Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Kill 10,000 babys or orphans to cure anything

reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 9:43:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

Are you one of them?
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 9:46:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 9:43:13 PM, sal wrote:
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

Are you one of them?

well im not a baby nor an orphan so........
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 10:55:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 9:46:07 PM, reddj2 wrote:
well im not a baby nor an orphan so........

If the sacrifice started with your grandparents, it would make your parents into orphans and therefore eligible; and then you would be an orphan. Simple solution, just add timing. You don't have to feel left out.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 11:11:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 10:55:34 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 3/31/2011 9:46:07 PM, reddj2 wrote:
well im not a baby nor an orphan so........

If the sacrifice started with your grandparents, it would make your parents into orphans and therefore eligible; and then you would be an orphan. Simple solution, just add timing. You don't have to feel left out.

ok
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 9:45:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

"Curing everything" wouldn't save 6billion lives. Not even close.

The ends don't justify the means. But you wouldn't know that because you are conditioned to believe all types of things, like police action, are unarguably just an proper.
kfc
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 10:05:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 9:45:53 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

"Curing everything" wouldn't save 6billion lives. Not even close.

The ends don't justify the means. But you wouldn't know that because you are conditioned to believe all types of things, like police action, are unarguably just an proper.

They don't, but It would save at least a million people who are dying from aids or other std's.

Also STFU you assume that I buy into everything the government does just because I believe in the Police; Just because there are corrupt cop doesent mean that they are ALL A$$HOLES!!!
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 10:06:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 10:05:18 AM, reddj2 wrote:
At 4/1/2011 9:45:53 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

"Curing everything" wouldn't save 6billion lives. Not even close.

The ends don't justify the means. But you wouldn't know that because you are conditioned to believe all types of things, like police action, are unarguably just an proper.

They don't, but It would save at least a million people who are dying from aids or other std's.

Also STFU you assume that I buy into everything the government does just because I believe in the Police; Just because there are corrupt cop doesent mean that they are ALL A$$HOLES!!!

Cops*
GeorgeCarlinWorshipper
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 10:25:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 10:06:01 AM, reddj2 wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:05:18 AM, reddj2 wrote:
At 4/1/2011 9:45:53 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

"Curing everything" wouldn't save 6billion lives. Not even close.

The ends don't justify the means. But you wouldn't know that because you are conditioned to believe all types of things, like police action, are unarguably just an proper.

They don't, but It would save at least a million people who are dying from aids or other std's.

Also STFU you assume that I buy into everything the government does just because I believe in the Police; Just because there are corrupt cop doesent mean that they are ALL A$$HOLES!!!

Cops*

Relax
"We were having a philosophical discussion and I asserted that the only demonstrable reality is individual consciousness, but he insisted on the existence of a priori moral values that transcended free will. So I hit him." - Walon Vau
Heathen
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 10:27:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yes, Its completly logical to do so.
"Once an object has been seen, it is impossible to put the mind back to the same condition it was in before it saw it." - Thomas Paine
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 11:48:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

It'd be hypocritical if you then use the cure to treat babies, or orphans.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 12:39:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 11:48:20 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

It'd be hypocritical if you then use the cure to treat babies, or orphans.

No it wouldn't. That's like saying it is hypocritical to spend money to make money.

Sacrificing 10,000 of x to save 1,000,000 of x is ultimately good. It would be a neccessary evil in my opinion.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 1:01:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is, at its most basic, a "Do the ends justify the means question?"

Hitler probably came closer than anyone in history in achieving world peace -- by genocidally slaughtering anyone he could who had different beliefs/world views/religions/etc. If he had ultimately succeeded, his "master race" would be the only one, there would be no Muslims or Jews and no one to fight for them (since anyone fighting for them would have been killed as well).

The question of whether it is acceptable to kill 10,000 babies/orphans to save others, then, is pretty much the same as whether it would have been acceptable to help Hitler to conquer the world. The end result of Hitler's campaign would have been the world ruling under one nation with no differing views/religions/etc. I do not for one second believe that end, however noble, would be worth the means, and it is identical in its basic premise to the question of killing 10,000 babies/orphans to save the lives of others.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 1:02:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 12:39:48 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:48:20 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

It'd be hypocritical if you then use the cure to treat babies, or orphans.

