick Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766607' date='Jan 30 2009, 07:11 AM']I realize there have been advancements in medicine as a result of animal testing, my belief is that there are better ways and that we don't necessarily have to be using animal testing. -Katie[/quote] They test first on individual cells. Then on animals to see systemic effects. Then they do human trials.
Tinkerlina Posted January 31, 2009 Author Posted January 31, 2009 (edited) [quote name='picchick' post='1766934' date='Jan 30 2009, 08:17 PM']They test first on individual cells. Then on animals to see systemic effects. Then they do human trials.[/quote] But systemic effects on biologically different creatures are going to be different. There have actually been several cases of harm done to humans using drugs that were considered safe after testing them on animals. [i] Countless drugs for strokes have been developed and tested in primates and other animals, yet all of them have failed and harmed patients in clinical trials. An Alzheimer's vaccine was withdrawn in 2001 when it caused serious brain inflammation in patients after proving safe and effective in tests on monkeys. The track record of primates in predicting drugs' dangerous side-effects is abysmal. [/i] -Dr. Ray Greek Source: [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/dec/05/publicservices.humanrights"]http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/de...ces.humanrights[/url] I don't have a source for this as it's an anecdote, but my cousin's husband died as a result of treatment for renal failure that was tested on animals and therefore "safe" for him to use. It was also animal derived, can't say for sure whether or not that was related, but it crosses my mind. Just to clarify, I'm not advocating ditching medicines/treatments that have already been tested. Although I think better ways should be used now, I realize that we can't change the past. I posted a link w/ the same info earlier, but this is a better format, if anyone's interested. [url="http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/50dis.html"]http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/50dis.html[/url] -Katie Edited January 31, 2009 by Tinkerlina
picchick Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766957' date='Jan 30 2009, 07:40 PM']But systemic effects on biologically different creatures are going to be different. There have actually been several cases of harm done to humans using drugs that were considered safe after testing them on animals. [i] Countless drugs for strokes have been developed and tested in primates and other animals, yet all of them have failed and harmed patients in clinical trials. An Alzheimer's vaccine was withdrawn in 2001 when it caused serious brain inflammation in patients after proving safe and effective in tests on monkeys. The track record of primates in predicting drugs' dangerous side-effects is abysmal. [/i] -Dr. Ray Greek Source: [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/dec/05/publicservices.humanrights"]http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/de...ces.humanrights[/url] I don't have a source for this as it's an anecdote, but my cousin's husband died as a result of treatment for renal failure that was tested on animals and therefore "safe" for him to use. It was also animal derived, can't say for sure whether or not that was related, but it crosses my mind. Just to clarify, I'm not advocating ditching medicines/treatments that have already been tested. Although I think better ways should be used now, I realize that we can't change the past. I posted a link w/ the same info earlier, but this is a better format, if anyone's interested. [url="http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/50dis.html"]http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/50dis.html[/url] -Katie[/quote] After animal testing is done, there are trials in humans. It doesn't go straight from animals to the market.
Tinkerlina Posted January 31, 2009 Author Posted January 31, 2009 [quote name='picchick' post='1766990' date='Jan 30 2009, 09:17 PM']After animal testing is done, there are trials in humans. It doesn't go straight from animals to the market.[/quote] True, sorry for not clarifying, a lot of the side effects have occured in clincial trials, not mass market. -Katie
CSLF Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1766446' date='Jan 30 2009, 12:14 AM']Animal testing is preferable to human testing. Without animal testing there would be no new major surgeries, no new drugs and a lot more dead people. Human life is infinitely more valuable than any animal.[/quote] In my pondering about this post I two thoughts in particular struck me: If you consider the source of the small pox vaccine, I think that God already has some of the answers out there for the things that humanity hasn't done to itself. New drugs means environmental impact, which means it effects other people, which means they get sick, which means we need new drugs... Any thoughts?
Nihil Obstat Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1767009' date='Jan 30 2009, 07:37 PM']True, sorry for not clarifying, a lot of the side effects have occured in clincial trials, not mass market. -Katie[/quote] People who take on drug trials agree to that risk.
Tinkerlina Posted February 1, 2009 Author Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1768277' date='Feb 1 2009, 01:44 AM']People who take on drug trials agree to that risk.[/quote] Yes, that's true. My point was that something that tests safe on animals isn't necessarily safe for humans, as many clinical trials show. I don't necessarily think that clinical trials are too great either, as there are tons of variables and such and perhaps some aren't conducted for lengthy enough periods of time, as we do still see many drugs with FDA approval later being pulled off of the market due to lawsuits from people who have had horrific side effects. Conversely, some things that are toxic to some animals are beneficial to humans. Ex: Penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs, but obviously has contributed to saving lives. I'm not trying to villify people who believe in animal testing-I disagree but respect them as people and I know their intent is to save human lives. All I'm saying is that I think we can save human lives without using animals. I know most people here disagree with me, that's alright. -Katie Edited February 1, 2009 by Tinkerlina
picchick Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 [quote name='CSLF' post='1767608' date='Jan 31 2009, 01:20 PM']In my pondering about this post I two thoughts in particular struck me: If you consider the source of the small pox vaccine, I think that God already has some of the answers out there for the things that humanity hasn't done to itself. New drugs means environmental impact, which means it effects other people, which means they get sick, which means we need new drugs... Any thoughts?[/quote] There is a pill for that too.
CSLF Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 [quote name='picchick' post='1768389' date='Feb 1 2009, 04:30 AM']There is a pill for that too.[/quote]
sweens8403 Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1766501' date='Jan 30 2009, 12:56 AM']Animal testing for the sake of medical advancement is fine by me, so long as it is done humanely. Animal testing for the sake of beauty products is unnecessary.[/quote] That's how many antidysrhythmics came to be. And there's no doubt that they have saved thousands of human lives. They have also come up with new methods of doing CPR by testing them on animals. Again, human lives are saved. Some of you other medical folks may have heard of the "plunger" CPR adjunct? They're doing tests in some EMS agencies now and getting fantastic results. They initially tested it on pigs.
picchick Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 [quote name='sweens8403' post='1768570' date='Feb 1 2009, 02:18 PM']That's how many antidysrhythmics came to be. And there's no doubt that they have saved thousands of human lives. They have also come up with new methods of doing CPR by testing them on animals. Again, human lives are saved. Some of you other medical folks may have heard of the "plunger" CPR adjunct? They're doing tests in some EMS agencies now and getting fantastic results. They initially tested it on pigs.[/quote] Poor Babe...and Wilbur. Mice is what is generally used for medications, at least from what I heard. Yes sometimes it is ineffective. But we have to take into consideration that drug companies are out to make money. As unethical as it is, they will push drugs. Sometimes these drugs are not ready to be marketed but they will be marketed anyway. It is a scary world and needs to be evaluated constantly.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now