AIDS & Abortion: 2M deaths yearly

[bushforever]

Two of the worst epidemics, AIDS and Abortion are responsible for a combined 2 million deaths yearly in the U.S.  I am glad to see the Abortion numbers steadily decline.  But we seriously need reform.

I noticed that most AIDS cases are from gay sex, drug use, and unprotected sex.  The only people I really feel sorry for are the 2% who are hemophiliacs, got it from a blood transfusion, or are children of AIDS-infected parents.  The rest of the people kind of got what they deserved.

The solution to AIDS: stop having gay sex and premarital sex and stop using drugs.  Education could help. 

The next thing, abortion.  Most abortions are from women who got pregnant from having sex and do not want to have their baby.  Only a small percentage are due to rape, incest, or when the mother is endanger of dying.  I support abortion only for those reasons.

The solution to abortion: stop having premarital sex, use a condom or birth control if you must, and adoption.  Again, education could help.

The law should strictly forbid abortion since it can usually be prevented and the law should also strictly prohibit homosexual behavior and drug/needle use since those lifestyles are responsible for a worldwide crisis.

2 million deaths that could easily be prevented.  Stop coming up with cures, and start working on prevention.

[badnarikin04]

Worst epidemics?


Whatever happened to the war on obesity?

I thought that was the worst epidemic.

[bushforever]

Worst epidemics?


Whatever happened to the war on obesity?

I thought that was the worst epidemic.

OK, another one.  Stop having premarital sex, stop using drugs, and STOP OVEREATING.

[Gabu]

the law should also strictly prohibit homosexual behavior

If two gay people, neither of whom have AIDS, have sex, nothing will happen whatsoever.  If two straight people, one of whom have AIDS, have sex, the one who doesn't have it has a very real chance of getting it.  The moral of this story is that banning "homosexual behavior" is not going to eliminate AIDS, no matter what you may want to think.

I personally think that the best solution to it is as much education about this subject as possible.  You can't realistically expect people to suddenly stop partaking in "homosexual behavior" and in drug use involving hypodermic needles by simply making it illegal (and isn't the latter already illegal?).

[John Dibble]

the law should also strictly prohibit homosexual behavior

If two gay people, neither of whom have AIDS, have sex, nothing will happen whatsoever.  If two straight people, one of whom have AIDS, have sex, the one who doesn't have it has a very real chance of getting it.  The moral of this story is that banning "homosexual behavior" is not going to eliminate AIDS, no matter what you may want to think.

Agreed. Gay sex in itself does not cause AIDS. AIDS is caused by the HIV virus being in a person's system for many years. PROMISCUOS sex, straight or gay, increases one's risk of infection simply because you increase the chances of being with someone who is infected.

You wishing to prohibit homosexual behavior has nothing to do with AIDS if you ask me. If you want to protect gays from AIDS, you should encourage them to be monogamous relationships - you know, something like a marriage.


As far as epidemics, AIDS is hardly an epidemic in this country, not anymore anyways. A problem - certainly. Far more deaths are caused by other things, like heart disease.

[bushforever]

the law should also strictly prohibit homosexual behavior

If two gay people, neither of whom have AIDS, have sex, nothing will happen whatsoever.  If two straight people, one of whom have AIDS, have sex, the one who doesn't have it has a very real chance of getting it.  The moral of this story is that banning "homosexual behavior" is not going to eliminate AIDS, no matter what you may want to think.

I personally think that the best solution to it is as much education about this subject as possible.  You can't realistically expect people to suddenly stop partaking in "homosexual behavior" and in drug use involving hypodermic needles by simply making it illegal (and isn't the latter already illegal?).

Well, according to the World Almanac:
In men, 85.4% of AIDS deaths are from men who have sex with men, injecting drug use, and gay sex & drug use.

In women, 40.3% of AIDS deaths are from injecting drug use.  39.8% are from heterosexual contact with someone infected with AIDS.  So I guess I am more sympathetic towards women with AIDS.

Bottom line is AIDS spreads faster among homosexuals and drug users.  The solution entails excluding homosexuals from the rest of society and getting tougher on the war on drugs.

[badnarikin04]

Worst epidemics?


Whatever happened to the war on obesity?

I thought that was the worst epidemic.

OK, another one.  Stop having premarital sex, stop using drugs, and STOP OVEREATING.

I see your plan.

You want to eliminate 85% of our entertainment sources.

For most people it's fun to be drugged-up glutton-sluts.

You're no fun.