No it wouldn't. That's like saying it is hypocritical to spend money to make money.

Sacrificing 10,000 of x to save 1,000,000 of x is ultimately good. It would be a neccessary evil in my opinion.

In my opinion, taking an innocent life is too costly, whatever be the reason for it. If one life can be so easily sacrificed, what difference would it make if 10 other lives survive because of it? They too can be sacrificed as easily. And after a while, it becomes just stupid. (You kill A to save B,C. Then you kill B to save D, E and so on. If you will not think twice about killing B, why save B in the first place? Is there some inherent worth in B living that isn't fulfilled by A living?)

Instead of making this costly decision, wouldn't it be worthwhile to spend more efforts to save those 10x lives some other way?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 1:23:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 1:02:29 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/1/2011 12:39:48 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:48:20 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

It'd be hypocritical if you then use the cure to treat babies, or orphans.

No it wouldn't. That's like saying it is hypocritical to spend money to make money.

Sacrificing 10,000 of x to save 1,000,000 of x is ultimately good. It would be a neccessary evil in my opinion.

In my opinion, taking an innocent life is too costly, whatever be the reason for it. If one life can be so easily sacrificed, what difference would it make if 10 other lives survive because of it? They too can be sacrificed as easily. And after a while, it becomes just stupid. (You kill A to save B,C. Then you kill B to save D, E and so on. If you will not think twice about killing B, why save B in the first place? Is there some inherent worth in B living that isn't fulfilled by A living?)

Instead of making this costly decision, wouldn't it be worthwhile to spend more efforts to save those 10x lives some other way?

I agree that if it is possible to save them through a different method, than we should go for that. This also ties to what is more important, results or actions?

Obviously if 1 person (say a dictator) is killing 1,000s of his people through his actions. Most people would say that it is morally okay to kill him to save those people.

If 1 person (say a dictator) is killing 1,000s of his people through refusing to provide action (say, a disaster hit and he is refusing to help the hit area or let in other people to help). Is it morally acceptable to kill him then? So that the prevention will stop, so we can save those people?

What if by 1 person simply being alive, it caused 1,000's of people to die, for no apparent reason, but we know that if we kill that one person, those 1,000's would survive?

Whatever you choose to do, people are going to die, you can't get around that. I just think that choosing the option that leads to the fewest human deaths (assuming all being equal) is ideal.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 1:35:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 1:23:25 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/1/2011 1:02:29 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/1/2011 12:39:48 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:48:20 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

It'd be hypocritical if you then use the cure to treat babies, or orphans.

No it wouldn't. That's like saying it is hypocritical to spend money to make money.

Sacrificing 10,000 of x to save 1,000,000 of x is ultimately good. It would be a neccessary evil in my opinion.

In my opinion, taking an innocent life is too costly, whatever be the reason for it. If one life can be so easily sacrificed, what difference would it make if 10 other lives survive because of it? They too can be sacrificed as easily. And after a while, it becomes just stupid. (You kill A to save B,C. Then you kill B to save D, E and so on. If you will not think twice about killing B, why save B in the first place? Is there some inherent worth in B living that isn't fulfilled by A living?)

Instead of making this costly decision, wouldn't it be worthwhile to spend more efforts to save those 10x lives some other way?

I agree that if it is possible to save them through a different method, than we should go for that. This also ties to what is more important, results or actions?

Obviously if 1 person (say a dictator) is killing 1,000s of his people through his actions. Most people would say that it is morally okay to kill him to save those people.

If 1 person (say a dictator) is killing 1,000s of his people through refusing to provide action (say, a disaster hit and he is refusing to help the hit area or let in other people to help). Is it morally acceptable to kill him then? So that the prevention will stop, so we can save those people?

In both cases, the dictator is not innocent. I fail to see the difference.

