I think you are misunderstanding the parent poster: livestock animals would not exist but for their owners. So, for humanely-raised and nobly-killed animals: the choice (made by humans) is an animal with a benign, perhaps even happy existence, followed by a peaceful death vs. not existing at all. (Obviously not true for factory farms.)
It’s definitely not an ironclad argument: children also exist only because of their parents, but (our modern) society does not grant parents the right of life or death over their children at will.
This is like saying people brought from Africa for slavery wouldn’t have procreated, produced offsprings and successfully survived if it wasn’t for their necessities supplied by their owners.
^ exactly. To me, the notion is odious that individuals born into exploitative circumstances [be they human or otherwise] forfeit their volition / consciousness as a result of those circumstances.
Rousseau : "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."
I have no idea who's down-voting you, but you are absolutely right.
To find acceptable the exploitation of animals while finding immoral the exploitation of humans, you must believe that animals differ from humans in some fundamental ways!
Comfortable, caring bondage is still bondage, and we should not forget that.
It’s definitely not an ironclad argument: children also exist only because of their parents, but (our modern) society does not grant parents the right of life or death over their children at will.