dh@. lied:
> On 15 Nov 2005 18:02:50 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>
> >Seeker wrote:
> >> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> What happens to the dead bodies is morally significant because it indicates
> >> why we killed them, which is part of the moral calculation.
> >
> >No, that's not right. You killed the steer in order to eat it, but
> >after killing it, you discover it has BSE or some other condition that
> >keeps you from eating it, so you incinerate it instead. Or, you bought
> >the package of steaks with every intention of grilling them, but while
> >you were away from the house for a few days the refrigerator broke
> >down, and everything in it spoiled, so you threw the steaks in the
> >garbage bin.
> >
> >The *ultimate* disposition of the corpse has no moral meaning at all;
> >it's just a corpse. It's the purpose in raising and killing them that
> >matters, not what ultimately happens to the body. Raising the steer to
> >eat it seems like a morally worthy choice; to many people, raising it
> >as a bull to be used in bullfights seems a morally corrupt choice.
>
> Since YOU/"ARAs"

I'm not an "ara".

> insist that life has no value for any animals or
> humans regardless of quality,

No animal or person "benefits" from coming into existence.


> >> The living
> >> animals lives are morally significant because they indicate how we treat the
> >> animals.
> >>
> >> >>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.
> >>
> >> And if their lives are not decent then you shouldn't. You don't make any
> >> effort to ensure that they are.
> >
> >Or, if you decide mostly for health but partly for aesthetic reasons
> >not to eat meat, you also shouldn't.
>
> These quotes explain how YOU/"ARAs" want everyone to feel
> about raising animals for food

I'm not an "ara".