Christine O'Donnell is not "Pro-Life"

[BobTheDonkey]

It doesn't work that way, and you know it.

The point is that as a taxpayer in a democratic republic, my taxes pay for things I don't personally support. That is how it works.

Apple, orange.

No, it's not (and for the record, comparing an apple to an orange is not necessarily a bad comparison. They're both fruits, have multiple flavors, etc so it depends on what's being compared.) In this case, you're playing semantics to claim that while marriage between two persons of the same gender is illegal, it is not discriminatory toward homosexuals. I suppose there's an incredible underground demand for heterosexuals to marry members of their own gender for some reason?

 

[Ziggurat]

and why did you quote me then?

Because I was responding to you, and I thought you could figure out a reference to a statement made in the original post. I guess I shouldn't have assumed that.

 

[Brainster]

OK, why? Because this particular metric is BS. A better one would be amount of money spent to lives saved.

Under that criterion, wouldn't you have recommended that no money be spent on AIDS research in the 1980s? After all, no lives were saved in the 1980s by AIDS research.

The amount of money spent per death strikes me as an eminently sensible metric. It's essentially the same concept as triage, where an overloaded medical system handles first the most serious cases and then moves down to lesser injuries and illnesses. It may not be the best metric, but it's hardly BS.

 

[Ziggurat]

The point is that as a taxpayer in a democratic republic, my taxes pay for things I don't personally support. That is how it works.

And if you don't like what it's being spent on, then you voice your opinion and try to get it changed. Which is what O'Donnell was trying to do.

In this case, you're playing semantics to claim that while marriage between two persons of the same gender is illegal, it is not discriminatory toward homosexuals.

It's not merely semantics, it's the law. Whatever the unfairness of the effect might be, the law still only tests for gender, not sexuality. And yes, such differences do actually matter.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

More I am just saying it is beyond me to make fine tuned judgements on how medical research money is spent. Their front page looks simplistic but if you look they explain number of deaths should inform a base order with secondary factors weighted by medical staff should determine actual final money. At the least I can get behind their reaons

Truthfully I do not know how the NIH allocates funds as is. I would hope it is largely informed by medical professionals. Really I am just for more tax funding of health issues in general and the specific formulas used to determine research money allocation is something I leave to other people to fight about.

I would say if I were to really get passionate about this subject it would be to increase overall ofunding of tax funding to medical research, as I have no specific disease close to my heart nor specific disease I find personally repugnant to fund.

 

[barium]

And what about the people you're attracted to? If you were a gay man, do you think you might find yourself yearning to be with straight men but rebuffed because you're a man? If you were a fat man, do you think you might find yourself yearning to be with a woman but rebuffed because you're fat?

One of those things is more typical than the other.

I know several fat people who have become thin. None of my gay friend has turned straight, oddly enough.

 

[Spindrift]

I know several fat people who have become thin. None of my gay friend has turned straight, oddly enough.

I know lots of married fat people (myself included) and no married gay people.

 

[Ziggurat]

I know several fat people who have become thin. None of my gay friend has turned straight, oddly enough.

And how does that keep fat people from being discrimination against?

 

[barium]

And how does that keep fat people from being discrimination against?

It doesn't. I was just trying to point out that the two are fundamentally different.

 

[barium]

I know lots of married fat people (myself included) and no married gay people.

And I'm good friends with a married gay man, and know of several other married homosexual couples. Before it was legalized I knew none. How utterly perplexing!

 

[willhaven]

Right. I mean, it's not like we should punish the child for a mistake the mother made, right?

Of course we shouldn't. A fetus, however...

So there is a moral dilemma we face: how much do we help those who already have the disease, when that very help can lead to more people getting the disease?

What is that exactly?

 

[pgwenthold]

Ah, but those lepers weren't icky homos, were they?

When I was little, there was a song we used to sing in church...

"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me"

I find it pretty amazing now that I have grown up how little that song means to people, including (especially) the catholic church. Apparently, "the least of my brothers" only refers to cute little babies who would be born healthy.

Babies who could be born with disease? Nah, they don't count. Of course, they are born to welfare queen (aka black) unwed mothers.

 

[Biscuit]

But she didn't say that. You took that as an implication of what she said, because that's how her words were characterized in the links.

All sorts of mischief is possible when we get to judge everybody on what they imply, not what they say.