[Gabu]

Well, according to the World Almanac:
In men, 85.4% of AIDS deaths are from men who have sex with men, injecting drug use, and gay sex & drug use.

Yeah.  Guess what?  The majority of gay people probably don't have AIDS.  Yes, it is a fact that anal sex, due to the larger amount of tissue tearing that occurs through it, is more likely to result in the propogation of HIV, but if neither participant has HIV in the first place, absolutely nothing will happen.  Gay people are not born with HIV to spread to others.

In women, 40.3% of AIDS deaths are from injecting drug use.

Drug use is already illegal.  What more should we do about it?

The solution entails excluding homosexuals from the rest of society.

I'm seriously, seriously going to hope for your sake that this statement is a joke.

[John Dibble]

the law should also strictly prohibit homosexual behavior

If two gay people, neither of whom have AIDS, have sex, nothing will happen whatsoever.  If two straight people, one of whom have AIDS, have sex, the one who doesn't have it has a very real chance of getting it.  The moral of this story is that banning "homosexual behavior" is not going to eliminate AIDS, no matter what you may want to think.

I personally think that the best solution to it is as much education about this subject as possible.  You can't realistically expect people to suddenly stop partaking in "homosexual behavior" and in drug use involving hypodermic needles by simply making it illegal (and isn't the latter already illegal?).

Well, according to the World Almanac:
In men, 85.4% of AIDS deaths are from men who have sex with men, injecting drug use, and gay sex & drug use.

In women, 40.3% of AIDS deaths are from injecting drug use.  39.8% are from heterosexual contact with someone infected with AIDS.  So I guess I am more sympathetic towards women with AIDS.

Bottom line is AIDS spreads faster among homosexuals and drug users.  The solution entails excluding homosexuals from the rest of society and getting tougher on the war on drugs.

I don't see the problem - permiscuous people who get AIDS die, gay or not, drug users who get AIDS die. To me, this means IDIOTS DIE. Permiscuous people are irresponsible and dumb, along with drug users - let them deal with the consequences of their own actions. SOCIAL DARWINISM BABY!

What you propose is unenforceable legislation. Homosexual behavior was prohibited in the past - it still happened, just in secret. Drug prohibition doesn't work - people still do drugs and the prohibition is costly and raises the violent crime rate.

[badnarikin04]

the law should also strictly prohibit homosexual behavior

If two gay people, neither of whom have AIDS, have sex, nothing will happen whatsoever.  If two straight people, one of whom have AIDS, have sex, the one who doesn't have it has a very real chance of getting it.  The moral of this story is that banning "homosexual behavior" is not going to eliminate AIDS, no matter what you may want to think.

I personally think that the best solution to it is as much education about this subject as possible.  You can't realistically expect people to suddenly stop partaking in "homosexual behavior" and in drug use involving hypodermic needles by simply making it illegal (and isn't the latter already illegal?).

Well, according to the World Almanac:
In men, 85.4% of AIDS deaths are from men who have sex with men, injecting drug use, and gay sex & drug use.

In women, 40.3% of AIDS deaths are from injecting drug use.  39.8% are from heterosexual contact with someone infected with AIDS.  So I guess I am more sympathetic towards women with AIDS.

Bottom line is AIDS spreads faster among homosexuals and drug users.  The solution entails excluding homosexuals from the rest of society and getting tougher on the war on drugs.

I don't see the problem - permiscuous people who get AIDS die, gay or not, drug users who get AIDS die. To me, this means IDIOTS DIE. Permiscuous people are irresponsible and dumb, along with drug users - let them deal with the consequences of their own actions. SOCIAL DARWINISM BABY!

What you propose is unenforceable legislation. Homosexual behavior was prohibited in the past - it still happened, just in secret. Drug prohibition doesn't work - people still do drugs and the prohibition is costly and raises the violent crime rate.

lol, we just simultaneously flaunted social darwinism in separate threads.

Check the seatbelt law disscussion.

[Gabu]

lol, we just simultaneously flaunted social darwinism in separate threads.

Check the seatbelt law disscussion.

Ever heard and/or seen Jeff Foxworthy's stand-up act called "Stupid People"?

This is reminding me of it.

[Engineer]

Yes, promiscuous people and drug users can get AIDS and die, but it cost all of society economically.  Insurance rates and/or taxes go up to cover the cost of caring for them.

The old saying, "An ounce of prevention is with a pound of cure" is ever so true.  Preventing the problems, ie. abstinance, birth control, anti-drug education, would be so much more cost effective.

