Thursday, January 28, 2010

Consistency thou art a jewel

I don't know anything about figure skater Johnny Weir, but I find his answer to "Friends of Animals" interesting. FOA recently posted an open letter to Weir. They criticized his having fox fur on one of his costumes that he skated in, and asked him to stop wearing fur.

According to AP News Writer Nancy Armour, "Weir said he understands the groups’ objections, but he doesn’t share their point of view."

I particularly liked this comment: "Every skater is wearing skates made out of cow," Weir said. "Maybe I’m wearing a cute little fox while everyone else is wearing cow, but we’re all still wearing animals."


Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to hear the comments of a diehard animal rights activist on that one.

For so long now we hear people bemoan the fate of the whale, spotted owl, and other creatures, while we continue to slaughter innocent babies daily. I am certainly for the ethical treatment of animals. But clearly, priorities seem to be reversed.

It has been said by some who know, that if everyone could witness an abortion and see all of the gruesome aspects of it, there would be an outcry like no other. But we have become a nation void of personal responsibility and look for the easy way out.

Which brings up a point I have heard several politicians make over the years. They will say they do not personally believe in abortion, but believe in following the law above everything. A flood of question marks surely must follow.

R. L. Vaughn said...

I also agree with the ethical treatment of animals, though my view of ethical certainly wouldn't agree with that of groups such as FOA.

I agree with all your statements about abortion, except that I am afraid that there are many more than we might think who are seared over with a hot iron that they would not be effected by viewing the gruesome aspects of abortion -- and probably even some who are so far gone as to find pleasure in it.

May God help us.

Jim1927 said...

My lifetime motto has always been: "Abortion if neccesary, but not neccesarily abortion."

I don't advocate open abortion to cover the sins of people, as is happening to-day. There is a lot of hypocrasy amongst Christians, however, on the question of abortion. They call us supporters "killers" but change their tune when it comes to the life of the woman or the destruction of the fetus. They develop excuses to compromise the need for the act, but openly condemn others.

Then there is the question about when a life becomes a life, and when the soul is created in that fetus. Medical people and theologians have debated for years just when life begins. Hence, there is room for some question about this issue.

On animals, we have a duty to act responsibly with animals. The slaughter of seals comes to mind. This act not only kills and animal, but this death also provides for the survival of codfish.

I think we need to seek a balance which is honouring to God, and respectful to humanity



R. L. Vaughn said...

Bro. Jim, I'm not sure what you're referring to re the slaughter of seals and survival of codfish.

But concerning abortion, as in previous times, we have some difference of opinion. As far as I can tell, the strong pro-abortion push in the United States has little if anything to do with a medical decision of which of two lives to save. Yes, that is a main argument that is always defaulted to, but the driving force is about scheduling abortions to, as you say, "cover the sins of the people". "Follow the money" as I mention in a post that I have scheduled for tomorrow.

If there is hypocrisy on the part of Christians who oppose abortion, we ought to address that hypocrisy -- but not by legalizing abortions.

Physicians and theologians have debated for years when life begins, and will continue to debate it. Since there is a debate -- and gray area in some people's minds -- why, oh, why not err on the side of caution?

Anonymous said...

So many times we hear people use the argument saving a woman's life to justify abortion. They will do this because it seems to be the easiest way out, and can play on the emotions. But friends and neighbors, just how often do yoy hear about abortion being used as a last resort to save the life of a woman? I would say very seldom.

The debate over when life actually begins should not even be an issue, but rather the motive behind it. It all goes back to looking for an easy way out of responsibility. Let us consider this. If it could be proven that life does not begin at conception, there will still be life in a short amount of time. If there wasn't, then there would be no need for abortion. The fetus is not afforded the opportunity to speak for itself. It would be interesting to hear what the fetus would think about the parents deciding to deprive it of life. Who knows, some might actually prefer not to enter the world. We will never know. But I would imagine most would be very sad that a parent or parents would have no regard for a future human being.

I am sure there are many that are never afforded the opportunity to have children of their own that would be more than happy to receive a child that would be potentially aborted. They would be happy to take it off the hands of the parent in question.

It is so true that mainstream America has become oblivious and numb to the subject of abortion. Some would not change their stance even if they witnessed an abortion. So many would find a topic like this too direct and would not want to be bothered. Besides, mainstream America has too many other things on their mind right now. What might that be you may ask? One thing is a football game in about a week that will give many an excuse to drink and act crazy. Who has time to think about humanity?