not a philosopher wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> : JethroUK, clearly a coward, keeps EVADING simple and
> : legitimate questions.
> :
> : Jethro wrote,
> :
> : "is it better to raise an animal to eat, or not to
> : raise it at all?"
> :
> : "i'll rephrase that - is it better to raise an
> : animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
> : at all?"
> :
> : "i'll try again - is it more/less moral to raise an
> : animal to consume (wider sense), or not to raise it
> : at all?"
>
> It is better not to raise an animal at all rather than to
> raise it to slaughter and eat. First it damages the human
> spirit to eat other animals, IMO.

I fully disagree with your opinion, but it is at least
an honest opinion, and one that many millions of people
have shared.

It is obvious that JethroFW holds a diametrically
opposite opinion to yours: JethroFW believes it is
better that the livestock animals are born and "get to
experience life".

In my opinion, it simply isn't an issue. I don't view
human consumption of animals as in any way wrong or
corrosive to the human spirit, but I also don't believe
that animals "benefit" in any way from coming into
existence: existence _per se_ cannot be a "benefit".

> Second meat is rather unhealthy, isn't it.

You mean *unhealthful*, not "unhealthy": if one eats
too many unhealthful things, one will BE unhealthy.

The answer is No, it is not intrinsically unhealthful.
Too much meat probably is, though.