I am pro-choice and I definetely believe that the less humans there are in
the world the better it is for the future.

Why must we breed? Humans are the bane of existence. We are parasites.
The earth was a perfectly balanced ecosystem until humans came along.

If a woman chooses responsibly to abort a fetus than she is doing the world
some good IMHO.

Abortion is NOT birth control. It is a LAST resort. I believe that the
soul will go to some other body anyway so therefore, you're not really
killing anything. Trying to prove that to anti-abortionists and scientists
is an impossibility I'm afraid.

If you're truly an anti-abortionist then you wouldn't eat meat or eggs.
Since they are also lives killed without choice.

Adoption is a poor option--many children are never adopted and live very sad
lives. Is it better to give a life to a child only to have it live in
sadness and poverty--isn't that suffering better prevented to give other
adoptees more of a chance?

It's the same with animals. Most people only adopt kittens and puppies.
Dogs and cats are euthanized in astonishing numbers because no one wants to
adopt an adult. It's the same with children.

Not having the chance to live? Or are you actually saving the child from
living a terrible life of going to from foster to foster--always questioning
why the mother gave her/him up?

"Vivian" <someone@microsoft.com> writes:
I am pro-choice and I definetely believe that the less humans there are in the world the better it is for the future.

I am pro-choice too. And I agree that over-population is a danger.

But I don't understand your attitude completely. Suppose there were
no humans. By your philisophy that would be best for the future.

For the future of whom? Not me. Not house cats. Not cows. Whales
and dolphins? Probably yes. Other primates? Again probably yes.
Rats and roaches? No - they benefit from us. Cows? No, but probably
better for wolves.

So what _do_ you mean when you suggest that _no_ humans would be best
for the future?
Why must we breed? Humans are the bane of existence. We are parasites. The earth was a perfectly balanced ecosystem until humans came along.

What do you mean by perfectly balanced? The ecosystem was in constant
flux. From macro events like the extinction of the dinosaurs, to
medium scale events like ice ages, creations of land bridges and
continental bridges, to slow but dramatic effects like evolution.

For the future of whom? Not me. Not house cats. Not cows. Whales and dolphins? Probably yes. Other primates? Again probably yes. Rats and roaches? No - they benefit from us. Cows? No, but probably better for wolves.

House cats would become feral once again--they became house cats didn't
they? Cows would eventually adapt--but they are sorry creatures because of
humans. Rats and roaches do not need humans to survive. In fact, because
of us, there is an imbalance of rats, roaches, seagulls and pigeons. Cows
were not supposed to produce such large amounts of milk. It was humans who
bred them to produce abnormal amounts with hormones and breeding. Now, they
are completely dependent on being milked or else they die.

And that's entirely the fault of us humans.

In fact, humans are not supposed to drink milk after the age of 3. There's
no need. There are far superior sources of calcium that come from plants
and supplements. The dairy industry is probably one of the most corrupt and
evil examples of animal cruelty.

Animals are naturally able to adapt far better than humans. Humans just
make everything adapt to them.

In school we are taught that humans come from apes. Latest research and
anthopological evidence has concluded that this is not the case. Humans are
of themselves. There is no evidence that they came from apes. If this is
the case, then it could be that humans have come from elsewhere--that they
are not naturally from the earth.
So what _do_ you mean when you suggest that _no_ humans would be best for the future?

Yes, and if we continue to live as we do--we will destroy everything,
animals, the environment, the world and ourselves. If humans never existed
in the first place, I'm sure the earth would be just fine. If humans were
to leave the earth or if they were to somehow find ways to live in harmony
and fix years and years of damage then maybe it will be possible for humans
to save the world. I know it won't be in my lifetime--and I'll be long
gone from this existence.
Why must we breed? Humans are the bane of existence. We are parasites. The earth was a perfectly balanced ecosystem until humans came along. What do you mean by perfectly balanced? The ecosystem was in constant flux. From macro events like the extinction of the dinosaurs, to medium scale events like ice ages, creations of land bridges and continental bridges, to slow but dramatic effects like evolution.

Yes, but those are natural events. Humans cause dramatic and harmful
effects to the environment on a far higher scale than any natural
event--even more so that an earthquake, hurricane or flood. The polar
icecaps are melting at a far higher rate because of us. We are destroying
the ozone. We've driven countless species into extinction. We create
chemical leaching land fills. We pollute the water. We consume oil and we
have no way to replace it all. We destroy trees. Oil mineries on the sea
tend to explode and wreak havoc on the environment. We kill animals for
their fur and little else. We have enough ammo to blast the world 42 time
over and yet we keep making more. If this keeps up, we are destroying
everything.

