On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:26:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
><snip repetition>
>
>>>I understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything, you are
>>>still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining egg
>>>and
>>>sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any.
>>
>> It provides life for an animal. Life that it otherwise would NOT have.
>
>That fact has no moral content. The morally relevant facts are; the animal
>was bred to be food, well-treated or not, killed humanely or not, sold and
>consumed.

LOL!!! Hilarious that you consider what happens to the dead bodies to
be morally significant, but that the living animals' lives are not.

>Combining egg and sperm for the purpose of creating a product
>involves no sacrifice, no "consideration" of the well-being of any animal.
>Those are the morally relevant concepts in this equation.
>
>The rest is just more of your rubbish.

You can contribute to the lives they get, or try not to. You can not
contribute to "better" lives for them, as you dishonestly claim.