HIV cases nearly double in decade

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
The graph shows homosexuals AIDS on the rise and proves, once again that the disease is almost excusviely contracted through Anal sex and intraveneous drug use. Since such drugh use is much hgher among lower income levels so it is no surprise that AIDS is more prevalent among African Amercans and Hispanics.
Click to expand...
Tell it to the over 50,000 people living with it from heterosexual contact. Or to the people who got it from the tainted blood banks.

You’re making a tremendous amount of assumptions and they aren’t really backed up by the numbers.
 
Rascalking said:
Charming.

Take a look at the attitude some people have towards those with AIDS… Sometimes people come across as saying those with HIV/AIDS “deserve” what they get due to behavior.

If it’s not you-great, if it si, then your in my prayers.
Click to expand...
Another example of the over politicization of AIDS. When you point out the fact that it is primarily a disease that afflicts homosexuals and intraveneous drug users you are accused of being “offensive” or believing those who have AIDS deserve it. You dont see this with other diseases. If I say lung cancer primarily afflicts those who smoke you dont hear howls of outrage that that is offensive to those who got lung cancer another way or that I am claiming that people who have lung cancer deserved it.
 
Rascalking said:
Charming.

Take a look at the attitude some people have towards those with AIDS… Sometimes people come across as saying those with HIV/AIDS “deserve” what they get due to behavior.

If it’s not you-great, if it si, then your in my prayers.
Click to expand...
AIDS is extremely easy to prevent and nearly everyone knows how it is socially spread. I would never say anyone “deserved” AIDS, just as no one deserves to be hit by a train - but that too is extremely easy to prevent.
 
Lujack said:
Tell it to the over 50,000 people living with it from heterosexual contact. Or to the people who got it from the tainted blood banks.

You’re making a tremendous amount of assumptions and they aren’t really backed up by the numbers.
Click to expand...
Actually the numbers back me up entirely-AIDS aflicts primarily those who enage in anal sx and/or use intraveneus drugs. 1/10 of 1% of the populace got AIDS via heterosexual behavior.

It is interesting that you bring up tainted blood. That is another example of politicization of of the issue costing lives. it was considered discimination to ask people about their sexual behavior before they gave blood giving rise to thousands afflicted by tainted blood. Even today the Homosexual “rights” lobby is demanding that active homosexuals be allowed to give blood.
 
SamH said:
AIDS is extremely easy to prevent and nearly everyone knows how it is socially spread. I would never say anyone “deserved” AIDS, just as no one deserves to be hit by a train - but that too is extremely easy to prevent.
Click to expand...
Just like lung cancer is. Its interesting that our schools tell our kids not to smoke as it can lead to lung cancer. They dont say “well we know you are going to smoke so let us teach you how to use filtered cigarettes with low tar and nicotine”. They teach abstinence-at least where smoking is concerned.
 
estesbob said:
Actually the numbers back me up entirely-AIDS aflicts primarily those who enage in anal sx and/or use intraveneus drugs. 1/10 of 1% of the populace got AIDS via heterosexual behavior.

.
Click to expand...
Ann Coulter has a slant on this in her most recent column.

anncoulter.com/

Liberals, please do not click on link. I do not want to be held responsible for your heart attack!😃
 
estesbob said:
Actually the numbers back me up entirely-AIDS aflicts primarily those who enage in anal sx and/or use intraveneus drugs. 1/10 of 1% of the populace got AIDS via heterosexual behavior.

It is interesting that you bring up tainted blood. That is another example of politicization of of the issue costing lives. it was considered discimination to ask people about their sexual behavior before they gave blood giving rise to thousands afflicted by tainted blood. Even today the Homosexual “rights” lobby is demanding that active homosexuals be allowed to give blood.
Click to expand...
You know where the fault lies on the tainted blood as well as I do-experts had told the Red Cross for several years that the blood supply was tainted, and they just refused to check. Whose fault was that the blood banks spent three years refusing to even test their supply of donated blood?