There is great evidence supporting the fact that humans are not from
earth...we have not evolutionized from apes. And that everything you
learned in school about the "evolution" of humans is wrong.

I'm not going to be the one to explain all of it--a great video is available
that was made by PBS on this subject. I'm sure there are some resources on
the internet as well. I hate to be such a "realist" however, it's all true.
That's why I wait in anticipation for the day I'm outta here and do as much
as I can to save my little world.

"Vivian" <someone@microsoft.com> writes:
snip of non-answer

You've made no attempt to answer my question.

For whom would the world be better without humans?

DId you mean better for the other animals? Well, only some of them.

And why should the ones for which it will be bettter have higher
priority than the ones for which it will be worse (and the humans)?

I'll not bother discussing your point that humans may be space
invaders, since it is both silly and irrelevant.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n0oexsjvsi.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Vivian" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: snip of non-answer You've made no attempt to answer my question. For whom would the world be better without humans? DId you mean better for the other animals? Well, only some of them. And why should the ones for which it will be bettter have higher priority than the ones for which it will be worse (and the humans)? I'll not bother discussing your point that humans may be space invaders, since it is both silly and irrelevant.

As a pro-life person, I appreciate seeing the pro-choice represented by
someone like Vivian. Thanks, Vivian.

Jayne

Vivian <someone@microsoft.com> wrote: In school we are taught that humans come from apes. Latest research and anthopological evidence has concluded that this is not the case. Humans are of themselves. There is no evidence that they came from apes. If this is the case, then it could be that humans have come from elsewhere--that they are not naturally from the earth.

That's bunk. The evolutionary record has been pretty clear for the past 75
years; humans and the great apes (*) share a common ancestor, and it's been
understood for at least that long that (A) we are not descended from any
other living species, and (B) few living species are descended from any
other living species -- in general, the way speciation works is "from A,
come B and C" (there are notable exceptions, but this is the most common
pattern.)

(* well, the african great apes; while Orangutans share a common
ancestor with both humans and african apes (chimps/gorillas) it is a great
deal farther back.)
There is great evidence supporting the fact that humans are not from earth...we have not evolutionized from apes. And that everything you learned in school about the "evolution" of humans is wrong.

Thanks, kook. *plonk*

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:n0oexsjvsi.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Vivian" <someone@microsoft.com> writes:> snip of non-answer You've made no attempt to answer my question. For whom would the world be better without humans? DId you mean better for the other animals? Well, only some of them. And why should the ones for which it will be bettter have higher priority than the ones for which it will be worse (and the humans)? I'll not bother discussing your point that humans may be space invaders, since it is both silly and irrelevant. As a pro-life person, I appreciate seeing the pro-choice represented by someone like Vivian.

LOL

I'll just bet you do....

I'm afraid I can't summon up enough charity to do more than bite my tongue
over Vivian's views and shaky factoids ....despite being pro-choice myself.

Tai

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:n0oexsjvsi.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Vivian" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: > snip of non-answer You've made no attempt to answer my question. For whom would the world be better without humans? DId you mean better for the other animals? Well, only some of them. And why should the ones for which it will be bettter have higher priority than the ones for which it will be worse (and the humans)? I'll not bother discussing your point that humans may be space invaders, since it is both silly and irrelevant. As a pro-life person, I appreciate seeing the pro-choice represented by someone like Vivian. Thanks, Vivian.

She does seem to be pro-choice and yet anti-life.

In school we are taught that humans come from apes. Latest research and anthopological evidence has concluded that this is not the case. Humans
are of themselves. There is no evidence that they came from apes. If this is the case, then it could be that humans have come from elsewhere--that they are not naturally from the earth.

I agree with you, however, I do think that some primate DNA was modified to
come out with the final result, as indicated by our 99 percent similarity
with chimps in that regard. It would seem logical that if you were mutating
a species you would incorporate DNA from an existing species that is fully
acclimated to the atmosphere, etc. on that particular planet. No sense in
reinventing the wheel, so to speak.

But I so totally agree with you that we are NOT a product of natural
selections. Anyone with a modicum of common sense could figure that out.

SD

That's bunk. The evolutionary record has been pretty clear for the past
75 years; humans and the great apes (*) share a common ancestor, and it's
been understood for at least that long that (A) we are not descended from any other living species, and (B) few living species are descended from any other living species -- in general, the way speciation works is "from A, come B and C" (there are notable exceptions, but this is the most common pattern.)

It's all theory. Nobody can prove anything. One theory (Vivian's) is just
as valid as any one elses. Nobody knows for sure.

