"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> JethroUK© wrote:
>
> > "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>JethroUK© wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
> >>>>>> if animals come into existence?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It would be better for:
> >>>
> >>>1/ That particular animal
> >>
> >>NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
> >>existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.
> >
> >
> > it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers
eye - as
> > per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) - it
> > already exists!
>
> No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
> better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
> read?
>
> The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
> for something to be "better" for some entity, the
> entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
> THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.

yes it can! - 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -
from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's perspective) - it
is better to be alive than not - of course it would not have any persepctive
if it didn't exist - but once it does - it does - and [we] can consider
'it's' perspective - another fact!