But, if you just can't help yourself and engage in dangerous behavior, you need to take responsibility for your actions and pay your own way, instead of insisting that the government pay for your mistakes.  You get pregnant by having unprotected sex, you pay for the abortion yourself.  Don't expect 'daddy government' to pay for it.  Maybe people would think twice before doing something, if they knew that they would be held liable for their own actions.

[John Dibble]

Yes, promiscuous people and drug users can get AIDS and die, but it cost all of society economically.  Insurance rates and/or taxes go up to cover the cost of caring for them.

The old saying, "An ounce of prevention is with a pound of cure" is ever so true.  Preventing the problems, ie. abstinance, birth control, anti-drug education, would be so much more cost effective.

But, if you just can't help yourself and engage in dangerous behavior, you need to take responsibility for your actions and pay your own way, instead of insisting that the government pay for your mistakes.  You get pregnant by having unprotected sex, you pay for the abortion yourself.  Don't expect 'daddy government' to pay for it.  Maybe people would think twice before doing something, if they knew that they would be held liable for their own actions.

I agree - if people want to do stupid things, then they should be the ones who deal with the consequences. Government shouldn't take care of such people.

[ATFFL]

Lets use a Dutch solution: Kill people when they contract the disease.

Simple and effective.

[ilikeverin]

the law should also strictly prohibit homosexual behavior

If two gay people, neither of whom have AIDS, have sex, nothing will happen whatsoever.  If two straight people, one of whom have AIDS, have sex, the one who doesn't have it has a very real chance of getting it.  The moral of this story is that banning "homosexual behavior" is not going to eliminate AIDS, no matter what you may want to think.

I personally think that the best solution to it is as much education about this subject as possible.  You can't realistically expect people to suddenly stop partaking in "homosexual behavior" and in drug use involving hypodermic needles by simply making it illegal (and isn't the latter already illegal?).

Well, according to the World Almanac:
In men, 85.4% of AIDS deaths are from men who have sex with men, injecting drug use, and gay sex & drug use.

In women, 40.3% of AIDS deaths are from injecting drug use.  39.8% are from heterosexual contact with someone infected with AIDS.  So I guess I am more sympathetic towards women with AIDS.

Bottom line is AIDS spreads faster among homosexuals and drug users.  The solution entails excluding homosexuals from the rest of society and getting tougher on the war on drugs.

This would be an A->B thus B->A argument.

*gameshow buzzer*

Sorry, next argument against homosexuals, please

[bushforever]

Well, according to the World Almanac:
In men, 85.4% of AIDS deaths are from men who have sex with men, injecting drug use, and gay sex & drug use.

Yeah.  Guess what?  The majority of gay people probably don't have AIDS.  Yes, it is a fact that anal sex, due to the larger amount of tissue tearing that occurs through it, is more likely to result in the propogation of HIV, but if neither participant has HIV in the first place, absolutely nothing will happen.  Gay people are not born with HIV to spread to others.

In women, 40.3% of AIDS deaths are from injecting drug use.

Drug use is already illegal.  What more should we do about it?

The solution entails excluding homosexuals from the rest of society.

I'm seriously, seriously going to hope for your sake that this statement is a joke.

"The majority of gay people PROBABLY don't have AIDS."  Please don't assume.  But likewise, statistically, the majority of people with AIDS are gay or are drug users.  We should enforce tougher penalties on drug users and on homosexuals.  Education is also key.  Our schools should be teaching acceptance of people of other cultures, not the tolerance of homosexuals and drug addicts.   These people are the scum of society and should be treated as outcasts.  Maybe put in prison or mental institutions to solve their problems and not infect the rest of us.  Remember, God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve.

[ilikeverin]

HELLLLLOOOOOOOOO!

You are saying "The majority of people with AIDS are gay, therefore the majority of gay people have AIDS"

That's like saying "A square is a rectangle, therefore a rectangle is a square"

STOP USING FAULTY LOGIC!

[Gabu]

But likewise, statistically, the majority of people with AIDS are gay or are drug users.  We should enforce tougher penalties on drug users and on homosexuals.

As Ilikeverin said, the fact that the majority of people with AIDS are gay or drug users does not mean that being gay or that being a drug user implies that you have AIDS.

Education is also key.  Our schools should be teaching acceptance of people of other cultures, not the tolerance of homosexuals and drug addicts.  These people are the scum of society and should be treated as outcasts.  Maybe put in prison or mental institutions to solve their problems and not infect the rest of us.

And if those cultures tolerate homosexuals and drug addicts...?

I'm curious what "education" you're advocating.  Would this be the same "education" Winston Smith goes through in 1984?

