Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The world's extinct and endangered species

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 6, 2012, 3:33 p.m. EST by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Over the past 500 years, human activity is known to have decimated 869 species. Habitat destruction, hunting, alien species, disease and climate change are among the forces responsible for the vulnerability and loss of the 12,000 species on the IUCN's red list of endangered species. With a total of 16,928 plant and animal species at risk, life on Earth is populated by creatures poised at the brink of extinction. Today, one in eight birds, one in four mammals, one in five invertebrates, one in three amphibians, and half of all turtles face extinction

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2012/sep/03/extinct-and-endangered-species-interactive

57 Comments

57 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21572) 11 months ago

Come back, Underdog. We miss you here.

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3158) 11 months ago

Sadly we're nearly all 'Underdogs' now! I've very good memories of this poster from my 'Inside Job' thread ( http://occupywallst.org/forum/have-you-seen-the-film-inside-job-if-not-why-not-i/#comment-849550 ) so I'll concur with your comment and please also see - http://www.nationofchange.org/debunking-spin-voters-want-change-not-centrism-1383733951 Never Give Up! Occupy All Streets! Solidarity.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21572) 11 months ago

Hi, A4C, nice to see you posting. Yes, Underdog was memorable and I always loved his name, too, as that is the point, isn't it? That the 99% are underdogs. Keep fighting! Solidarity to you and yours!

[-] 4 points by Ache4Change (3158) 11 months ago

All us 'underdogs' need to get organised and reclaim what's left of our democracy from the bankers - http://www.nationofchange.org/election-2013-grass-roots-resurgence-1383835625 Never Give Up Hope! Occupy The Agenda! Solidarity.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21572) 11 months ago

Absolutely. Hit hard from the left, not the middle, and never ever give up!

[-] 4 points by Ache4Change (3158) 11 months ago

'Wall Street analysts, corporate lobbyists, and front groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce form an exuberant cheering squad for maintaining the status quo of America’s do-nothing jobs policy.' from - http://www.nationofchange.org/5-million-missing-american-workers-1383926405 . Consider that the real 'middle' is to the 'left' of both political parties. Hit 'em where it hurts and ... Never Give Up! Occupy The Agenda! Solidarity.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21572) 11 months ago

I'm still scratching my head as to how New Jersey re-elected do nothing Chris Christie. Reported unemployment in NJ still stands at a staggering 8.5%. At the height of the fall out of the Global Financial Crisis, NJ had an unemployment rate of 9.7%! Yet, this guy is praised up and down. Go figure.

"Do nothing" is rammed down the throats of Americans. I guess that is why no one notices the 5 million people who just went away, most likely, ashamed and depressed. Pretty sad.

[-] 4 points by Ache4Change (3158) 11 months ago

The teaching of economics is just so skewed - as to leave both students and teachers none the wiser about 'The Dismal Science' which is really not so surprising due to the ignorance of most economists! People are kept in the dark about the real options as they're fed propaganda to keep them ever more in the dark and persuaded that there are no real alternatives, - http://www.nationofchange.org/rand-paul-s-zombie-nomics-versus-janet-yellen-1384527701 - Never Give Up The Struggle! Occupy The Alternatives! Solidarity and as per the OP, for a little bit of good news - http://www.nationofchange.org/researchers-scouring-tasmania-searching-evidence-tasmanian-tiger-exists-1384441595 - possibly :)

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21572) 11 months ago

This is so true of libertarians, not the leaders, per se, but the followers. They lack an in depth understanding of Austrian economics which is the economics of libertarianism which calls for a cold-hearted, unfettered, "free-market" capitalist system where capitalists can run wild with all the money while leaving the masses to scrape for crumbs.

What the followers of libertarianism don't get is that their fearless leaders are capitalists who would benefit from any deregulation. So, while it seems great to be "free" on so many levels, libertarianism would bring economic shackles, not freedom, to the masses. The gun will do you no good if you're living in poverty, quite frankly.

[-] 4 points by Ache4Change (3158) 11 months ago

Libertarianism is a Trojan Horse for psychopaths, plutocrats and oligarchs and your comment hits the nail right on the head and these ideas are being sold to people against their best interests by extremely undemocratic forces - http://www.nationofchange.org/koch-backed-nonprofit-spent-record-cash-2012-1384785002 so in antidote, please see - http://www.nationofchange.org/what-did-marx-know-and-when-did-he-know-it-capitalism-s-dirty-little-secret-1384788175 - Never, Ever Give Up Educating, Explaining & Exposing The Truth! Occupy The Issues! Solidarity.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21572) 11 months ago

"The environmental crisis is not localized; it's a crisis on a planetary scale, and one that's intertwined with global capitalism."

