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.
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.