| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> But if someone gets the disease through unsafe sex, of whatever kind, wouldn't
> you agree there is some culpability there?
You are making the assumption that everyone knows that it is unsafe and that
everyone knows how to have safe sex. Two major misconceptions. I'll give you
an example: Catholic schools do not teach sex education. Yes you can make the
arguement that its the parents job to teach about AIDS and safe sex, but how
are parents that never had safe sex going to teach safe sex to their children.
Guess what the teenage rate of AIDS infection is? If safe sex had been
successfully taught, and it has not yet been, then there would be no teenage
pregnancy.
It's reallyt *HARD* to transmit
> this virus. It's a risk they choose to take. We KNOW how not to get it. Don't
> bareback.
If it were only that simple, barebacking is not the only way to transmit AIDS.
AIDS can also be transmitted by oral sex among others.
> Gary and his partner in 1984 didn't know that and they died horrible
> deaths because of it. I went to his funeral so I have a LITTLE familiarity
> with the pain it brings to the gay community. Gary's corner of it, anyway...
> 1st avenue and 74th st, Manhattan. But that's irrelevant.
>
> However to say now that we should be doing research on a disease that
> ultimately is preventable by behaviour modification while neglecting research
> on diseases that currently aren't... that allows responsibility shirking,
> don't you agree? (if you posit that the government should be in the business
> of funding ANY disease research, which of course I reject, you should at least
> allocate the money to the most important ones....)
So all research for a cure for the millions of people who currently are HIV+ or
have full blown AIDS should cease? All research for maintenance drugs should
cease?
> I'll give credit to ActUP for improving things at the FDA. Sort of. Certain
> drugs get fast tracked because of what disease they are for, others take
> forever. Better yet would be to abolish the FDA altogether and go with strict
> liability on the part of drug manufacturers and doctors.
>
> Less seriously:
>
> I think we should start a campaign for doing research into how to survive
> jumping or falling off 1000 foot cliffs! After all, it's not FAIR that doing
> so tends to kill people and I feel it's interfering with my right to choose
> whether to take precautions near cliff edges or not. Why should I have to
> suffer the consequences of walking too close to the edge? Society as a whole
> should, not me in particular. Right? If not, why not? What is the difference
> between unsafe sex and unsafe cliff edge walking?
>
> ++Lar
The difference is as simple as your analogy. When you see a cliff you
recognize it. Its impossible to see a virus with the naked eye.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Do you really believe that the only way people (kids) learn about safe sex is through schools? I hardly pay attention during commercials and I see public health messages about safe sex from famous actors ALL the time. (...) I disagree. The (...) (25 years ago, 6-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Let's review for a sec, here... when my uncle Gary got it back in 1984, there was a good argument that it wasn't his fault. People at that time didn't know how to go about preventing it. Now, they do. Haemopheliacs are at the mercy of a clean (...) (25 years ago, 2-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