Remember, God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve.

Not this tired argument again.  It doesn't work for people that don't believe in Adam and Eve.

[bushforever]

HELLLLLOOOOOOOOO!

You are saying "The majority of people with AIDS are gay, therefore the majority of gay people have AIDS"

That's like saying "A square is a rectangle, therefore a rectangle is a square"

STOP USING FAULTY LOGIC!

Hello...I was saying it was WRONG to assume the number of gay people have AIDS.  Who knows, it could be a great percentage of gays, it could be a small percentage.  I am saying, and have the stats to prove it that the majority of AIDS patients are gay or drug addicts.

[bushforever]

But likewise, statistically, the majority of people with AIDS are gay or are drug users.  We should enforce tougher penalties on drug users and on homosexuals.

As Ilikeverin said, the fact that the majority of people with AIDS are gay or drug users does not mean that being gay or that being a drug user implies that you have AIDS.

Education is also key.  Our schools should be teaching acceptance of people of other cultures, not the tolerance of homosexuals and drug addicts.  These people are the scum of society and should be treated as outcasts.  Maybe put in prison or mental institutions to solve their problems and not infect the rest of us.

And if those cultures tolerate homosexuals and drug addicts...?

I'm curious what "education" you're advocating.  Would this be the same "education" Winston Smith goes through in 1984?

Remember, God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve.

Not this tired argument again.  It doesn't work for people that don't believe in Adam and Eve.

Well, American policy is based on the Christian principles our country was founded on.  Our country was founded by Christians seeking religious and politcal freedom.  However, we're not going to let the 10% of atheists remove God's morals entirely from our country.  Since most people believe in a higher being, be it God, Allah, Buddah, or what have you.  Most cultures/religions do not promote homosexual behavior and heroin.  The few that do are not even worth mentioning in an educational curriculum.  Whatever happened to the 50s, when people did not engage in such behavior, and if they did it was in private and not exploited and taken as normal behavior.  Whatever they were doing right to keep the behavior from becoming an economic and social epedemic, we need to do it again.

[Gabu]

HELLLLLOOOOOOOOO!

You are saying "The majority of people with AIDS are gay, therefore the majority of gay people have AIDS"

That's like saying "A square is a rectangle, therefore a rectangle is a square"

STOP USING FAULTY LOGIC!

Hello...I was saying it was WRONG to assume the number of gay people have AIDS.  Who knows, it could be a great percentage of gays, it could be a small percentage.  I am saying, and have the stats to prove it that the majority of AIDS patients are gay or drug addicts.

Well, okay, here's some hard facts:

The number of gay people in America is reportedly approximately 1.2 million.

The number of incidences of AIDS in men having sex with men was approximately 1000 in 1995.

While these are not for the same years, this indicates that a very, very small percentage of the total gay population actually has AIDS, just as it's true that a very, very small percentage of the total population of the United States has AIDS.

Can we please stop acting as if every gay man in existence has AIDS now?

[Alcon]

Well, American policy is based on the Christian principles our country was founded on.  Our country was founded by Christians seeking religious and politcal freedom.  However, we're not going to let the 10% of atheists remove God's morals entirely from our country.  Since most people believe in a higher being, be it God, Allah, Buddah, or what have you.  Most cultures/religions do not promote homosexual behavior and heroin.  The few that do are not even worth mentioning in an educational curriculum.  Whatever happened to the 50s, when people did not engage in such behavior, and if they did it was in private and not exploited and taken as normal behavior.  Whatever they were doing right to keep the behavior from becoming an economic and social epedemic, we need to do it again.

You have just hit the nail on the head. For the other argument's side.

You say that the Christians came from England to prevent religious persecution. Very true, my friend! Do you know why many people are here today? For that very same reason - freedom of religion. So why should we impose Christian views on them? Our government is not religion.

I do believe that there are probably no cultures that promote homosexual behavior and heroin. Some legalize both. It is also legal here to stand on your head and sing show tunes. Does that mean it is recommended? No. It means you have the option to.

Yes, we should go back to the '50s, when such behavior was both "not engaged in" and "done in private" because, of course, it is unnatural. Now, why is it that people would engage in private in behavior that did not exist and was unnatural? What we were doing back then was ignoring it. Things that are ignored do not go away.

You think that homosexuality did not exist in the 50's? Do you think that the children in the 1950's did not know of it? This is a funny assumption, and very much untrue. Now as for being a "social and economic epidemic," I'm not sure what to say. I don't personally own any mutual funds containing heterosexuality, but if you do, I can see why you are worried about it becoming ecomonic disaster. As for it becoming a social epidemic, everyone should remember to wash their hands after being around other people to avoid catching the gay.

