j´adore dior.
When it comes to choosing to wear fur or not, you decide...the true owner can not. Of course if you believe in personal choice, then "one" must grant the victim choice.
In this..the modern age, for most of the population there is no essential need to wear fur.
A large proportion of retail fur comes from fur farms. These farms are managed to maximise profit, at the detriment of the victims.............the animals.
Animals are kept in row upon row of small cages, just adequate to move around in. This is distressing to the animal, whose instinct, depending on which species we are talking about, is to roam free, socialise, interact with members of there own species, mate, raise young, etc etc. In short institutionalized torture.This sort of intensive confinement has severe psychological implications.. And of course, there only crime to be caged, is that some people wants there skin/fur.
No matter what scientists do, thousands of years evolution will not change the "in breed" instincts these creatures have, live by and live for.
This sort of intensive confinement has severe psychological implications. The obviously distressing and horrific results of confinement have been researched, witnessed, and documented...these are the facts, and they are indisputable.
"The Ethical Case Against Fur Farming
A statement by an international group of academics,
including ethicists, philosophers and theologians.
Summary
1. An increasing number of European countries have, or are in the process of, introducing legislation
to cur tail, or prohibit, fur farming, including Italy, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands. Last year, fur
farming was outlawed in England and Wales on the ground of ‘public morality’. Similar legislation has now
been passed in Scotland. (paras 1.1-1.2)
2. Concern for the right treatment of animals has a long legislative histor y. Society has a clear stake in
safeguarding animals from acts of cruelty. Human beings benefit from living in a society where cruelty is
actively discouraged.(paras 2.1-2.3)
3. The evidence shows that it is unreasonable, even per fidious, to suppose that fur farming does not impose
suffering on what are essentially wild animals kept in barren environments in which their behavioral
needs are frustrated.(paras 3.2-3.6)
4. Growing ethical concern for animals has been reinforced by considerable intellectual work on the status
of animals. There is an emerging consensus among ethicists for fundamental change.(para 4.1)
5. There is a strong, rational case for animal protection. Animals make a special moral claim upon us
because, inter alia, they are morally innocent, unable to give or withhold their consent, or vocalise their
needs, and because they are wholly vulnerable to human exploitation. These considerations make the
infliction of suffering upon them not easier – but harder to justify.(paras 4.2-4.4)
6. Law has a proper role in defending the weak and the vulnerable from exploitation, including animals and
children. (para 5.1)
7. There is increasing evidence of a link between the abuse of animals and other forms of violence, notably
against women and children. It is an increasingly viable assumption that a world in which abuse to
animals goes unchecked is bound to be a less morally safe world for human beings.(para 5.2)
8. Those who regard the infliction of suffering on animals as intrinsically objectionable rightly oppose fur
farming. In their view, there are certain acts against vulnerable subjects that are so morally outrageous
that they can never be morally licit.(para 6.1)
9. Fur farming is, however, also unacceptable to those who hold that the infliction of suffering can sometimes
be justified. Fur farming fails a basic test of moral necessity. It is wholly unjustifiable to subject animals
to prolonged suffering for trivial ends, such as fur coats or fashion accessories. Fur is a non-essential
luxury item.(paras 6.2-6.3)
10. *****************************************************************************
11. The claim that banning fur farming is an infringement of legitimate freedom is untenable; many previous
cruelties (now illegal) have been defended on that basis. There can be no civil right to be cruel.(paras
9.1-9.2)
12. *****************************************************************************
13. In a democratic society, the law should properly reflect our changed ethical perception of animals and,
specifically, the public’s long-standing opposition to fur farming.(para 12.2)
*Please note i have removed 10 and 12, so as not to conflict with tFS rules.
This quoted summary is part of a document compiled by around 70 Ethicists, Philosophers, Theologians, authors and academics. I suggest that it would be extremely hard, if not impossible, to deny the logic, well thought approach that these people have contributed.
Methods of ending the animals life , vary from farm to farm. The priority being, the pelt, not the animals .
The two main methods are not as "quick" as is claimed.
1/. The first method, claimed to be humane, by the fur industry, is directly in conflict with research carried out. ....."they run around the gas chamber frantically and struggle to keep their heads above the level of the gas." The gas stings the airways, and is a tortuous end.
2/. The second main method, is dependent on a variety of factors. Animals metabolism, state and maintenance of equipment, pressure on worker, how conducts this method etc. The animal is forcible held, or taken from cage. If done in situ, the surrounding animals can sense/ know what is happening. If removed, the stress from this experience, is damaging as well.
This method induces a massive heart attack., which can and does paralyse the animal, and the creature can suffer for a significant period of time, in relation to the claims made of a "quick" end.
There are variations on this method.
Due to the variants this is a tortuous end.
The remaining methods, practiced in USA, as well as other countries, are too horrific to post.
These events are witnessed by researchers, and workers .
It is not the case of how we kill...it is that we do kill for no necessity.
No amount of disguising the reality...masking the fundamental principles...or the marketing strategy of a fur company will change this.
I think fur is really beautiful..like when it's on the animal.
