On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:

There's a bit more information he

http://www.innovationwatch.com/choic...2007-05-15.htm

The animal rights community will eventually have to sort out its
stance on this one, and it might be quite a divisive issue, but I
think that's a long way off. I'm led to believe that it would
currently cost several thousands of dollars to produce an in vitro
steak. It will probably be a while before selling in vitro meat for
human consumption becomes a serious commercial proposition, unless
some major breakthrough is made.

I was at a conference about Peter Singer's work once where Peter
Singer briefly commented on the issue. As said in the article at the
end of the above link, he thinks it's perfectly fine, though he
mentions that he himself might choose not to eat it.

I have to confess that I think it's a pretty silly question. Not to
criticize you for wanting to find out what the "official stance" on it
is, but I think it's silly that people think there's anything to argue
about.

Most likely because you don't really care about the animals
themselves, other than your desire to prevent their existence.
Let's try another one anyway:

Do you think it would be better if the animals could be
raised and grown in a comatose condition, than it is for them
to be conscious and able to experience life? Do you think it
may be better in some cases, but not in others?