"Marx was wrong about one big thing: he put too much faith in the masses and failed to see how easily they (we) can be bought off. Materialism informed his theory of the past, but he never reckoned with the rampant materialism of the present, never imagined an age of mass consumption so pervasive. So here's the question:

If corporate elites have no incentive to curb capitalism and every incentive to grab a bigger and bigger share of the world's wealth, and if the "working class" of the world, now numbering over 7 billion, can be placated with credit cards and Walmarts, what chance do we have?

Was he paranoiac or prophetic? You be the judge."

Those are powerful questions. I'm reading Francis Wheen's "Marx's Das Kapital: A Biography" right now and one quote stands out to me. Marx declares:

"I am engaged in a fight to the death with the sham liberals."

I think that quote is at the heart of the matter because it is the people who support all of this exploitation of humans and the environment, just by supporting the status quo, who need to be fought as well, and there are a lot of them. The left, in America, is very weak.

Solidarity, A4C. Thanks for all the great work you do here. :)

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3158) 11 months ago

Francis Wheen's 'biography of Das Kapital' is discussed at length on the NPR audio link from here - http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-defence-of-the-broad-church-of-socialism-from-t/#comment-1012587 I listened to this a few days ago and now may well have to get the book but in keeping with Underdog's thread - http://www.salon.com/2013/11/26/red_list_2013_6_animals_on_the_brink_of_extinction/ and also see - http://www.nationofchange.org/fish-eat-plastic-polluted-oceans-travels-food-chain-and-harms-humans-1385736825 .

Thank you for all your good work too bw and in support - http://www.nationofchange.org/unequal-beyond-edge-humanness-1385738469 Never Give Up Exposing The Exploitation And The Excesses! Occupy The Real Issues! Solidarity.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21572) 11 months ago

That list of 5 animals on the brink of extinction is so sad. And, we should all keep in mind that millions of species are endangered, some just single cell and even fungi. All of that diversity is so important to the health of the Earth and our health and well being that we should be fighting like crazy to save as many as possible.

Here is a list of some of the top environmental schools in the U.S. There are kids that care and that are working toward making the world a better place:

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/10-of-the-best-college-environmental-programs-in-the-us

  1. Northland College, Ashland, Wisconsin

  2. SUNY, College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF), Syracuse, NY

  3. Program in Environmental Studies, Middlebury College

  4. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University

And, thanks for all you do, too, A4C. It's always nice to see you posting.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3158) 11 months ago

Biological diversity is at the heart of future solutions to a myriad problems and an economic system that is blind to this is not fit for purpose. Your link was very interesting to me as my own niece is at ASU studying these very subjects. Thank you for your kind words and http://www.nationofchange.org/gm-crop-could-migrate-dangerously-1385737366 Never Give Up On Our Environment! Occupy The Future! Solidarity.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21572) 11 months ago

Best thing we can do is raise our kids to not only care about these issues, but to do something about it. Awesome! Solidarity, A4C!

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21572) 2 years ago

Protecting biodiversity is critical for our continued survival on this planet. When a species becomes extinct that means it is gone for good. It cannot be brought back. People need to understand this. When one species disappears it affects many other species (eg. the food chain) and even whole ecosystems. And, one ecosystem is connected to another and that one to another. In other words, the loss of one single species has a great affect on the global environment.

Genetically modified crops are adding to the loss of diversity.

http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2011/06/17/loss-of-biodiversity-and-genetically-modified-crops/

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Gone for good? Not really.

We can bring them back when we get some spare time:

http://www.helium.com/items/2304709-how-freezing-endangered-animals-dna-will-help-against-extinction

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (21572) 2 years ago

Your article confirms that 40,000 species are being lost every year! I suppose freezing their DNA would be one way to help, but come on, 40,000 species! And, how do we know what we could really do with the DNA?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

100 years from now they will be able to bring back your great grandmother with samples from her old hair brush.

Better yet, build a new and improved great grand ma with a little genetic engineering. In the span of human existence hundreds of thousands of species have gone extinct, I really don't think humans are suffering too much from the loss. What's a few hundred thousand more.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21572) 2 years ago

Do you really want this posted on the forum for all time? Read back what your wrote and think about it some more.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

A long time ago, at the dawn of electronic media, I learned never to write anything that I would not want to see on the front page of the NYT, with full attribution.

