If I hear one more time about how x-thousand more people died because of a certain political policy I am going to scream. Everyone dies. If we cure cancer there will be a short term reduction in how many people die in a year, but it will eventually go back to where it was. What we need to look at is life expectancy and quality of life.
How old are you? Everyone dies, but some people die sooner than others. I’m sure the families of those killed in Iraq 50 years before the time they could be expected to die are touched by your concern.
You don’t think life expectancy and quality of life would both be improved if we cure cancer?
What are you, some kind of cancer-lover?
It sounds fine in theory, but in practice Republicans are always trying to pass laws making it legal to kill minorities and poor people using cyanide.
Life expectancy, yes – quality of life, no.
While curing cancer would be wonderful and all, eventually we’d need to address the question of where all these people who are no longer dying of cancer are going to live. We’re already ripping through our natural resources are an alarming rate – what happens when the death rate gets slashed like that?
We’ve got a runner.
I’ve got the perfect solution. Once cancer is cured once and for all and we have all these old people using up resources and taking up space …
… DEATH PANELS!
Have you ever heard the phrase “additional deaths” used without it being followed by “due to” or “caused by” some particular thing? Additional deaths in car accidents, deaths due to cancer, deaths due to the cold.
I’m pretty confident that nobody anywhere has argued “this policy will cause 1,000 additional deaths” period.
Which reminds me: it seem pretty clear that if we could somehow arrange for people with cancer to die in car wrecks in cold weather, that would cut the death rate by two-thirds. I wonder why the Republicans don’t support such an initiative.
Wait a minute, we could just make a mandatory death age. Then we could take all the dead old people and reprocess their bodies as a renewable resource.
My guess is that the result would be some kind of green cracker. Best not to tell the general populace though.
I gotta wonder to myself how I come up with these great ideas.
Personally, I’m opposed to cancer.
Except if a super-cancer could go back in time and kill Hitler in 1930. I’m not opposed to THAT cancer.
Also, Soylent Green is made of soybeans and lentils. Thus the name.
Yes I do. People will live longer and they will be healthier in their lifetime. What I don’t think is that curing cancer will mean less people will die in the long term.
And of course I am outraged at the deaths in Iraq. Since it is young people dieing it is particularly bad. When a 90 year old dies it is sad, when a 22 year old soldier dies it’s a tragedy.
Maybe they can be mowing the lawn at the same time and be accidentally shot.
In other words when you murder someone, you don’t really kill them. You kill them early. This is a ridiculous nitpick.
But how would we know?
Hmmm, maybe some implanted timer that would change color when our time was up?
As Lord Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead. I had an on-line friend in the late '70s who got a rare and inoperable form of brain cancer. Her death in her early 20s was a tragedy. That was lost years. If my 94 year old father in law got something like that, I know he would like the opportunity to terminate his life without causing additional suffering to him or anyone else. If he were allowed to do that, it would not be an additional death.
What was your point again?
What are you some kind of hippy?
Personally folks I am proud to say that I am pro-cancer. So if you’re not some pussy hippy douchebag vote Tahssa this November.
This ad has been approved by Tahssa for President.
I really don’t think we need to bring astrology into this.