Bioethicist Says Christianity Hurts Animals

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Read <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020704-68157493.htm"; target="_blank">the article</a>.



Personally, I think this guy is a moron. Animals are not the equal of human beings.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    The sense of superiority does have some negative qualities. It's not right to disrespect living things. We share a kingdom with animals. Let's not forget that. We're not superior, we're not inferior, and I'd be hard-pressed to say we're equal. No, we're different. And that's all there is to it. We ought to not see a "hierarchy of greatness" where there is none. We're different. Just different. OK?
  • Reply 2 of 9
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    You can say we are at the top of the food chain or the dominant species on earth. But to say we are better or worth more than an animal is sort of egotistical. We have more brain power, but cheetahs are faster. Elephants are stronger. Whales hold their breath longer.



    Anyways, when the big rock hits the earth, we'll all be just molten lumps of flesh.
  • Reply 3 of 9
    Thank you so much for clarifying that, Outsider.
  • Reply 4 of 9
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    we are all part of the same organism
  • Reply 5 of 9
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    The Earth can be considered living. It has a nucleus of hot activity. It has molten red hot 'blood' flowing through its veins. Has a protective membrane (atmosphere). Parasites infest it. It gets sick (ice ages). Complex cycles (rain, tides, currents, etc.) It has a mother (sun), siblings (other planets) and a child (moon) and one day in the far future, it will become cold and die.
  • Reply 6 of 9
    vargasvargas Posts: 426member
    Being, supposedly, the most intelligent species on this planet we also have the bigger responsibility of not totally abusing our ability to permanently change our home. This means the all life on this planet is our responsibility and should be considered before we make decisions about how to make changes in our world. It is, after all, their world too.
  • Reply 7 of 9
    glurxglurx Posts: 1,031member
    [quote]Originally posted by Outsider:

    <strong>You can say we are at the top of the food chain or the dominant species on earth. But to say we are better or worth more than an animal is sort of egotistical.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    If you were in a situation where you had to choose between saving 1 human or 1,000 mice what would be the ethical/moral/sane choice? Call me egotistical but I think the human life is worth more.
  • Reply 8 of 9
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by glurx:

    <strong>



    If you were in a situation where you had to choose between saving 1 human or 1,000 mice what would be the ethical/moral/sane choice? Call me egotistical but I think the human life is worth more.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    What if the choice was between the last bald eagles (minimum number required to repopulate) and Mr. Charles Manson (or several random homeless people?)



    Something you think might be more ethical probably isn't. Each of us is as insignificant as a single mouse in the long run.
  • Reply 9 of 9
    glurxglurx Posts: 1,031member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>



    What if the choice was between the last bald eagles (minimum number required to repopulate) and Mr. Charles Manson (or several random homeless people?)</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I wouldn't save Manson under any circumstance I can imagine. I would save the homeless people over the last of any species; perhaps the homeless persons would choose to die rather than having the eagle go extinct but that's not something I can decide for them.
Sign In or Register to comment.