"In the span of human existence hundreds of thousands of species have gone extinct, I really don't think humans are suffering too much from the loss. What's a few hundred thousand more."

BTW, humans will soon die out as well (complicated organisms are particularly susceptible to extinction), do you think that other life on the planet will miss our passing?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21572) 2 years ago

It's your choice, your life, your reputation. That's all I'm saying.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

60 years ago they said we would all have flying cars by now. I'm still waiting for mine.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

"It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future". -- Y. Berra

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4789) 2 years ago

Good Post

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Of virtually equivalent concern, is the threat of invasive species.

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I am not a man of violence, but after reading that article I find myself thinking that worldwide terrorist organizations should shift their focus from religio-political targets to the oil industry.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by HCHC4 (-28) 11 months ago

Humans are fuckin sick. Not to go back to "eeyore" mode, but we are so fucked its hard to imagine a situation where this all ends good.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/10/world/africa/rhino-extinct-species-report/index.html

[+] -7 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Today, one in every five fetuses faces extinction through voluntary abortion. It's no wonder that it's hard to get people to care for the other species on this planet when the predominant message says it's perfectly acceptable and legal to kill our own.

[-] 3 points by elf3 (2735) 2 years ago

Can i explain to you the opposition on this subject? People who agree with abortion have a difference with you - Many people view things with fully developed brains and nerve endings as a life - a fetus is in symbiosis with the mother it takes her to make it work and therefore has not developed into a life - while it may be a potential life (and then technically so is semen and an unfertilized egg) the law has determined that life to be after yes the brain and nerve endings have developed, it is not until that has happened. Many many more embryos are destroyed for the sake of bringing life into the world with fertility treatments. And many more actual living children are killed when we begin wars and bomb countries or ignore starvation around the world and ignore that they have no medical care or standard of living even allowing corporations to go in partner with their governments and steal their land and natural resources and fields they used to farm. Children with nerve endings and brains. Many more children have their hands chopped off or are killed working in mines for diamonds that you may be wearing on your finger right now. There are many many issues to deal with perhaps it's almost cruel to bring a life into a world where these things can happen - maybe it is best to solve these problems first. Maybe that is god's course. Maybe you could stand with occupy and stand against atrocities against children and people and our planet and its creatures. If one mother chooses not to allow an embryo to develop then maybe it's not for selfish reasons but because she can foresee suffering that the world has yet to solve. To end a life that has not started may not be cruel in the face of the cruelty the world has to offer. I look around the world the horror of a living being with nerve endings being used for the most selfish reasons and killed in the most horrible ways and think this creature is innocent and can feel what is happening. I don't feel the same way about a fetus because at the stage abortion is allowed the brain and nerves are not developed and for extra measure it is euthanized in a humane way. Especially if the child will be born with birth defects and illness; It is preventing cruelty. I don't think any mother makes the decision lightly - I think they take the course that will create the least suffering. I have not had an abortion by the way - but I believe that it is a personal choice especially when the health of the fetus is not good.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

You don't have to explain the opposition to this subject. People who disagree with abortion have a difference with you. One mother may choose abortion out of unselfishness, but the same logic demands that the next one might not.

Multiple medical studies have determined that somewhere between 20 and 22 weeks, fetuses can and do feel pain, so late term abortion, after 20 weeks, IS killing something that DOES have a brain and nerve endings.

In our nation's CAPITAL, they just repealed the entire abortion law making abortion legal for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy.

Using your reasoning, we should KILL ALL people-children, the aged, or in between who are ill or have birth defects or animals that might end up suffering in one of the cruel ways you mentioned so that they cannot be made to suffer. Or maybe we should sterilize all the women who live in such places so that NO children can ever be born into such horrors. It would be the HUMANE thing to do right?

Doesn't the fact that we are "destroying" the environment for all those animals mean that their "health is not good'? Shouldn't we "take the course that creates the least suffering" and just let them go extinct? It's selfish for us to want them to live when they might end up suffering somehow.

Oh, and be definition, symbiosis is a relationship between TWO organisms -which by default means that you are admitting that BOTH the fetus and the mother are ALIVE.

