On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:49:49 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:24:10 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:53:55 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:47:20 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:29:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:02:45 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:03:09 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 8/2/2012 8:36 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>****wit thinks there are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them" - Goo
>>>>. . .
>>>>> If there are pregnant animals, I can't see them, but at the end of
>>>>> the gestational period, there will be new animals that I can see,
>>>>> and whose welfare I can affect.
>>>>
>>>> Your first remark is no less stupid just because you put it before another
>>>>remark Goob. The stupidity factor of that particular remark remains, while the
>>>>stupidity factor of you overall increases because you thought you could reduce
>>>>some of the stupidity of your first remark by adding another POSSIBLY slightly
>>>>less stupid remark.
>>>
>>>It is a complete quote and shows why the issue is not about unborn
>>>animals currently being gestated by pregnant females.
>>
>> LOL!!!
>>
>>"at the end of the gestational period, there will be" - Goo
>>
>>LOL!!!
>>
>>>> I challenge you to tell us now Goo how you want people to think you "can
>>>>affect" the welfare of new animals that you can see. Go:
>>>>
>>>>(prediction: Goo will fail so completely that he can't even make an attempt,
>>>>though it could be great fun if he would try)
>>>>
>>>>>Doesn't it make sense to plan for how to provide for those animals' welfare
>>>>>before they are born?
>>>>
>>>> Goober, you have been manically OPPOSING giving consideration to both
>>>>existing livestock and potential future livestock for over a decade.
>>>
>>>Yes, because their lives deserve no moral consideration until they
>>>exist, and then *only* the welfare of their lives, not the "getting to
>>>experience life."
>>
>> ONLY eliminationists have reaon to oppose considering their lives Goob, as
>>we have seen and you yourself have demonstrated for us. People in no other group
>>have any reason to oppose consideration of that particular aspect.
>
>There is *nothing* to consider until they exist.

"I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals that are "in the pipeline", so
to speak, a lot of consideration" - Goo

>>>>Are you now
>>>>changing your position entirely and saying that it's finally okay for people to
>>>>take both into consideration, Goo?