Abstinence Bush Admin's Answer to AIDS

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
And crime can be stopped by people stopping to be criminals. It doesn't help if it's not gonna happen.

Bad analogy. Crime hurst someone else, AIDS hurts yourself.

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I have no problem ADVOCATING the use of condoms along with telling people that abstinence is the only 100% effective method. That's fine. I'm just opposed to handing out condoms.

That's becuase as Speer said, you are one cold mofo with extremist liberterian views.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Bad analogy. Crime hurst someone else, AIDS hurts yourself.

If you give AIDS to someone, you are definitely hurting someone else.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Using the phrase "minimizing risks" is sorta silly, when we're talking about certain areas of the world. In those areas, if you have unprotected sex - at least with more than a couple of people - you are virtually guaranteed to get AIDs. In that situation, what you are really doing is valuing your life against sexual gratification.

Difference being?

Why should I pay to support someone's sexual habits, when they can avoid AIDs (or, in the US, more likely pregnancy) for free?

Well, that depends on your views. You might want to minimize human suffering. You might want to reduce the economical and social costs caused to society by STDs. You may want to encourage sexual liberty. Or you might not, in which case you've got no reason to support it.

Stop dancing around the point. If you knew, for a fact, that if you had unprotected sex, you would contract AIDs, and if your choices boiled down to either celibacy or sex plus AIDs, which would you pick?

Exactly what point am I dancing around?

What I would do is of very limited interest; I amount to a tiny proportion of humanity. What's important is the statistical distribution of choices. Clearly, quite a few people chose to continue risky behaviour even if faced with a near-certainty of contracting AIDS. For some, it's a rational decision to the end of postponing death, for some it's suicidal. It doesn't really matter - the epidemic goes on.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kucinich


Bad analogy. Crime hurst someone else, AIDS hurts yourself.

Get frikken real!

AIDS is causing major damage to African economies and societies, and is a growing burden in SE Asia. It should not take much economical insight to realize that when a noticeable proportion of the workforce is dead or incapacitated, the society as a whole suffers.

[David Floyd]

MrFun,

The problem I have is with people who think we should withold compassion for those who failed to be responsible for their own actions.

"Withhold compassion"? Come on, MrFun - what you are saying is that even though people make irresponsible decisions, I should still be FORCED to help those people. Bull****! I don't oppose giving people information and letting them make their own decisions - I oppose giving them information, letting them make their own decisions, and then when they make the wrong one, patting them on the head like a small child and telling them "It's OK, mommy and daddy still love you."

GePap,

That's becuase as Speer said, you are one cold mofo with extremist liberterian views.

I am pretty cold, if by that you mean I don't like people who refuse to take personal responsibility and then come crying for help after they **** up.

diplomat,

If you give AIDS to someone, you are definitely hurting someone else.

Then don't have sex if you have AIDs - and if you don't have AIDs, and live in a high risk environment, and don't have/can't afford a condom, THEN DON'T HAVE SEX!

LC,

Difference being?

In the United States - at least in most parts - if you have unprotected sex with, say, 15 people, you MOST LIKELY won't get AIDs, statistically speaking. If you have unprotected sex with, say, 4 or 5 people (and that's overestimating it) in certain parts of the world, odds are you will get AIDs. The difference is, in the US, one can have sex with a reasonable expectation of not getting AIDs. That expectation isn't so reasonable in South Africa or Thailand.

Well, that depends on your views. You might want to minimize human suffering.

I'm already trying to do that, by encouraging people to avoid AIDs by avoiding sex in high risk environments.

You might want to reduce the economical and social costs caused to society by STDs.

What economic and social costs do you think I incur by rampant AIDs in the Third World? Not a hell of a lot is the answer.

You may want to encourage sexual liberty.

Hmmm, and I thought "sexual liberty" - as you put it, I'd use the phrase "whoring yourself out for fun" - was part of what caused the massive spread of AIDs in Africa to begin with

What I would do is of very limited interest; I amount to a tiny proportion of humanity.

Stop dodging the question. I'll put that question to anyone on Apolyton, and anyone I run into outside in the real world - "If you have the option between a VERY high risk of contracting AIDs, or celibacy, which would you pick?" My answer is the same as your answer, and our answers are the same as most other people's, too. Some people just don't think about it, and that's their fault.

Clearly, quite a few people chose to continue risky behaviour even if faced with a near-certainty of contracting AIDS. For some, it's a rational decision to the end of postponing death, for some it's suicidal. It doesn't really matter - the epidemic goes on.

So it does. And I don't see why I should pay for the poor choices of others. They had a way to avoid AIDs, and people who currently don't have AIDs have a way to avoid it.

