• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS [W: 139]

If I knew that the money would be used properly without red tape and bureaucrat influence then I would be all for it. However, since most tax payer money involves bureaucrats...I don't trust that it will be used for the best.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money from things like childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is
so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?

EDIT: sorry I blew the poll part but I would be interested in your opinions.
Click to expand...

Until we get statistics of who got aids due to their own negligence(drug users and those engaging in promiscuous/casual sex) verses who got aids through no fault of their own(rape victims, people born with it, individuals whose cheating spouses gave it to them, individuals who were deliberately infected by someone with hiv/aids, someone who got a bad blood transfusion and etc) we shouldn't be making judgements as to which research is more deserving of funds. If hypothetically statistics said that 99% of aids victims got it due their own negligence then I could see cutting off funding and just just give those one percent medications to treat their aids.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I can't believe how outnumbered I am here. I truly believe AID's research is a huge waste of better spent resources but then again I thought Romney would win in a land slide. No wonder I live out in the woods three miles from my nearest neighbor, SHEEESH. Good night!
Click to expand...

Your outnumbered sawyer because your on the wrong side of a very human issue...this goes to the heart of what america is and should be...we all have our differnces, politically and about hot button issues...but we should all be on the same page when it comes to americans suffering or in pain and that means ALL AMERICANS...and when its about human suffering and death and sickness we all need to put all our bias's and likes and dislikes aside and do the best we can to make it better....
You want to decide who suffers and who doesnt and which disease ALL AMERICANS tax dollars are spent on to cure. I dont have a single family member that has aids or hiv...Ive never had that I know of...and im still opposed to your way of thinking on this...I think you should really reconsider what your expecting us to say....if you have aids..were not spending a nickel on you or aids to stop it...just die because I dont think your life is worth anything because you contracted aids....sorry sawyer that sucks buddy.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I can't believe how outnumbered I am here. I truly believe AID's research is a huge waste of better spent resources but then again I thought Romney would win in a land slide. No wonder I live out in the woods three miles from my nearest neighbor, SHEEESH. Good night!
Click to expand...

Problem is, you have a anti-gay streak in you sawyer and I have a sneaky suspicion that you are of the belief that AIDS is a gay disease affecting only gay people (specifically gay males). That kind of bias doesn't help you see the issue as a whole.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money from things like childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is
so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?

EDIT: sorry I blew the poll part but I would be interested in your opinions.
Click to expand...

Yikes at the bolded.

I see the line you're trying to draw, but what about people who get sick from smoking, eating unhealthy foods, etc.? No funding for research for what they end up with? It's often preventable to a certain extent.
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
I can't believe how outnumbered I am here. I truly believe AID's research is a huge waste of better spent resources but then again I thought Romney would win in a land slide. No wonder I live out in the woods three miles from my nearest neighbor, SHEEESH. Good night!
Click to expand...

I thought Romney would win too (though not in a landslide), but that has little to do with this subject. You are ignorant when it comes to the topic of HIV/AIDS. If you were backing up your view with knowledge rather than ignorance, that would be an entirely different matter.
 
This is hardly a political debate. We don't give up on heart disease, diabetes or liver transplants simply because they are preventable. There is no ethical principle or philosophical viewpoint at work here, the OP simply hates a certain group of people so much he wants them to die.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money from things like childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is
so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?

EDIT: sorry I blew the poll part but I would be interested in your opinions.
Click to expand...

Greetings everyone! :2wave:

If a poll option would have been made available, I would have voted Yes in regards to "Should we spend taxpayer dollars on AIDS."

HIV/AIDS - Wikipedia

1. As indicated in the article linked above, "As of 2010, approximately 34 million people have contracted HIV globally. AIDS is considered a pandemic—a disease outbreak which is present over a large area and is actively spreading." The fact that it is considered a pandemic makes it something to be concerned about; not just for those in "high risk" categories but for everyone. Those who are in a "low risk" category presently may find themselves at greater risk in the future; HIV/AIDS is a potential danger to everyone, even more so should the research into HIV/AIDS be terminated due to moral judgement.

2. In regards to transmission, the article states: "The most frequent mode of transmission of HIV is through sexual contact with an infected person." As the old saying goes, "when you sleep with someone... you also sleep with everyone they have slept with." Again, because of the pandemic nature of HIV/AIDS, it isn't just those who have "promiscuous" and/or unprotected sex that are in danger. Those that practice sexual abstinence and/or have a single partner relationship where both were abstinent before their relationship began are a minority; the reality is that the majority of people will not be abstinent, will have more than one partner in their lives, and at some point will have unprotected sex. It would be considered irresponsible, naive, and inhumane to eliminate research into HIV/AIDS based on the moral judgement and lifestyle practiced by an ever decreasing minority. EDIT: I noted that I also did not respond to your statement about "being gay is so trendy." To quote the article linked above: "Worldwide, the majority of cases of transmission occur through heterosexual contacts (i.e. sexual contacts between people of the opposite sex)."

3. In regards to transmission, the article states: "The second most frequent mode of HIV transmission is via blood and blood products. Blood-borne transmission can be through needle-sharing during intravenous drug use, needle stick injury, transfusion of contaminated blood or blood product, or medical injections with unsterilised equipment." Those who are IV drug users and share needles can infect those who do not (through sex and/or other blood-borne transmissions, including giving birth). As for the other blood-borne transmissions, it should be obvious that these means do not involve promiscuous sex or IV drug use. Again, moral judgement does not justify termination of research when examining this form of transmission.

4. In regards to transmission, the article states: "HIV can be transmitted from mother to child during pregnancy, during delivery, or through breast milk. This is the third most common way way in which HIV is transmitted globally." Children who acquire HIV/AIDS through being born are in similar circumstances as children that suffer "childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc." They have no lifestyle that puts them in a "high risk" category. Here, not only does a moral judgement not justify termination of research; "morality" may even justify the research (as in the case of most blood-borne transmissions)!

5. Another point to consider is this: Many diseases over time mutate; finding new ways to enter, spread, and attack a human body. HIV/AIDS as it is understood today may change over time. Eliminating research due to moral judgement May prove deadly in the future (even to those whose moral judgement called for the termination of the research in the first place).

6. Finally, it should be noted that research into HIV/AIDS can benefit research into other types of health issues that share one or more characteristics with this deadly disease.

While it is understandable that a person may feel emotionally and/or morally opposed to research into what they view as a "preventible" disease, it is hoped that the points made above show that HIV/AIDS research is necessary as their is potential risk and reward... not just for those who are considered "high risk," but for all of mankind.
 
Last edited:
What all of you are missing is there are only so many research dollars and only so many researchers to go around. Every time you spend a dollar on AIDS which is by and large a preventable disease, you take a dollar from diseases that people get through no fault of their own. You all seem to be OK with that but I am most definitely not. I am the pragmatic sort and believe in prioritizing and delegating limited resources where they will do the most good for the most people. Let's say 10% of AIDS victims are guiltless and got the disease through no fault of their own, compare that to MS, Parkinson's, Child hood Leukemia etc where 100% of the victims get the disease through no fault of their own. Where are the finite dollars better spent? If your answer is AIDS you are being PC not practical and people will die and suffer horrible lives because of you but you yourself will feel so proud that you are so enlightened and compassionate. Congratulations. :roll:
 
sawyerloggingon said:
AIDS is a disease that for the most part is due to promiscuous sex or drug abuse and IMO taking money from things like childhood leukemia, MS, Parkinson's etc and giving it to a group of people who pretty much deserve what they got is a huge waste of resources. The only reason we spend so much money on it is that so many people that have it or fear they may contract it are so vocal and being gay is
so trendy as a current human right. So heres the question, should we be funding research to cure these people or worse yet find a vaccine to let them engage in their risky lifestyle with no consequences?

EDIT: sorry I blew the poll part but I would be interested in your opinions.
Click to expand...

Seriously? I want to ask you a question but I know I will get dinged if I do.

Unfreaking believable.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Just gotta shake your head at sawyers ignorance.
Click to expand...

He assumes he knows things like this. he does not look into these issues. As a result he is not aware of the thousands of people including children who became infected because of medical proceedures, bad transfusions, and many many other sources.