[-] 3 points by elf3 (2735) 2 years ago

I'm approaching this as a discussion not an argument - you seem extreme like it's a church dogma - I'm talking about actually stopping to analyze those facts which you have stated. Late term abortions are done when the fetus is in peril and has a condition in which upon birth it would suffer. As a mother I would not bring a child into suffering and a life of pain. So there is where we differ - you are so adherent to what your pastor tells you - you seem to be overlooking the truly compassionate choice. And in a late term abortion the fetus is euthanize not butchered. Letting go can sometimes be a compassionate and the unselfish decision. That includes letting go of dogma. And as far as regular abortions - it is easy to get attached to the idea of the child that will come rather than the state in which it is (which is just undeveloped cells.) It would be sad and that idea is not unimportant but the loss is for the life to come not the life that is. In what way did a specify I was for cruelty? And I have not heard about the laws being changed there is a federal standing on abortion and that is before brain development - if it has changed show me the law please? I think you better check some facts before you spout off. Send a link I'd like to know. - where you got the info. And what about that diamond are you wearing it now? How many children died for it? Between two organisms - organisms don't always have brains (as amoebas) At a certain stage an embryo is not unlike an amoeba and not unlike an insect. Especially when you need a microscope to view it, and it is nothing but cells in a petrie dish - which is why so many doctors don't mind saving a living breathing child or sight with stem cells and why they don't mind discarding them for invitro fertility treatment. To say that well it could have been a life is true but every month an egg comes rolling out of your fallopian tube and men are spilling semen. Those technically are cells that could become life - but we've sort of reached a consensus that we really aren't going to cry about spilled semen or unused eggs. The same goes for an unborn microscopic life or organism that does not yet have a brain. And why are pro-lifers so angry about animal life ? It boggles my mind living thing skinned alive and kicked around and gutted (have you seen the pig farm videos on you tube?) vs petrie dish size organism that can't feel or sense anything...I mean if you make one argument at least stand by your guns and protect ALL life. Stand against suffering and stand against wars, stand for animal welfare, stand against starvation, and diamond mines, stand to protect the planet? Can that not fit in there along with your beliefs? And yes in certain situations it is better to euthanize - I wish we would be able to help end suffering the way we are allowed to do for animals for humans. I euthanized my pets when they were suffering from terminal illness and I can't imagine allowing a human to endure what I would not force upon an animal.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

"The Council of the District of Columbia, employing authority delegated by Congress, repealed the entire D.C. abortion law. Thus, in the nation’s capital, abortion is currently legal for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy."

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/31/democrats-prevent-house-passage-of-late-term-abortion-ban/

Your assumptions that I'm adhering to something "a pastor" told me and that I wear a diamond that children died for are both insulting and wrong. I DO stand for protecting ALL life-you stand for protecting ALL life except for the "life" being expressed in a human embryo. I'd watch who I called a hypocrite if I were you.

[-] 3 points by elf3 (2735) 2 years ago

I read up on the subject this notion was merely a quotation by a pro-life activist. Nowhere is it said that it can be done for any reason - that was a quote merely by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), would prohibit abortions in the District except to protect the life of the mother after 20 weeks of pregnancy, under the theory that fetuses are capable of experiencing pain beyond that point. The medical community is divided on that question.

Just before the vote, Franks said late-term abortions are “the greatest human rights atrocity in the United States today.”

In the District, he noted, “Abortion is completely legal for any reason up until the moment of birth. Under the Constitution, the Congress and the president clearly are responsible for this abortion-until-birth policy.”Just because someone says something doesn't mean it is fact - abortion is not allowed for any reason but he wants to make it illegal even if the fetus is severley deformed or the mother will die if she continues to carry the pregnancy

Here is a NY Times article on the same subject

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/us/27abortion.html

People aren't monsters - they want to figure out what is best for the child in most of these late term abortions the reason is due to the fetus being severely mal-formed why else would someone wait so long? They wanted the pregnancy but had to decide whether to allow suffering - this decision is devastating to the woman but it is the humane choice they must make. I'm glad you stand up for all life. - it is good to hear - perhaps best not to get your news from the pro-life times? aka pastors

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

The article you quoted was from last year. The one I posted was from THIS year regarding a vote that took place in Washington DC on a bill that prevented a ban on late term abortions.

The phrase "Thus, in the nation’s capital, abortion is currently legal for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy" is a fact reported in the article by the author. it was not a quote attributed to Rep Franks.

