Should people with allergies be prevented from getting medication?

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman


Every individual has genes that may lead to a genetic ailment. Where do you draw the line? Who is going to make the decision? Why shouldn't all people have the same ability to live? Why can't someone with an allergy or genetic ailments lead a more productive life than someone without? How do you screen individuals?

There's the rub, isn't it? Just how much should be believe in Darwinism and to what extent should we embrace it?

Darwinism isn't a Religion/Philosophy. Fail.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: krylon

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: krylon

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: krylon
Not sure what you guys preaching about, but I'm referring to hereditary allergies.

People have a predisposition to diabetes, heart failure, and breast cancer.

Most allergies aren't directly inherited or lethal. So if you were going to make a case for "gene pool darwinism" it would make much more sense to stop treating the above conditions than to not treat allergies.

Hi sir. This thread is about allergies. :beer:

so what's the point of anyone responding to your trite and ridiculous question if you have no intent on reading the responses?

See my reply to LifesABeta. I meant to say hereditary allergies.

so you're still hopelessly lost, I see.

 

[Gothgar]

how is this thread so big? it is a retarded question

 

[bignateyk]

How the hell does this have anything to do with evolution or darwinism? Last I checked, seasonal allergies don't affect your ability to breed, or even shorten your life-span.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero
it's threads like these which make me wonder how many people know what darwin's theory of evolution actually says with regards to 'evolving'

Darwin made the case for genetic mutations and for traits which prove useful to surviving/adapting to an environment becoming more present as the "winners" breed. It should also be noted that Darwin did NOT argue for evolution as in continual perfection; merely that over time an organism will likely have traits making it suitable for the given enviroment. It's an important distinction because the environment can change and also revert back to a previous stage; therefore adapatability rather than "perfection" is the focus.

Exactly! And by enabling the prevention of this adaptation goes against Darwin.

Allergies are an inability of the body to fight invaders (google histamine). Our current inability to deal with the world around us without outside intervention is a direct effect and an affront to everything Darwin taught us.

Nope. Allergies is an immune disorder in which the body produces inflammatory response(body's second line of defense, first being skin) to a falsely detected invader. Peanuts and pollen doesn't hurt the body in any damn way. But if your body somehow thinks it's a pathogen and goes through its immune reactions in the same way, you're gonna feel needlessly miserable.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: bignateyk
How the hell does this have anything to do with evolution or darwinism? Last I checked, seasonal allergies don't affect your ability to breed, or even shorten your life-span.

Don't throw logic at the Trolls, it will only confuse them.