Have we ruined natural selection?

[dusken]

Have we ruined natural selection? In a sense, but who cares?

[ckBejug]

First of all, there are people in the world who get cancer, that never smoked a day in their lives. What about 3 year old children who get it? If, God forbid, your child had it, wouldn't you want science and medicine to work on your side and find a cure? There's no cure for cancer, so I don't understand why you even brought that one up as an example. Here's a stick ...shove it into something please.

He said LUNG cancer and cleary explained that he meant people who got it from smoking when they know very well how smoking causes lung, mouth, etc cancer and emphysema, not 3 year old infants. He means people who knowingly put themselves at risk. I might not agree with him completely but I still want to clarify that he doesn't mean innocent babies. Relax.

[violette829]

[QUOTE=ckBejug]He said LUNG cancer and cleary explained that he meant people who got it from smoking when they know very well how smoking causes lung, mouth, etc cancer and emphysema, not 3 year old infants.[/QUOT

UHHH what I said was the PEOPLE WHO DON'T SMOKE ALSO GET LUNG CANCER. Does that mean that just because 1 smokes, that he shouldn't get the treatment required?

**Cancer is not the best example to prove his point. There is no cure and I am relaxed.

[ckBejug]

[QUOTE=violette829]

He said LUNG cancer and cleary explained that he meant people who got it from smoking when they know very well how smoking causes lung, mouth, etc cancer and emphysema, not 3 year old infants.[/QUOT

UHHH what I said was the PEOPLE WHO DON'T SMOKE ALSO GET LUNG CANCER. Does that mean that just because 1 smokes, that he shouldn't get the treatment required?

**Cancer is not the best example to prove his point. There is no cure and I am relaxed.

And I said he means PEOPLE WHO KNOWINGLY PUT THEMSELVES AT RISK.

[violette829]

And I said he means PEOPLE WHO KNOWINGLY PUT THEMSELVES AT RISK.

What I mean is that PEOPLE WHO GET CANCER ARE NOT ALWAYS THE ONES WHO PUT THEMSELVES AT RISK> BAD EXAMPLE!

[ckBejug]

What I mean is that PEOPLE WHO GET CANCER ARE NOT ALWAYS THE ONES WHO PUT THEMSELVES AT RISK> BAD EXAMPLE!

No sh*t sherlock. We're still talking about people who put themselves at risk. Fact of the matter is that people who put themselves at risk, knowing the consequences, will be predisposed and more likely to have cancer. Case in point: skin cancer, lung cancer, etc. We're talking exclusively about those cases. This is an imaginary issue anyway, who cares what example he used? It's not like we're going to discriminate and not help ease the pain and suffering of any one person because they exhibited risky behavior and that's why they got sick.

[violette829]

Isn't his whole point against helping people who "put themselves at risk"? I was going against that. Umm.yea

[loseyourname]

He never said cancer patients that were not smokers should be denied treatment. Nor did he say that research should be halted or even scaled back.

[violette829]

He never said cancer patients that were not smokers should be denied treatment. Nor did he say that research should be halted or even scaled back.

Isn't this thread about how we have RUINED NATURAL SELECTION? That means that he's saying if the person gets cancer or bla bla bla whatever...then he "deserves" to die.

[dusken]

Cancer would probably not be weeded out by natural selection. Most of the time, breeding happens before cancer arrives and it does not take away from the sexual desirability of a person nor does it prohibit sexual activity until the host of the cancer is really sickened by it.