By the way, shame, shame on you for making World AIDS Day into a political commentary on abortion.

[bushforever]

Well, American policy is based on the Christian principles our country was founded on.  Our country was founded by Christians seeking religious and politcal freedom.  However, we're not going to let the 10% of atheists remove God's morals entirely from our country.  Since most people believe in a higher being, be it God, Allah, Buddah, or what have you.  Most cultures/religions do not promote homosexual behavior and heroin.  The few that do are not even worth mentioning in an educational curriculum.  Whatever happened to the 50s, when people did not engage in such behavior, and if they did it was in private and not exploited and taken as normal behavior.  Whatever they were doing right to keep the behavior from becoming an economic and social epedemic, we need to do it again.

You have just hit the nail on the head. For the other argument's side.

You say that the Christians came from England to prevent religious persecution. Very true, my friend! Do you know why many people are here today? For that very same reason - freedom of religion. So why should we impose Christian views on them? Our government is not religion.

I do believe that there are probably no cultures that promote homosexual behavior and heroin. Some legalize both. It is also legal here to stand on your head and sing show tunes. Does that mean it is recommended? No. It means you have the option to.

Yes, we should go back to the '50s, when such behavior was both "not engaged in" and "done in private" because, of course, it is unnatural. Now, why is it that people would engage in private in behavior that did not exist and was unnatural? What we were doing back then was ignoring it. Things that are ignored do not go away.

You think that homosexuality did not exist in the 50's? Do you think that the children in the 1950's did not know of it? This is a funny assumption, and very much untrue. Now as for being a "social and economic epidemic," I'm not sure what to say. I don't personally own any mutual funds containing heterosexuality, but if you do, I can see why you are worried about it becoming ecomonic disaster. As for it becoming a social epidemic, everyone should remember to wash their hands after being around other people to avoid catching the gay.

By the way, shame, shame on you for making World AIDS Day into a political commentary on abortion.

Yes, people came to America to escape religious persecution, but our morals should reflect the values of Christians (of all sects), Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and so forth, which I am pretty sure do not encourage homosexual behavior and heroin use.

As for the 1950s comment...I said something to the effect that it was not a major problem back then because it was done in private, was not encouraged by the media or the government, and was not tolerated by people.  It's really the media's fault and the AIDS epidemic which really exposed gayness and promoted the perception that it is acceptable behavior.

I say gayness is an economic epidemic because we are forced to pay the costs of caring for these gay people who have AIDS.  Maybe not an epidemic, but certainly a nuisance.  A health epidemic would mean having to wash your hands after being around gay people.  However, we do have a social epidemic, since American culture is worshiping the media's tolerance of homosexuality rather than the laws of God.  We can't even turn on our TVs or go to San Francisco anymore if we want to protect our children's virgin eyes.

And I don't know if that last comment was sarcasm or what.  Who cares about World AIDS day anyways.  I only feel sorry for the 2% of people who were victims of blood transfusions or being the child of an AIDS patient.

[zachman]

However, we're not going to let the 10% of atheists remove God's morals entirely from our country. 
 

And we're not going to let your type try to prosecute gays, on the grounds that they are gay.

They already get the rear end of society (a true commentary and inuendo!). If you are born gay your life, self-esteem, social opportunities, and financial opportunities will go down the tube. Why should they be punished for being born disadvantaged?

[John Dibble]

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

Ok, those two quotes, and the one in my signature, should show that the founding fathers, at the very least least this one who is one of the most prominent, did not act to found this nation on christian principles. Need further evidence, try the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796:

“Article 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries”

This document says that the government of the United states is secular. NOTE, THE GOVERNMENT IS SECULAR. We are, by vast majority, a Christian nation for sure, but the government and the religion of the populace are seperate. If you wish to have a moral nation, do what I do - preach your virtues, live your virtues, but do not force your virtues on others. In their misery, those who have strayed from the path of reason an intelligence shall see you prosper, and there will be those who wish to be like you, those who will emulate your ways so they too can prosper. However, you need to accept that there are some who will never accept your morals and that it is immoral to use force of law to violate their individual liberties in order to make them moral - all you will do is end up making them resent you, and you will help noone.

Oh, and by the way, bushforever, you are not in the right party. I think you'll find this one more to your liking. (oh, and btw, anti-sodomy laws were struck down by the supreme court, good luck overturning that, I don't think you'll be getting too much support from the Republican Party on this)