XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Mon, 06 Aug 2012, the Gooberdoodle wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:02:24 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:36:32 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>dh@. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> "Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born..."   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>There's no such thing as "unborn animals" you moron.   
   >>   
   >>    LOL!!! In contrast to that most stupidly blatant of lies, every pregnant   
   >>animal carries at least one unborn animal.   
   >   
   >Oh, so unborn animals somehow exist, then?   
      
       Every pregnant animal carries at least one unborn animal Goob. It's what   
   pregnant means, Goo.   
      
   >That's what we've been   
   >saying you believe all along.  Why do you deny believing it when it is   
   >so obvious that you *do* believe it?   
      
       Goober it's stupid not to believe in unborn animals just because you can't   
   see them. Here's a clue for you Goo: you can't see unborn animals because they   
   are inside of their mother. You can see some unborn fish though Goob, so you   
   should Google that to see that you can see some of them and they do exist.   
      
       What you're bewildered and confused about Gooberdoodle, is the difference   
   between unborn animals and potential future beings who are as yet unconceived.   
   Until conception there is no being afawk Goo. Whether or not any beings have   
   multiple lives is something we can't know Goob, so there's no real reason to   
   have a belief about it one way or the other.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)