WASHINGTON (AP) – A bill that would ban abortions in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks of pregnancy failed to pass the House on Tuesday. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-07-31/dc-abortion-ban-fails/56626094/1

[-] 3 points by elf3 (2735) 2 years ago

They want to BAN them NO MATTER any reason after 20 weeks- meaning even if your fetus has half a head and is missing it's arms and legs you can't abort after 20 weeks - the law passed prevented from someone from telling a woman if she can or can't abort upon learning this info - currently a woman can abort if she finds this out after 20 weeks. You are twisting truth to suit your dogma. There are reasons set by the law limiting when a woman can abort after 20 weeks - the pro- lifers wanted to take away even those allowed due to problems with the mother or fetus. Do you really want to carry that pregnancy through so you can give birth to a stillborn or risk your own health when it dies inside you? What you should be tackling is all the chemicals companies are allowed to put in products and pollute our water and earth with that causes so many horrific birth defects - don't go after families who are the victims of this.

Here is a link to common household products that can cause birth defects, and reproductive problems.

http://www.ewg.org/guides/cleaners

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Here, I'll just post actual proof of the legislation being discussed from the Library of Congress so you don't have to worry about my "dogma".

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp112nQZQx&r_n=hr640p1.112&dbname=cp112&&sel=TOC_25710&

The library of congress notes SHOW:(copied and pasted below)

Currently, it is legal to perform an abortion for any reason, 2

[Footnote] either before or after viability, in the District of Columbia, the national capital. 3

[Footnote 2: The Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1531, applies, but this law restricts only the method of abortion in which the living baby is mostly delivered before being killed; it does not restrict reasons for which abortions may be performed, either before or after viability.]

[Footnote 3: As The Washington Post reported, The District has the fewest restrictions on late-term abortions in the region . . . Maryland and Virginia prohibit abortions after a fetus is considered viable . . .' Ben Pershing,House panel approves ban on D.C. abortions after 20 weeks,' The Washington Post (July 18, 2012) at B5. The Associated Press also reported that In a May 17 story about a bill that would ban abortion in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks of pregnancy, The Associated Press, relying on information provided by district officials, erroneously reported that abortion of a viable fetus is legal in the district only to protect the life or health of the mother. Abortions for any reason are legal in the district.' Associated Press,Correction: Fetal Pain Story' (May 23, 2012).]

I do NOT have a problem with a mother making the decision, based on the health of the fetus OR HERSELF being in question, to have an abortion in ANY trimester of pregnancy.

I DO have a problem with women being able to abort a fetus for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER at ANY TIME up until birth!

I believe you called people like that "monsters".

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

"I do NOT have a problem with a mother making the decision, based on the health of the fetus OR HERSELF being in question, to have an abortion in ANY trimester of pregnancy.

I DO have a problem with women being able to abort a fetus for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER at ANY TIME up until birth! "

I do believe this is the second time you and I have agreed on something.

It might be a record........................:)

My complaint is in using abortion as a flippant form of birth control.

It should never be like that.

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Thank you for agreeing that abortion should never be used as a flippant form of birth control.

Maybe we're on a roll.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

"extinction", no not at all, the number of humans rises steadily.

You seem to bring noise here, because you choose not to address the issue of bio-diversity, and focus on taking woman's rights instead,.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

I couched my statement in the same terms the OP did-he didn't state that ALL birds face extinction, or ALL turtles etc but presented them in terms such as "1 in 8" etc. So your idea that I was stating that ALL humans or ALL babies face extinction is incorrect.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

you do not understand what the word extinction means. humans are one species,. any number of abortions less than one for every new human child will not lead to human extinction. simple. it is not about the number it is about ending a species. a unique order of life. if all humans died there would still be other primates and many more mammals,. so no abortion has nothing to do with extinction.

You are not addressing the issue of BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, at all. Humanity is now destroying the diversity of the planet. Diversity of life is hugely important, especially given the current rate of climate change, and eco-system destruction, as it is when conditions change that the dominance of one species overtakes another, that those in small numbers now, replace those less able to cope with the changed conditions. Without deep diversity, the web of life is much less stable, and will eventually fail. Given this reality, human abortions, or anything that limits human numbers, are a good thing, and could in fact lead to a reduction in diversity loss,. but you care not about this you want to fight about abortion, right? Jesus is coming to fly you away soon I suppose?

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. His categories (in bold and unquoted so I assume they were his words)-birds, mammals, amphibians are different CLASSES not species. The word extinction ALSO means-"The state or process of ceasing or causing something to cease to exist."