No. The christian right has been demonizing those with AIDS almost from day one. As I already said they use words like "lifestyle" as a derogatory term. Despite the fact that anyone can get AIDS they want to use this horrific disease as proof that god hates fags. Even if AIDS research could help a rape victim it would also help a homo and that is unacceptable in their world view.

The discussion isn't about AIDS in Africa, it's about AIDS in the US.

What's the difference between AIDS anywhere in the world? Is there a separate cure or treatment based on geography? Isolationism is not the solution to this global problem.

O'Donnell wasn't just talking about research. And why is it evil to think that it's not the job of the federal government of the United States to solve Africa's AIDS problem?

If we have the same problem it would be incredibly evil to not assist others afflicted. If we can do the research here we can help people everywhere. Like it or not we are all stuck on this planet together. This isn't a result of a lifestyle. Hippies smell bad because of a lifestyle choice. People are dying because of AIDS.

 

[Ziggurat]

No. The christian right has been demonizing those with AIDS almost from day one.

This thread isn't about the Christian right, it's about Christine O'Donnell.

As I already said they use words like "lifestyle" as a derogatory term. Despite the fact that anyone can get AIDS

Except that not anyone CAN get AIDS. It's not like the flu: only certain activities can transmit AIDS, and not everyone engages in those activities. And in the US, the vast majority of the people who get AIDS get it because they voluntarily engage in activities which exposed them to it.

they want to use this horrific disease as proof that god hates fags.

Did Christine O'Donnell every say anything like this? Because if she did, that is what we should be talking about. If not, well, that's just an attempt to use guilt by association.

What's the difference between AIDS anywhere in the world?

The epidemiology: who engages in what activities where. And yes, that does vary from place to place. Quite a bit.

This isn't a result of a lifestyle.

Actually, for the most part, it really is.

 

[Puppycow]

Under that criterion, wouldn't you have recommended that no money be spent on AIDS research in the 1980s? After all, no lives were saved in the 1980s by AIDS research.

No. Look, I know you're smart enough to figure this out if you want to but if you want to play dumb I'll spell it out for you. I mean lives saved in the future, not the past.

Say that you are the person in charge of the budget and your science advisor says that we have two diseases, A and B. A has killed 1000 people last year and also 1000 the year before that and the same every year for a long time. Scientists already know a lot about A, and there is no obvious avenue of research that is likely to further reduce its victims. A is not infectuous. B killed only 100 people last year but it is a new disease and it is infectious. It is infectuous and is likely to kill twice as many people next year and double again every year after that until a cure or prevention method is found. Scientists can think of lots of avenues for study on this disease. Which one should you spend more research money on?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

A nice christian family will hopefully adopt, the AIDS ridden parent should be in jail for assault against the child and the sexual partner. Why can't you just adopt a kid if you have AIDS, why do you have to create another patient? Probably to get some benefits from the nanny government.

ARe you real or just for pretend like "flying squirrels"?

 

[eeyore1954]

No. The christian right has been demonizing those with AIDS almost from day one. As I already said they use words like "lifestyle" as a derogatory term. Despite the fact that anyone can get AIDS they want to use this horrific disease as proof that god hates fags. Even if AIDS research could help a rape victim it would also help a homo and that is unacceptable in their world view.

To me a statement like that is exactly like people equating 9/11 with Muslims in general. While there may be some Christians who have that view the overwhelming majority will not believe "God hates fags" and even less would feel that helping a "homo" to not die is unacceptable.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This thread isn't about the Christian right, it's about Christine .

Who hates gay people.

Except that not anyone CAN get AIDS. It's not like the flu: only certain activities can transmit AIDS, and not everyone engages in those activities. And in the US, the vast majority of the people who get AIDS get it because they voluntarily engage in activities which exposed them to it.

And, thus, deserve the disease...

 

[eeyore1954]

Who hates gay people.




And, thus, deserve the disease...

From what I have read today I doubt if the first statement is true. I would suspect she believes homosexuality is wrong but does not "hate" those who engage. I get the feeling there is a lot of anti Christian bigotry here that causes people to come to those conclusions.


Just because someone says people can do things to try and prevent something in no way implies they deserve it.

My brother was a drug addict and because of what it was doing to him I am very strong against using drugs. He eventually died of an overdose. There are things he could have tried to do .If he had stopped using drugs he would most likely be alive today. Do I think he deserved overdosing? No

 

[Ziggurat]

Who hates gay people.

Just like you hate Christians.

Debate is easy when that's all it consists of.