SD

"Shashay Doofray" <ShashayDoofray@yahoo.com> writes:
That's bunk. The evolutionary record has been pretty clear for the past 75 years; humans and the great apes (*) share a common ancestor, and it's been understood for at least that long that (A) we are not descended from any other living species, and (B) few living species are descended from any other living species -- in general, the way speciation works is "from A, come B and C" (there are notable exceptions, but this is the most common pattern.) It's all theory. Nobody can prove anything. One theory (Vivian's) is just as valid as any one elses. Nobody knows for sure.

You don't believe in Occam's Razor as a sound intellectual principle?
Evolution is a simple and elegant explanation. Vivian's calls for an
awful lot of unverifiable assumptions.

Shashay Doofray <ShashayDoofray@yahoo.com> wrote: That's bunk. The evolutionary record has been pretty clear for the past 75 years; It's all theory. Nobody can prove anything. One theory (Vivian's) is just as valid as any one elses. Nobody knows for sure.

*LOL* Useful theories are testable and supported by evidence; the
evolutionary record of our species is well-supported, and there have been
any number of details which have either been supported or disproven by more
recent findings.

No, it's not "100% for sure" any more than it's 100% for sure that the world
existed before a given observer's memory begins. And heck, memory's fallible
too.

"Humankind is introduced by aliens" is neither supported by evidence, nor,
in the absense of any evidence of aliens, testable.

Trajan

Shashay Doofray <ShashayDoofray@yahoo.com> wrote: But I so totally agree with you that we are NOT a product of natural selections. Anyone with a modicum of common sense could figure that out.

On what basis? The lack of probability, over the course of billions of
years and the evidence of incremental changes, is not enough to violate
common sense.

Frankly, "non-theistic" creationism makes far less sense than a belief that
God created the earth 6007 years ago (or, as a friend of mine put it in his
own mental gymnastics -- "God created the world 6000 years ago -- he just
made it a few billion years old to begin with.")

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 18:22:35 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
As a pro-life person, I appreciate seeing the pro-choice represented bysomeone like Vivian. Thanks, Vivian.Jayne

I expected an ignorant, worthless parasite like you to be anti-choice.

I hope your disgusting, snivelling little crotchfuit die painful,
hideous deaths while you watch helplessly.

Jesus, in your infinite goodness, please grant my wish, and strike
down with your wrath and fury on this ignorant slut's foul offspring.

Amen.

Vivian wrote:
For the future of whom? Not me. Not house cats. Not cows. Whalesand dolphins? Probably yes. Other primates? Again probably yes.Rats and roaches? No - they benefit from us. Cows? No, but probablybetter for wolves. House cats would become feral once again--they became house cats didn't they? Cows would eventually adapt--but they are sorry creatures because of humans. Rats and roaches do not need humans to survive. In fact, because of us, there is an imbalance of rats, roaches, seagulls and pigeons. Cows were not supposed to produce such large amounts of milk. It was humans who bred them to produce abnormal amounts with hormones and breeding. Now, they are completely dependent on being milked or else they die.

Vivian,

How about you folks lead the way... Tear down your houses. Take
off all clothing & place in metal container. Burn clothing as
this would be better than allowing them to rot slowly.

Now naked just sit in a group & wait to starve to death or die
from exposure. Then your corpses can be used to feed mother earth.

After all if you folks just kill yourselves then the population
will drop.. we will be rid of those who would have been killed
off by predation long ago.

Hey I like that... You willing to die babe??

Ike

"Go_Chiefs" <lazyike@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OFqEb.9987$0s2.8361@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Vivian wrote:For the future of whom? Not me. Not house cats. Not cows. Whalesand dolphins? Probably yes. Other primates? Again probably yes.Rats and roaches? No - they benefit from us. Cows? No, but probablybetter for wolves. House cats would become feral once again--they became house cats didn't they? Cows would eventually adapt--but they are sorry creatures because
of humans. Rats and roaches do not need humans to survive. In fact,
because of us, there is an imbalance of rats, roaches, seagulls and pigeons.
Cows were not supposed to produce such large amounts of milk. It was humans
who bred them to produce abnormal amounts with hormones and breeding. Now,
they are completely dependent on being milked or else they die. Vivian, How about you folks lead the way... Tear down your houses. Take off all clothing & place in metal container. Burn clothing as this would be better than allowing them to rot slowly. Now naked just sit in a group & wait to starve to death or die from exposure. Then your corpses can be used to feed mother earth. After all if you folks just kill yourselves then the population will drop.. we will be rid of those who would have been killed off by predation long ago. Hey I like that... You willing to die babe?? Ike

DAMN, I wish I could have read the original post. Somebody - anybody -
please cut and paste it for me. Please. Thanks.

SD