What if by 1 person simply being alive, it caused 1,000's of people to die, for no apparent reason, but we know that if we kill that one person, those 1,000's would survive?
This sounds like a highly improbable scenario. But even here, if that one person is innocent, you should not kill him. What can those 1000 people do by living, ultimately? There are equally good chances that this one person could do a lot better than those 1000 people. How could you know?

Whatever you choose to do, people are going to die, you can't get around that. I just think that choosing the option that leads to the fewest human deaths (assuming all being equal) is ideal.
As long as those you are killing are not innocent, it's fine.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 2:29:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 10:25:23 AM, GeorgeCarlinWorshipper wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:06:01 AM, reddj2 wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:05:18 AM, reddj2 wrote:
At 4/1/2011 9:45:53 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

"Curing everything" wouldn't save 6billion lives. Not even close.

The ends don't justify the means. But you wouldn't know that because you are conditioned to believe all types of things, like police action, are unarguably just an proper.

They don't, but It would save at least a million people who are dying from aids or other std's.

Also STFU you assume that I buy into everything the government does just because I believe in the Police; Just because there are corrupt cop doesent mean that they are ALL A$$HOLES!!!

Cops*

Relax

Yeah but this guy peevs me.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 3:08:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 1:35:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/1/2011 1:23:25 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/1/2011 1:02:29 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/1/2011 12:39:48 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:48:20 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

It'd be hypocritical if you then use the cure to treat babies, or orphans.

No it wouldn't. That's like saying it is hypocritical to spend money to make money.

Sacrificing 10,000 of x to save 1,000,000 of x is ultimately good. It would be a neccessary evil in my opinion.

In my opinion, taking an innocent life is too costly, whatever be the reason for it. If one life can be so easily sacrificed, what difference would it make if 10 other lives survive because of it? They too can be sacrificed as easily. And after a while, it becomes just stupid. (You kill A to save B,C. Then you kill B to save D, E and so on. If you will not think twice about killing B, why save B in the first place? Is there some inherent worth in B living that isn't fulfilled by A living?)

Instead of making this costly decision, wouldn't it be worthwhile to spend more efforts to save those 10x lives some other way?

I agree that if it is possible to save them through a different method, than we should go for that. This also ties to what is more important, results or actions?

Obviously if 1 person (say a dictator) is killing 1,000s of his people through his actions. Most people would say that it is morally okay to kill him to save those people.

If 1 person (say a dictator) is killing 1,000s of his people through refusing to provide action (say, a disaster hit and he is refusing to help the hit area or let in other people to help). Is it morally acceptable to kill him then? So that the prevention will stop, so we can save those people?

In both cases, the dictator is not innocent. I fail to see the difference.

What if by 1 person simply being alive, it caused 1,000's of people to die, for no apparent reason, but we know that if we kill that one person, those 1,000's would survive?
This sounds like a highly improbable scenario.

Yeah, but the situation that we are talking about in general is highly improbable.

But even here, if that one person is innocent, you should not kill him. What can those 1000 people do by living, ultimately? There are equally good chances that this one person could do a lot better than those 1000 people. How could you know?

You can't know, but if you believe that people are ultimately good or benefitial, than 1000 people is better and has more potential than 1. If you believe that people are ultimately bad or detrimental, than you should kill the 1000 (and than the 1). The only real way to justify not sacrificing a person to save more would be to say that the value of (an innocent) life cannot be measured.


Whatever you choose to do, people are going to die, you can't get around that. I just think that choosing the option that leads to the fewest human deaths (assuming all being equal) is ideal.
As long as those you are killing are not innocent, it's fine.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 3:23:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 3:08:26 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/1/2011 1:35:54 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/1/2011 1:23:25 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/1/2011 1:02:29 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/1/2011 12:39:48 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/1/2011 11:48:20 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

It'd be hypocritical if you then use the cure to treat babies, or orphans.

No it wouldn't. That's like saying it is hypocritical to spend money to make money.

Sacrificing 10,000 of x to save 1,000,000 of x is ultimately good. It would be a neccessary evil in my opinion.

