Goo (Fuckwit David Harrison) is the only one who has
introduced animal "pre-existence" as something to be
considered. The literal words "pre-existence" are not
found in his blabbering, but they are undeniably
implied by what he has written:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

On Oct 14, 11:38 am, Rudy Canoza finished the last turd he sucked from
Ron's bum then belched nothing of importance
thedismalscience.net> wrote:

What did you mean when you said that coming into existence didn't make
you any better off than YOU WERE BEFORE? (your actual words were: I
WAS BEFORE)

pudgy queer ronnnnnnie hamilton, hopelessly overmatched
as always, working overtime to be stupid, and who hates
his own mommy, lied and presented no challenge:

On Oct 14, 11:38 am, Rudy Canoza thedismalscience.net> wrote:

The possibility that you could exist must necessarily been in the
state of affairs else your existence wouldn't be possible.

We humans often think about whether to have a child or not based upon
ideas about whether we can take care of it or not. Sort of a pre-
existence.

Immortalist wrote:

On Oct 14, 12:25 pm, Dutch email.com> wrote:

On Oct 14, 11:54 am, Rudy Canoza thedismalscience.net> wrote:

Immortalist wrote:

Immortalist wrote:

Irrelevant. Possibility doesn't imply any moral
considerability prior to existence.

pudgy queer ronnnnnnie hamilton, hopelessly overmatched
as always, working overtime to be stupid, and who hates
his own mommy, lied and presented no challenge: