the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>>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:
>>>
>>>
>>>yes you can, but only if you exist - the existance define the perspective -
>>>if you can consider yourself better off dead than alive - you can equally
>>>consider yourself better off alive than dead
>>
>>No. That's the whole issue. When you exist, you can
>>think that your existence is so awful, you don't want
>>to continue it. You won't *really* be "better off"
>>dead than alive, because you won't BE.
>>
>
>
> whilst alive, you can consider 'not being' (alive) & hence make the relative
> judgment - if your life is a living hell, you can (will full perspective)
> consider not doing it

That's nice, semi-literate scrawler. It doesn't change
the FACT that prior to existing, one has no well-being
or welfare to improve, and thus coming into existence
CANNOT be "better" than never coming into existence. QED.