[Gibsie]

The ABC system works well, but you have to be extremely careful of Catholic authority figures from railroading this approach into "A, B, and anything but C". Otherwise, you get the situation of men and women marrying, one of them has HIV already, and then hey, you get a few kids born with HIV before either parents have died. By emphasising the abstinence part you WILL get religious figures manipulating the message and causing great harm. put the emphasis on condoms within monogamous relationships, and you will not hurt anyone.

[MrFun]

Gibsie, not everyone is that rational though.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by David Floyd

In the United States - at least in most parts - if you have unprotected sex with, say, 15 people, you MOST LIKELY won't get AIDs, statistically speaking. If you have unprotected sex with, say, 4 or 5 people (and that's overestimating it) in certain parts of the world, odds are you will get AIDs. The difference is, in the US, one can have sex with a reasonable expectation of not getting AIDs. That expectation isn't so reasonable in South Africa or Thailand.

This relates to difference between minimizing risk and trying and avoiding death how?

I'm already trying to do that, by encouraging people to avoid AIDs by avoiding sex in high risk environments.

What economic and social costs do you think I incur by rampant AIDs in the Third World? Not a hell of a lot is the answer.

Hmmm, and I thought "sexual liberty" - as you put it, I'd use the phrase "whoring yourself out for fun" - was part of what caused the massive spread of AIDs in Africa to begin with

I was listing reasons one might want to "support people's sexual habits" (by handing out condoms.

Stop dodging the question. I'll put that question to anyone on Apolyton, and anyone I run into outside in the real world - "If you have the option between a VERY high risk of contracting AIDs, or celibacy, which would you pick?" My answer is the same as your answer, and our answers are the same as most other people's, too. Some people just don't think about it, and that's their fault.

You do not know what my choice would be.

So it does. And I don't see why I should pay for the poor choices of others. They had a way to avoid AIDs, and people who currently don't have AIDs have a way to avoid it.

You should pay because the powers that be have decided you should. Tough luck.

[David Floyd]

This relates to difference between minimizing risk and trying and avoiding death how?

Well, I have had no sleep in almost 24 hours, but I just don't see your point. I'm simply saying that while one may have a reasonable expectation of not getting AIDs in the US, even without using a condom, that expectation doesn't exist in much of Africa. As a result, one can have a lot of unprotected sex in the US without getting sick, which would be virtually impossible elsewhere in the world.

I believe this line of argument started when someone (forget who) used the phrase "reasonable expectation" of being able to have sex, or something like that.

I was listing reasons one might want to "support people's sexual habits" (by handing out condoms.

And I was rebutting those reasons.

You do not know what my choice would be.

Then why don't you tell me?

Perhaps because it would make my point?

You should pay because the powers that be have decided you should. Tough luck.

Hehe, and here I thought we were arguing "should", rather than "is".

In that case, the US policy is abstinence, because the powers that be decided it should be. Tough luck, end of discussion.



And for that matter, WRT Africa, the powers that be have decided that I DON'T have to pay for their condoms, apparently.

[DanS]

Obviously, the most effective approach in practice is promoting both. This is what Uganda's done with reasonable success, and it's essentially have sexually-transmitted HIV has been contained in the Western world.

Despite all the bluster, this is the US policy under the Bush administration. The US gives out hundreds of millions of condoms free each year to fight AIDS.

The US is spending $3 billion a year for its anti-AIDS effort overseas, and we catch so much **** that I'm inclined not to spend a cent of my money for the UN anti-AIDS establishment. We would catch **** for free, so why are we spending money for catching ****? We should discontinue the $200 million that we give to them each year and move it into bilateral spending.

In the end, this is a stupid bureaucratic struggle. The UN anti-AIDS establishment wants the US billions to flow through the UN and is perfectly willing to smear the good efforts of the US to try to redirect US funding. Well, screw them. And screw the French for making an issue out of it, while we're at it.

[Gibsie]

The reason people are so down on it when espoused by Bush and co., is because this is the sort of message that we expect to hear delivered by a God-fearing right-winger who has never even spoken to an AIDS sufferer, on the issue:
"We beleive in the A, B, C method. Abstain and be faithful and you'll never catch HIV. Condoms are good too- if you're the kind of dirty slut who can't keep their legs closed for five minutes."

[DanS]

Gibsie, I've become a cynical man in the last couple of years. Too many would cut off their own noses to spite their faces. We should close our pocketbook to such people.

[Gibsie]

To liberals, to right-wingers, to Africans or to all the buggers?

[DinoDoc]

Whining bastards I assume.