I agree with pjchik. Getting an std that can be treated and cured vs. losing a leg... I'd pick the std, unless it's the HIV virus. In that case, I'd lose the leg and keep my life, and not be infectious.
2006-06-25 02:25:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by Dolores G. Llamas 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
Living without a limb drains your other resouces to a degree but we learn to adapt as humans. However if you carry a potentially mortal threat inside of you, it will make it more difficult to get things done in life. Others will fear you or be cautious of you in their own ways which will limit you more than a missing leg.. People are more apt to help a physically injured person for several reasons - one of which is fear of being seen as an uncaring person. But if you were known to carry a deadly disease, people would understand if others didn't go out of their way to help you. It's a sad truth that people don't like to think about.
2006-06-25 01:47:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by wildhair 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The worst would be if someone gave you an std, shot you in the leg, and then they cut your leg off!!!
2006-06-25 01:46:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by southernlisa37 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
living with an STD you don't have to tell people you are missing a leg, and also with a missing leg you get sympathy with a STD people think badly of you
2006-06-25 05:40:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Depends on the std. I mean, if it's something that be cured w/penicillin, why not? But if you're talking AIDS vs. no leg, think I'd take no leg.
2006-06-25 01:46:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by pjchik 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would say living with an STD
A gunshot wound would heal in time but with an STD that's a life sentence.
2006-06-25 01:46:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by jennifersuem 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
livin without the leg is better. the std sux.
2006-06-25 01:46:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by tobeornottobe 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
getting shot in the leg... cause you'll still live...
2006-06-25 02:01:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by Amy M 1
·
0⤊
0⤋