the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
thlink.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!

No, it can't! I've just explained why it can't be!
You don't get it!

> - '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

No. That's impossible. You cannot compare existence
to non-existence: the entity didn't have a welfare or
well-being prior to existing, so existence cannot
improve anything.

> - of course it would not have any persepctive
> if it didn't exist

Thus, there is on basis for any comparison.

You lose.