Hrmmm. Maybe as far as internal crime is concerned, but definitely not true when it comes to terrorism or traditional state-on-state aggression.
Regardless…
I can see maybe the ‘first generation’ of HIV+ people could be forgiven for being ignorant. But now? How many years later?
There is no big secret as to how one gets HIV. There is no fucking excuse for having unprotected sex, or needle sharing. Heck, if people followed the Judeo-Christian practice of entering into purely monogamous relationships, I doubt we ever would have heard of HIV.
Like so many other things in life, it will be the responsible and hard-working people of the world that foot the bill for other peoples total and utter stupidity. How nice.
Well, since this isn’t the Pit, my reply can’t be as colorful as I would like.
Let me break this down into simple language for you.
HIV is a retrovirus. It doesn’t check out the sexual habits or orientation of its victims. It just wants to find some cells with it can hijack to make more copies of itself. It is most easily transmitted by blood to blood contact, but it will also transmit itself through sexual contact, or through mother-to-child transmission during birth.
Hemophiliacs have gotten it through contaminated blood supplies. Did they deserve it?
Children have gotten it from their mothers? Did they deserve it?
People, both straight and gay, have gotten it through sex. Is that a crime worthy of a painful, lingering death?
Diseases are not a scourge from God; they are caused by microorganisms. Yes, it would be helpful if people, both gay and straight, took responsibility for their health, but how do you tell that to a married woman in Uganda who des not dare ask her HIV+ husband to wear a condom lest she be accused of being a whore? How do you tell that to a 10-year-old prostitute whose parents sold her to a Patpong Road brothel? How do you tell that to people in countries where condoms are not readily available or are forbidden by cultural and relgious taboos?
Please, please, grow a conscience, or at least read a book about HIV so you can stop spewing misinformation and hate.
Yeah, because those faggots don’t have jobs or pay taxes or anything. :rolleyes:
Aside from the issue of why the crap non-Judeo-Christian people should follow practices of dubious general applicability, this is a completely silly assertion. In fact, it’s quite possible that absent the homosexual community’s recognition of what was then called GRIDS, HIV could have spread (and infilitrated the blood supply) through a monogamous intravenous drug user, and we wouldn’t have known about it as early as we did.
You misunderstand. I know that gay men can have monogamous relationships. Also, they can, and statistically speaking, generally do, practice safe sex.
My ire is for all who screw everything in sight, sans condom. Even a latex condom isn’t a free-ticket for hedonism, but it is better then nothing.
I care not if the screwing in question is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. That is meaningless; The responsiblity (or lack thereof) of the involved parties is what I am mad about.
And like I said earlier, I feel strongly that the HIV+ babies, transfusion victims, etc, should have every opportunity to access the best care available. A cure, as soon as it is available.
And of course, God has nothing to do with it. Never said God did have anything to do with it, so refrain from putting words in my mouth. pldennison
I realize that this is wishfull thinking on my part, but…
Assuming that everyone was in a monogamous relationship (gay, straight, who cares)
then it follows that:
STD’s wouldn’t spread. They couldn’t. At best, you could get some bizarre transmission paths like widow to new husband or something, but nothing like the wildfire spread of STD’s we have now.
I know, people want to hump everything in sight. God forbid anyone show self-restraint. Even suggesting it would be unfair, it seems. But if people learned to have monogamous relationships, coupled with safe sexual practices, we wouldn’t need a vaccine.
Monogamous relationships? I know, people like to have sex. But god forbid anyone show self-restraint! Why can’t people just be celibate? Even suggesting it would be unfair, it seems. If people would just stop having sex, we wouldn’t need a vaccine.
But how can we possibly all be in monogamous relationships? People date and break up, have sex (in and out of relationships), many times before marriage. In a world where the only way STDs wouldn’t spread except through widows/ers to new spouses, we’d probably have to have arranged marriages. In the real world, people experiment…because how do you know who you’re going to marry and enter into a long monogamous relationship with?
