Thread
:
Initial existence is NOT a benefit
View Single Post
#
7
(
permalink
)
swamp
Posts: n/a
Initial existence is NOT a benefit
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:00:09 GMT,
wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>
>>Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
>>"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
>>human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
>>
>>Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
>>creature.
>
> Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
>can benefit if it's not alive.
No, you need to show it "suffers" from not being born. Good luck.
>Since you can't...
No one can. The unborn cannot benefit or suffer. Your argument is
absurd.
>we're left to...
*You're* left to...
>understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
>possible.
....and makes all suffering possible. Non-life is a non-issue. No AR,
no AW, nada.
-- swamp
"Who, me officer? What's a ferut? These guys?? No, they're Polish cats."
Reply With Quote
Initial existence is NOT a benefit