 Quote:
Originally Posted by bfrazz1  I somehow suspect that were you to be unexpectedly diagnosed with a potentially crippling or terminal disease, your tune (and tone) would suddenly change.
What diseases do you propose we not treat? Or is it not the disease but the socioeconomic status of the diseased that you use to determine the answer?
Your ethical foundation is showing it's cracks. If you are truly so concerned about the decline in resources then why don't you stop driving, live without electricity (and your computer) and sustain yourself off the land? | My ethical foundation is sound. I do have a disease. I have been on dialysis for 18 years. And even though there is medical technology in the works that might provide me with an unlimited number of kidneys that match me, I don't think we should be manipulating the genetic structure of animals like that. Especially by mixing human genetic material.
Maybe you ought to get to know who you are debating before you stick you foot in you mouth. I won't stop driving or using a computer because they are available. It would be stupid of me not to take advantage of what is available. But that doesn't mean that I can't recognize that all is not well about these now necessary gadgets. Dialysis it a huge user of resources. Power, water, medical waste. But again, what kind of statement will one man make by refusing to take advantage of it?  |