This whole tendency to condemn someone- those people who have sex promiscously- just seems like another way of scapegoating. Like those who say abortion should be legal but only in certain cases (i.e, rape), which can be seen as punishing those, it’s a way of at least trying to punish someone, and “save” the supposedly innocent victim. No one deserves to die of AIDS. A vaccine, or eventually even a cure, should be available to everyone, including those who engage in risk-taking activity. For practical reasons (they might spread it to others), but also because why do we have to construct reasons to brand them as pariahs? Why use the fact that they had sex to suddenly insinuate that they’ve become morally inferior? Why try to make anyone morally inferior- can we not just accept that AIDS is a terrible disease and try to help combat it?
And, if it were a perfect world, my parents would have given me that pony I wanted when I was ten.
The OP wasn’t asking about the worth of an AIDS vaccine in a perfect world; the question is, rather, whether an AIDS vaccine is worth it in this world. I can look at this question in two ways.
The “practical accountant” method means balancing the cost of developing and refining, then distributing an AIDS vaccine (plus, as mentioned previously, the bonus of new knowledge about countering retroviruses) against the cost of caring for those living with AIDS, maintaining medical facilities, ongoing research into new drugs when current therapies are rendered less effective or ineffective through resistance, the loss of productive work years of those affected either directly or because they leave the workforce to care for their beloved, ongoing promotion of AIDS-reduction education plans…
In which case, the AIDS vaccine is a winner, even before considering the amount of heartache it could save.
Meanwhile, the humanitarian in me insists that, even in the case that developing an AIDS vaccine cost more than it saved, we cannot say to thousands of people in the west - never mind millions more in the rest of the world - “We could probably have done something for you but it cost too much. Try and catch something a little more cost-effective next time, mmkay?”
Somehow I don’t believe this makes the majority of AIDS victims.
Devil forbid you tell us how to have sex in the first place.
Whether you are religious or not, you are clearly asserting a moral solution to a biological problem. Be my guest. Just don’t expect the rest of us wild and crazy fuck-monkeys to give a hoot.
We want to have sex. We want to cure AIDS. Why, oh why, these are not both feasible to you simultaneously I cannot quite understand yet.
Because Brutus, as usual, is incorrectly assuming that anybody who doesn’t share his misguided moral philosophy is either uninformed or inferior or both. :rolleyes:
You do know that there is no vaccine or cure today, right? That is why both are not feasible to me simultaneously. There is no cure. None.
Scientists may or may not someday come up with a cure or vaccine. But until then, there are only ‘moral’ (behavioral)solutions to this biological problem. Nothing else works.
I, for one, don’t see a problem with spending money so that people will have the freedom of sexual expression. Irresponsibility is irresponsibility, I agree - for everyone’s sake, we should all practice safe sex, monogamous sex, or no sex. But curing this disease (heck, all STD’s for that matter) would, IMHO, be a positive thing for freedom of expression. Immoral? Depends on your moral grounding, I’d say.
I posted the OP in IMHO, it now looks as if it’s on the way from here to the BBQ Pit.
I honestly hoped that other Dopers would have ideas about medical problems, disabling, painful and relatively common, that could be solved by the effort that is proposed for a Western AIDS vaccine.
I have no moral, religeious(dog forbid) nor personal health axe to grind here. I just think good health for many people is a better goal than a less risky sex life for a (very shrill) few.
I don’t care about Africa because the African strain of the human race is being patronised to death by western liberals.
The West should cancel all debts and leave them alone to solve their problems. If they suceed,and why should’nt they, they will have something to be proud of.
Since this is now a debate let me say that the contribution of Tars Tarkas is the most interesting to me. Yes, in the past projects benefiting from a tsunami of research cash have had some world changing spin-offs that were unforseen at the start,
like Apollo. I’ll have to think about it.
I mentioned this thread to a friend last night and he said ‘‘Its just a pack of lies (the AIDS vaccine), they put out to boost their share price.’’ Now living in the land of Spin I think he could be right.
