"Living longer, healthier lives without an arbitrary time limit is a worthwhile goal. If you don't agree, feel free to die of old age instead of accepting treatment, but don't condemn everyone else to early death and try to claim the high ground."
Perhaps you can try harder to read and comprehend what you read.
It was claimed that "death is wrong". I claim that at the very least it brings up ethic questions to try and eliminate it entirely and certainly not "wrong".
Then you claim I'm trying condemn everyone else to an "early grave" when I clearly state that I'm all for extending and improving the quality of life to allow us to live to whatever our natural max is (120, 130 or whatever) and claim Im trying to take the moral high ground?
I do not accept by default that it *IS* a worthwhile goal. Not without some serious thought. You clearly are staking claim to the 'moral high ground' by your statements. I'm saying "lets not be to hasty".