****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:34:29 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
>
> >> Not necessarily admirable, but I can consider it a good thing to
> >> contribute
> >> to life of positive value, even for livestock, even though you can't.
>
> "You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products."

Dutch is correct: you are not entitled to that.



>
> "We should feel good if animals are given good treatment."

That's a matter of choice, but if one cares about animal treatment,
then one may feel good that they receive good treatment. One may *not*
feel good, on behalf of the animals, that the animals existed in the
first place.



>
> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
> has positive or negative value to the animal."

Dutch is correct, again. The basic fact of existence, however, is not
a benefit to animals.