would you rather have no legs or no arms and why? I saw a tv show about a girl with no arms who used her feet for everything and was just curious.
2007-05-28 18:30:55 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Health ➔ Other - Health
Why do people answer questions when they obviously can't, like the first answer, she took the time to say she didn't want to think about it, so why bother? You sure won't get points that way. Just answer questions you like and don't be sarcastic to someone just curious about something.
2007-05-28 18:53:37 · update #1
hi again....id choose no ams...i could eat without the need for arms....only two main problems i see without arms are washing my butt after toilet and bathing...but having legs would take me many places without calling for someone to push my wheelchair for me...if you consider the percentage of time spend in day on eating and bathing, compared to walking.... i believe approx. 80 percent is for walking...so you see, there is more need for the legs....hows that?
2007-05-30 16:12:45 · answer #1 · answered by srjione 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think I would rather have my arms. I have seen shows on people who only have arms and it is unbelievable how they get along. They even drive cars. They have the gas and brake pedals up where they can reach them. It is hard to imagine having a life like that but you never know.
2007-05-29 01:28:34 · answer #2 · answered by anothermauri 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No legs would be my preference. I use my hands for sooooo many things, and my arms. I could use them to balance on crutches or push a wheelchair if I had no legs.
And I know a little girl that has no arms-was born without them. She is amazing to watch- but that is what prompted me to say legs!
2007-05-28 19:03:50 · answer #3 · answered by dizzkat 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i would rather have no legs. My hands peform more usefull functions than my legs.. i would still look normal sitting at a dining table eating with my hands then using my feet.. i would just look like any other guy in a wheelchair. having your hands and arm intact would also not ruin your sex life as much as only having legs.
Nate
2007-05-28 18:36:51 · answer #4 · answered by nate.w 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
rather have no legs
it's much easier to write, work a computer, even a wheelchair with your hands, but without hands you cant perform many of the more delicate tasks (even eating!) because you dont have an opposable joint on your feet and they arnt located for these tasks anyways
2007-05-28 18:39:16 · answer #5 · answered by Mike 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
id rather have my arms, i can do without the legs, sure id miss walking. but hell least i can eat with a fork and knife
2007-05-28 18:40:17 · answer #6 · answered by dragon072891 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If those were my choices I think I would rather have no head.
2007-05-28 18:49:33 · answer #7 · answered by Big hands Big feet 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
neither, this is not something I want to think about
2007-05-28 18:34:37 · answer #8 · answered by Michael Jackson 1958 - FOREVER 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no legs, i coudn't do anything with out my arms!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-05-28 19:15:29 · answer #9 · answered by KandD 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