Which choice would you make?

July 26, 2006 3 Comments

Would you rather:

a) Have two healthy, fully-functional limbs amputated if you could be guaranteed you would be immune to all sickness and disease for the rest of your natural life?

or

b) Throw caution to the wind, keep your limbs and continue to be susseptable to things like the flu, cancers, AIDS, etc?

Me, personally, I think I’d choose to loose two limbs. Think about all the other things you could do and focus on without the worry of illness.

No related posts.

Ramblings of the Dan
  • http://burrowowl.net Burrowowl

    What would the rest of your natural life be if you weren’t susceptible to illness? Forever? No thanks.

  • http://ianferrel.wordpress.com Ian

    That’s a toughie. If it were just one appendage, I think I’d do it. But I wouldn’t do two. Among lots of other things, I can’t type with no arms. And I can’t dance without both legs.

    So, if you’d do it, which limbs?

  • http://www.deguia.net Daniel

    I’d have to say I’d chose to have both my legs hacked off.

    You can still do lots of things without your legs: Cars can be retrofitted to drive without the standard pedals, you can still type, you can still work out enough to not blimp up like the Goodyear Blimp, etc.

    Don’t get me wrong, not having your legs would totally suck. No bike riding, walking, chasing the kids, etc.