Goo****wit and animal "pre-existence"

Goo (****wit 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.
        ****wit - 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.
        ****wit - 08/01/2000

        What gives you the right to want to deprive
        them [unborn animals] of having what life they
        could have?
        ****wit - 10/12/2001

        What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
        *could* get to live, is for people not to
        consider the fact that they are only keeping
        these animals from being killed, by keeping
        them from getting to live at all.
        ****wit - 10/19/1999

These unconceived and unborn animals *exist* to
****wit:  he believes they can experience a loss, be
"denied" and "deprived" of something, and can
experience "unfairness".  Since the animals don't exist
now in the real world, and since Goo says they
"...*will* be born" as a result of being "...more than
just "nothing", then *necessarily* Goo is saying they
"pre-exist":  they're sitting around somewhere before
their existence in this world, just waiting for their turn.

"Pre-existence":  this is Goo's problem, not mine.