(September 3, 2015 at 2:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(September 3, 2015 at 1:56 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: It makes sense to me in the sense that the person is going to die no matter but the animal isn't going to be fucked no matter what. In the case of the person, the action you're taking is deciding whether to let that person persist in a prolonged period of suffering before dying or whether to end that suffering by ending the life, whereas with the animal you are actively taking action that very well might be harming the animal. You're attempting to alleviate known suffering in the one case, and potentially causing suffering in the other.
What about for killing an animal to eat them without their consent though?
On that point:
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
