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?