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

Immortalist wrote:
> On Sep 17, 9:24 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> This sounds like ethical arguments for and against birth control or
> maybe even anti-abortion arguments. In the former someone could argue
> that if people take birth control this may not benifit those -beings-
> who wouldn't be born. Which raises the question of why it relevant or
> im****tant whether people are born or not.

Quite right, it's the same type of reasoning. The Roman Catholic 
religion uses it.