#1: It is also " not natural" how we use antibiotics to kill infection. "Not natural" how artificial hearts keep people alive after they "should" be dead. Should we not utilize these medical advances as well?
#2: You seem to be presuming people should not have this right.
#3: I don't even know what steps you used to reach this conclusion.
Who are you to tell someone they can't do something, if it harms nobody else?
1: This is another argument unto itself. Is it really a good thing to use antibiotics to treat infections? We have observed the use of antibiotics for a long time. We have seen how certain bugs have been fought off with antibiotics, only to have another strain pop up that is immune to the drug. This is, in many cases, counterproductive. This was observed recently with the H1N1 virus. We have all been vaccinated against the flu, many different strains in one shot, but what happens when the virus is transmitted between species? These are situations that are not planned for and can be disastrous. If you kill off all the bugs, what immunity do you have against new versions?
2: It is a personal opinion that people should value their lives and not selfishly try to end them. That said, it is not even alluded to in my comment that I do not believe anyone should have the right to kill themselves. I have personally been touched by suicide and feel it is a poor decision. My opinion, take it or leave it. All I said is that, given the opportunity to live forever, I believe many people would become desolate after living for years watching people live and die all around them and would likely try to take their own lives. Nowhere in my post did I say that I thought it was wrong to do so, only that it is a possibility.
3: Think about it. A group of people with the ability to live forever, versus a society doomed to die after only a century or so. It is not a stretch to infer that a race of people with immortal properties may eventually become greedy or arrogant and decide to kill off their mortal counterparts. I am not saying this is the only possibility, I am simply hypothesizing.
I am nobody to tell anybody what to do. I do not tell anybody what to do and expect nobody to tell me what to do. The question was, if you were an elected official faced with the decision to approve an agent of immortality, what would be your answer. Clearly, my answer was no and yours was yes. I gave my reasons and you gave yours; both are valid points. I did not attack your logic in asserting that, as a politician, you would be more interested in the money than the long-term effects on humanity. As is aforementioned, we both made our points as was asked of us in the original question. These are opinions and we are both entitled to them.