Also, by the same grounds that you’re claiming you can prohibit “active homosexuals” (even, apparently, monogamous ones), you might as well go ahead and prohibit people who are poor, since they are more likely to use drugs.

The issue was politicized- in the early 1980’s by certain conservatives who had no interest in trying to treat a disease that they felt affected only gay men.
 
Lujack said:
Also, by the same grounds that you’re claiming you can prohibit “active homosexuals” (even, apparently, monogamous ones), you might as well go ahead and prohibit people who are poor, since they are more likely to use drugs.
Click to expand...
Source?

enotes.com/drugs-alcohol-encyclopedia/poverty-drug-use
One of the most popular stereotypes about drug use is that it is more prevalent among the poor. In fact, a lack of money—in itself—does not seem to be associated with drug use.
Click to expand...
 
Lujack said:
You know where the fault lies on the tainted blood as well as I do-experts had told the Red Cross for several years that the blood supply was tainted, and they just refused to check. Whose fault was that the blood banks spent three years refusing to even test their supply of donated blood?

Also, by the same grounds that you’re claiming you can prohibit “active homosexuals” (even, apparently, monogamous ones), you might as well go ahead and prohibit people who are poor, since they are more likely to use drugs.

The issue was politicized- in the early 1980’s by certain conservatives who had no interest in trying to treat a disease that they felt affected only gay men.
Click to expand...
You have it backwards. Conservatives wanted active homosexuals banned from givng blood. It was the homosexual rights groups that protetsed this and kept it from being enacted for years-in fact they are lobbying to have the ban lifted today. We also, BTW, prohibit people who use intraveneous drugs from giving blood-regardless of their economic status. Tens of thousands of people died needlesssly (and continue to die) becuase of the lefts politicization of this issue.
 
estesbob said:
You have it backwards. Conservatives wanted active homosexuals banned from givng blood. It was the homosexual rights groups that protetsed this and kept it from being enacted for years-in fact they are lobbying to have the ban lifted today. We also, BTW, prohibit people who use intraveneous drugs from giving blood-regardless of their economic status. Tens of thousands of people died needlesssly (and continue to die) becuase of the lefts politicization of this issue.
Click to expand...
Why did it take so long to fund treatment? Why did we wait three years to check the blood supply? Why did the epidemic have to get so big before anyone was willing to do anything?

You know why, and it wasn’t because of “homosexual rights groups”, who were far from having any real political power in 1982!
 
Lujack said:
Oh, I don’t believe it. estesbob believes it-you should ask him for the source, since he’s claimed that the reason straight black and Latino people have AIDS is intravenous drug use.
Click to expand...
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
 
Lujack said:
Why did it take so long to fund treatment? Why did we wait three years to check the blood supply? Why did the epidemic have to get so big before anyone was willing to do anything?

You know why, and it wasn’t because of “homosexual rights groups”, who were far from having any real political power in 1982!
Click to expand...
Why fund massively expensive research to attempt to cure a disease that is so easily prevented?

Teaching basic STD protection has been around for decades (centuries?), the same steps protect from HIV - three decades and billions of dollars later its still the same.
 
"estesbob:
You have it backwards. Conservatives wanted active homosexuals banned from givng blood. It was the homosexual rights groups that protetsed this and kept it from being enacted for years-in fact they are lobbying to have the ban lifted today. We also, BTW, prohibit people who use intraveneous drugs from giving blood-regardless of their economic status. Tens of thousands of people died needlesssly (and continue to die) becuase of the lefts politicization of this issue.
Click to expand...
Lujack said:
Why did it take so long to fund treatment? Why did we wait three years to check the blood supply? Why did the epidemic have to get so big before anyone was willing to do anything?

You know why, and it wasn’t because of “homosexual rights groups”, who were far from having any real political power in 1982!
Click to expand...
Could either of you provide evidence of your claims in this regard? Until further evidence is provided, I’ll say that both sides were at fault. One side for ignoring it because it was a “homosexual issue” and the other for promoting homosexual rights so they could keep their sex lives private instead of tackling the issue of AIDS as a primary concern.
 