How many species of plants, animals, and even every other species under the genus "homo" (we are homo sapiens) have gone extinct in the history of life on this planet that homo sapiens had NOTHING to do with? What about all THAT biological diversity lost? It may very well have caused HUMANS to become the dominant species on this planet.

Shifting diversity and changing conditions are the NORM on this flying rock. Jesus didn't come and "fly away" any of those other organic creatures now did He? Maybe human beings are just the next thing to go. Then you'll get your wish and humans won't be to blame for anything in the future.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Wow, you are dense and silly. Extinction is about the elimination of a unique species. It has nothing to do with the death, or in the case of abortion, lack of actually ever having been born, of an individual of a species. When individuals die they do not "go extinct", they simple are dead, and the species goes on without them.

Diversity loss is much more destructive than simple death (or intervention before birth) of individuals, it is permanent and lessens the strength of life on the planet as a whole. The fact is humans are NEEDLESSLY destroying the diversity of life here, for pointless greed, and through the stupidity of bad management of ourselves and our actions. Saying that extinction is natural is like saying that miscarriages are natural, and therefor all abortions are natural, and must be gods will,. you see it is 'true',. only it is also stupid, and misses entirely the point.

It is not my wish that "humans are to blame" (whatever that is supposed to mean) but that we can recognize the results of our actions and modify our behavior.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Then the OP is dense and silly too. He didn't use extinction in the proper scientific fashion, so neither did I. I must have missed where you told him that and called him for using the word extinction with classes instead of unique species.

Or was it that you just want to attack me personally for finding the killing of babies to be at LEAST equal with intentional killing of any other living thing? (You're the one that called limiting human numbers a "good thing" remember? But limiting birds or mammals or turtles is horrific!)

You seem to either be arguing both sides of the evolution/creation debate, or trying to argue one side of it for me without invitation. Stick with one or the other as doing it the way you are makes you look irrational or presumptive.

Most scientists would agree that extinction has happened from natural causes (since there are no "unnatural" culprits) and that miscarriages happen from natural causes too. Miscarriages happen all the time without human intervention to cause them-ALL abortions require human intervention. (That's my key point here since you either keep missing it or attempting to make my point something that it is not.)

Best wishes

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

The original post did not claim that the death of one member of a spices equates to extinction,. only ratios of creatures going extinct. You on the other hand, are debasing language with your misuse of it, and the clearly limited understanding of reality, that you choose to make public.

Abortion is not on the same order of magnitude as extinction. It is the ending of a single life where as extinction is the ending of a unique species for all time,. there is a vast difference and I only mean to point out that difference. I see you do not understand this, or care to learn, good luck with that.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

I'll wager a months salary that you believe in The Death Penalty too !!!

Because that is the usual intellectual inconsistency of anti-choicers !!

Am I right ? Give my winnings to Planned Parenthood please. Thanx !

fiat lux ...

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

So you're saying that you don't approve of the death penalty for adult people guilty of terrible crimes against humanity, but you're fine with killing innocent babies who have done nothing wrong. Such intellectual consistency!!

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

You know that is such a myopic argument. Look at the political fighting we are engaging in just for the right to survive. The environment is almost completely degraded. The rule of law only applies to those without money. The social safety net is being dismantled for personal gain. Shit is starting to really pile up, and you are ostracizing those who make a decision not to subject their kids to such barbarous conditions. If parents have to choose between bringing their kids up in squalor or abort it, what do you think would be a more humane decision? You worried about abortions? Then do your part so abortion does not seem as the more humane choice. Or you could just go on with your life and stop judging those you know nothing about.

[-] 1 points by freakyfriday (179) 2 years ago

Yes, the planet was much healthier with dinosaurs and mastadons. Ahhh, for the good old days

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

"Or you could just go on with your life and stop judging those you know nothing about."

If I am myopic, you are blind.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 2 years ago

Abortion is just one of at least 4 choices. I agree that single girls have no business having children, but I think they are old enough to know what causes pregnancy.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (2735) 2 years ago

wait it's only the woman - how about men who disagree with abortion learn to keep their legs closed knowing that each time they don't a woman has the option to abort if she gets pregnant - how is that for responsibility - ?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

What about the guy who says, "I'll love you if you give me what I crave," then is never seen again? I know lots of women who were taken in by such flattery. It is easy to say they should have known better but reality is more complex.