In my opinion, taking an innocent life is too costly, whatever be the reason for it. If one life can be so easily sacrificed, what difference would it make if 10 other lives survive because of it? They too can be sacrificed as easily. And after a while, it becomes just stupid. (You kill A to save B,C. Then you kill B to save D, E and so on. If you will not think twice about killing B, why save B in the first place? Is there some inherent worth in B living that isn't fulfilled by A living?)

Instead of making this costly decision, wouldn't it be worthwhile to spend more efforts to save those 10x lives some other way?

I agree that if it is possible to save them through a different method, than we should go for that. This also ties to what is more important, results or actions?

Obviously if 1 person (say a dictator) is killing 1,000s of his people through his actions. Most people would say that it is morally okay to kill him to save those people.

If 1 person (say a dictator) is killing 1,000s of his people through refusing to provide action (say, a disaster hit and he is refusing to help the hit area or let in other people to help). Is it morally acceptable to kill him then? So that the prevention will stop, so we can save those people?

In both cases, the dictator is not innocent. I fail to see the difference.

What if by 1 person simply being alive, it caused 1,000's of people to die, for no apparent reason, but we know that if we kill that one person, those 1,000's would survive?
This sounds like a highly improbable scenario.

Yeah, but the situation that we are talking about in general is highly improbable.
What I meant was, when you said that a person could kill a 1000 people just by existing, it sounded a bit more improbable than a person asking to kill all those people in return for a cure. But yeah.

But even here, if that one person is innocent, you should not kill him. What can those 1000 people do by living, ultimately? There are equally good chances that this one person could do a lot better than those 1000 people. How could you know?

You can't know, but if you believe that people are ultimately good or benefitial, than 1000 people is better and has more potential than 1. If you believe that people are ultimately bad or detrimental, than you should kill the 1000 (and than the 1). The only real way to justify not sacrificing a person to save more would be to say that the value of (an innocent) life cannot be measured.
What can be said is, you cannot know either way, so it's best to not come to any conclusions and take hasty decisions.


Whatever you choose to do, people are going to die, you can't get around that. I just think that choosing the option that leads to the fewest human deaths (assuming all being equal) is ideal.
As long as those you are killing are not innocent, it's fine.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 9:34:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 2:29:13 PM, reddj2 wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:25:23 AM, GeorgeCarlinWorshipper wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:06:01 AM, reddj2 wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:05:18 AM, reddj2 wrote:
At 4/1/2011 9:45:53 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

"Curing everything" wouldn't save 6billion lives. Not even close.

The ends don't justify the means. But you wouldn't know that because you are conditioned to believe all types of things, like police action, are unarguably just an proper.

They don't, but It would save at least a million people who are dying from aids or other std's.

Also STFU you assume that I buy into everything the government does just because I believe in the Police; Just because there are corrupt cop doesent mean that they are ALL A$$HOLES!!!

Cops*

Relax

Yeah but this guy peevs me.

UMAD bra?
kfc
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 11:37:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 9:34:15 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/1/2011 2:29:13 PM, reddj2 wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:25:23 AM, GeorgeCarlinWorshipper wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:06:01 AM, reddj2 wrote:
At 4/1/2011 10:05:18 AM, reddj2 wrote:
At 4/1/2011 9:45:53 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

"Curing everything" wouldn't save 6billion lives. Not even close.

The ends don't justify the means. But you wouldn't know that because you are conditioned to believe all types of things, like police action, are unarguably just an proper.

They don't, but It would save at least a million people who are dying from aids or other std's.

Also STFU you assume that I buy into everything the government does just because I believe in the Police; Just because there are corrupt cop doesent mean that they are ALL A$$HOLES!!!

Cops*

Relax

Yeah but this guy peevs me.

UMAD bra?

Fo sho
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 11:47:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
No way, rumor has it that the world population is increasing exponentially as it is.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 11:58:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 11:47:04 AM, lewis20 wrote:
No way, rumor has it that the world population is increasing exponentially as it is.

Every second, a lifetime supply of babyflesh is created.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 2:49:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 9:37:33 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Say a man found a cure for everything, and that was his demand (hypothetically)

Basically would it be ok to sacrifice human life for the cure for everything ?(except death)

is 10,000 people worth 6billion ?

I would kill 10,000 people to cure malaria.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...