How do they deserve what they got Chief?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
They are getting it through unprotected sex. Not only that but anal sex is widely used in Africa as a form of birth control.Anal sex generally has some bleeding involved which greatly increases the risk of aids so if you are having unprotected anal sex and get aids it is your own dumb ass fault. Now lets compare that to childhood leukemia. Kids get this disease through no fault of their own. Where should the research dollars go in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Bull****. Get the facts and read my post. Moronic in the extreme.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I know there are some innocent victims of AID's but they are very small percentage. Why not concentrate on diseases like childhood Leukemia, Parkinson's MS etc. There are only so many research dollars and minds to go around so why not get the most bang for your buck. AID's should be at the bottom of the list not the top.
Click to expand...

NHO - source. In todays world the majority of infected persons from unprotected sex is less than those infected by other means.

Also see - WHO, CIC, National Aids website, AMA newletters, UN, etc etc etc.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If it were my child I would spend my last dollar but in the big picture society has to prioritize. Dollars are not limitless and when you spend so much money on AID's you take it from other diseases that are not preventable. Look at a little kid with Leukemia then look at some promiscuous gay needle sharing drug addict and then you tell me how our limited dollars are better spent.
Click to expand...

So your kid should get helped by you or someone else but what about the others?

YOu are really something.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I can't believe how outnumbered I am here. I truly believe AID's research is a huge waste of better spent resources but then again I thought Romney would win in a land slide. No wonder I live out in the woods three miles from my nearest neighbor, SHEEESH. Good night!
Click to expand...

And that is why you do not understand.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
What all of you are missing is there are only so many research dollars and only so many researchers to go around. Every time you spend a dollar on AIDS which is by and large a preventable disease, you take a dollar from diseases that people get through no fault of their own. You all seem to be OK with that but I am most definitely not. I am the pragmatic sort and believe in prioritizing and delegating limited resources where they will do the most good for the most people. Let's say 10% of AIDS victims are guiltless and got the disease through no fault of their own, compare that to MS, Parkinson's, Child hood Leukemia etc where 100% of the victims get the disease through no fault of their own. Where are the finite dollars better spent? If your answer is AIDS you are being PC not practical and people will die and suffer horrible lives because of you but you yourself will feel so proud that you are so enlightened and compassionate. Congratulations. :roll:
Click to expand...

If you will notice even conservatives think you are wrong. You do not know what you are talking about as usual and are not willing to listen to the facts being pressented.

Everyone is aware of the dollar issue. the main point it you inablitty to accept what the current state of affairs is regarding aids or HIV. You cling to a neanderrthal idea about something that is just not true and will not try and understand what you are being told.

Thousands have aids through no fault of their own. We should help anyone WE CAN and try and FIND A CURE.

To follow your logic. We should stop trying to find a cure for cancer because their are just too many forms and there is not enought money to research all of them. Or is it just AiDS?
 
wolfman24 said:
NHO - source. In todays world the majority of infected persons from unprotected sex is less than those infected by other means.

Also see - WHO, CIC, National Aids website, AMA newletters, UN, etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

I rest my case.


us_gender_graph.jpg

On the left is men who are the vast majority of AIDS victims.

EDIT: Earlier in this thread I said maybe 10% of AIDS victims got it by some other means than unprotected sex or drug use, apparently I was wrong. It is a whopping 1%. I stand corrected.:) Now tell me again why we need to take funding from other diseases you get through no fault of your own to cure a disease that is 99% preventable.
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
I rest my case.


View attachment 67138731

On the left is men who are the vast majority of AIDS victims.

EDIT: Earlier in this thread I said maybe 10% of AIDS victims got it by some other means than unprotected sex or drug use, apparently I was wrong. It is a whopping 1%. I stand corrected.:) Now tell me again why we need to take funding from other diseases you get through no fault of your own to cure a disease that is 99% preventable.
Click to expand...

Read the posts
 
wolfman24 said:
Read the posts
Click to expand...

At the risk of repeating myself:

Originally Posted by wolfman24
. In todays world the majority of infected persons from unprotected sex is less than those infected by other means.



As you can clearly see in the graph I posted only 1% get AIDS from sources other than unprotected sex or drug abuse. 77% of men get it from unprotected sex alone and 86% of women get it the same way so your statement was flat out wrong, just admit it and move on.
 
Sawyer, have you ever had sex without a condom?
 
Clearly the solution is to outlaw sex and drug use. :rofl

This is what happens with black and white thinking. They are incapable of understanding that people don't realize that they have HIV. They don't realize that innocent spouses may contract it from unfaithful partners. They want to pretend that people who don't engage in high risk activities also get HIV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom