JethroUK© wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>JethroUK© wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What YOU, ****tard, have repeatedly failed to
>>>>>>>>understand is that prior to existing, one has no
>>>>>>>>well-being or welfare that can be "improved" by coming
>>>>>>>>into existence. THEREFORE, ****tard, an entity cannot
>>>>>>>>be "better off" merely by coming into existence: one
>>>>>>>>must ALREADY exist to be made "better off" by some event.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>wrooooongg !!!!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>an animal can better off (from it's own perspective) merely by virtue
>>>
>>>of
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>it's existence
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it can't. It didn't exist previously, so it had no
>>>>>>well-being or welfare to improve. Look, ****tard:
>>>>>>being "better off" MEANS experiencing an improvement in
>>>>>>well-being/welfare.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>there is no 'better improvement' than life over non-existence
>>>>
>>>>It isn't an "improvement" AT ALL.
>>>>
>>>
>>>it's the ultimate improvement
>>
>>It is not an "improvement" at all: there was nothing
>>to improve.
>>
>
>
> but once it [is] there - it's an improvement

NO. We're not concerned with "once it [is] there" -
what the **** is it with you and the MISUSE of brackets
and hyphens?

Read again: "better off" as you are using it refers to
an improvement in welfare. As there IS NO welfare
before the animal exists, existence does not effect any
"improvement" for the animal (or a human, for that
matter.) It is logically absurd to conclude that it is
better to be born than not born.