Lujack said:
Why did it take so long to fund treatment? Why did we wait three years to check the blood supply? Why did the epidemic have to get so big before anyone was willing to do anything?

You know why, and it wasn’t because of “homosexual rights groups”, who were far from having any real political power in 1982!
Click to expand...
The problem was then and is now promiscouity and anal sex. The knew that from day one yet tried to demonize(and continue to do so) anyone who pointed out the obvious. AIDS was then and continues to be a relatively rare veneral disease who spread is easily preventable.
 
Abyssinia said:
Morning-after pill handout causes rise in teenage sexual disease, study finds
A study has found that the policy simply encouraged young people to have unprotected sex and had failed to cut down the number of under-age pregnancies: telegraph.co.uk/health/8291468/Morning-after-pill-handout-causes-rise-in-teenage-sexual-disease-study-finds.html

Sex ed program in Scotland over three years, scientists discovered it did not delay intercourse improve use of contraceptives or reduce pregnancies or abortions. The government decided to continue the program because students reported feeling less regret about the first time they slept with their most recent partner: bmj.com/content/334/7585/133.full

A study showed that 3 our of 4 college men did not use condoms, despite the fact that over 80% had received sex education:

tiny.cc/49np5

kinseyinstitute.org/publications/PDF/STDSep2002.pdf

In 1999, the Government put 15 million pounds in to sex education, free condoms, morning after pills etc. to students. In March 2004 it was discovered that the STD rate had skyrocketed 64%, teen pregnancies where up. Overall the greatest increases where in areas where the program had been implemented:

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1456789/Teen-pregnancies-increase-after-sex-education-classes.html

Evidence that abstinence education works:

Administration for Children and Families (ACF), a division of HHS, The American Public Health Association’s (APHA): citizenlink.com/2010/08/obama-administration-blocks-release-of-pivotal-hhs-abstinence-study/

Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine: townhall.com/columnists/LindaChavez/2010/02/05/abstinence_education_works_after_all

Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html

Arrow ‘Puzzling’ that UK still pushing morning-after pill despite rise in STDs says study author:

lifesitenews.com/news/puzzling-that-uk-still-pushing-morning-after-pill-despite-rise-in-stds-says

telegraph.co.uk/health/8291468/Morning-after-pill-handout-causes-rise-in-teenage-sexual-disease-study-finds.html

American Medical association: nationalreview.com/articles/229086/killing-abstinence/robert-rector
Click to expand...
I think you and many others miss the point of robust sex education. Whether you want to teach abstinence or safe sex, each is effective in theory, but neither is immune from failing long term effectiveness. Why? This is because it’s up to the teen to take the advice. If all you give is one option, expect more teens to not take that option. The goal is to give many avenues of safety, so hopefully the teen can make the right decision. If your fear is that if a teen knows about safe sex and abstinence then they’ll take the safe sex road then work on imprinting your own values as a parent. I’m confident in saying more options will lead to safer sex. At least if a teen is going to have sex they should be smart enough to use a condom.
 
estesbob said:
Another example of the over politicization of AIDS. When you point out the fact that it is primarily a disease that afflicts homosexuals and intravenous drug users you are accused of being “offensive” or believing those who have AIDS deserve it. You dont see this with other diseases. If I say lung cancer primarily afflicts those who smoke you dont hear howls of outrage that that is offensive to those who got lung cancer another way or that I am claiming that people who have lung cancer deserved it.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with that. It’s hard for non-IV drug users and heterosexuals to get AIDS. It’s unpc to say that, but it’s true.

I can walk and chew gum at the same time though-I think alot of people generally aren’t worried about it because they think those who get it somehow either deserve it, or are being punished for activities, or something else along those lines.
 
estesbob said:
You have it backwards. Conservatives wanted active homosexuals banned from givng blood. It was the homosexual rights groups that protetsed this and kept it from being enacted for years
Click to expand...
Bob, do you have any evidence to support that claim? As near as I can tell, the ban was instituted in 1983
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top