• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Christine O'Donnell is not "Pro-Life"

Shalamar said:
In his mind? Probably. You should know what your wife is doing at all times.

Hire a private investigator. To do less would be irresponsible.
Click to expand...

A PI? Don't be ridiculous.

Chain her to the kitchen counter.
 
Brainster said:
She's an idiot about a lot of things, but not this one. The government does spend far too much money on AIDS research compared to other diseases.
Click to expand...

I actually agree. Aids should get funding, but is legit to question if other diseseas which are potentially more dangerous as far as spreading fast go should get a priority over Aids.
As for O Connell, once a day even a broken clock is right.
Although,frankly, her attitude toward Gays does not make her a very good spokesmen for Brainster's viewpoint.
 
Infoexcavator said:
AIDS is a voluntary condition, its not rocket science to avoid it effectively. The only way a responsible person might get it is from dirty blood transfusion or some sort of a rape, but these are exceedingly rare and the rare cases can be easily handled with charity donations from the evil christians.
Click to expand...
HIV virus 1 (occupying the body of a woman who has become the victim of a traffic accident): lookie, new host body! Should we head on over?
HIV virus 2: nah, I think it's a random passerby who got herself cut on some broken glass and metal shards while trying to stop the bleeding of our host. We only infect sinners, remember?
HIV virus 1: ah, yeah, silly me. Okay, everyone back into the home veins!

:jaw-dropp.

Lots of afflictions are "voluntary". Diabetes is often caused by an unhealthy lifestyle. 80% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking. People break their limbs in a number of ways, ranging from not wearing a seatbelt to participating in extreme sports. I'll choose not to get into all the diseases directly or indirectly caused by various professions - PTSD in soldiers, lung problems in miners, the list is a long one. Should research in all of those fields be stopped as well?
 
Last edited:
The problem here is that not all medical funding is equal. There are many reasons that HIV/AIDS receives such high funding where other diseases might not. The impact on those born with the disease. The relative more recent introduction to the public consciousness. The ease at which it spreads infection coupled with high morbidity. New possible avenues of research. The effectiveness of the spending. I think that last point should really resonate with the deficit hawks. HIV/AIDS spending has been highly effective in prolonging life and increasing qualifity of life for those under the effects. In 30 years it is has pretty much gone from a 1 year terminal prognosis to a 10 year terminal prognosis in median. The prognosis with treatment is actual about 20 years but not everyone in the world has access. Seriously, we have a disease that we cannot cure but lengthen the life expentancy from exposure twentyfold. That is very effecitve. Though it is very expensive.

The other major diseases have for the most part had half a century to a full century of modern medical research. Sure, not every year is as equal to modern years but it has had cumulative effects. Is the total government spending on HIV/AIDS research higher than that of cancer over the long haul? I can see the spending on HIV/AIDS start to diminish once treatments come down in costs and new avenues of research start to dwindle.

So HIV/AIDS spending is higher per patient death. How about per patient saved from death? How about number of years lost to death? There are so many ways of reformatting the discussion. Related to the subject of dollars per patient death, the FAIR charts (click the The Facts link at the bottom) show that dollars spent per patient is 3/4ths that spent on cancer in general and breast cancer in specific. Other cancers receive much less funding. Of course the chart displayed in arguements also leaves out West Nile Virus, which is $1,464,285 per patient death and $ 64,364 per patient. It is on their facts page at least. Why none of the complaints about West Nile Virus spending?
 
willhaven said:
Or, you know, being born to a mother with HIV.
Click to expand...

Correct. Infoexcavator is wrong, there are other ways.

But such other ways represent a pretty small fraction of those with AIDS and HIV in this country. The vast majority of people with AIDS and HIV got it because they engaged in risky activities.

AIDS is not like the flu: its primary means of transmission is through people making bad decisions. And let's face it: what's at issue isn't help provided to that small segment of HIV carriers who got it through no fault of their own, but help being provided to the majority who DID get the disease because of bad decisions they made. Human nature being what it is, when you reduce the price people pay for making bad decisions, people tend to make more of those bad decisions. 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? If you think the answer is easy, you're a fool. But if you think that someone is evil simply for choosing a different answer than you, than you're a fool twice over.
 
Ziggurat said:
Correct. Infoexcavator is wrong, there are other ways.

But such other ways represent a pretty small fraction of those with AIDS and HIV in this country. The vast majority of people with AIDS and HIV got it because they engaged in risky activities.

AIDS is not like the flu: its primary means of transmission is through people making bad decisions. And let's face it: what's at issue isn't help provided to that small segment of HIV carriers who got it through no fault of their own, but help being provided to the majority who DID get the disease because of bad decisions they made. Human nature being what it is, when you reduce the price people pay for making bad decisions, people tend to make more of those bad decisions. 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? If you think the answer is easy, you're a fool. But if you think that someone is evil simply for choosing a different answer than you, than you're a fool twice over.
Click to expand...

Lung cancer from smoking is not like the flu: its primary means of transmission is through people making bad decisions. And let's face it: what's at issue isn't help provided to that small segment of lung cancer sufferers who got it through no fault of their own, but help being provided to the majority who DID get the disease because of bad decisions they made. Blah, Blah, Blah.
 
Spindrift said:
Lung cancer from smoking is not like the flu: its primary means of transmission is through people making bad decisions.
Click to expand...

No. Lung cancer isn't transmitted at all. It's not an infectious disease. When you want to try to draw parallels, at least do it right.

And let's face it: what's at issue isn't help provided to that small segment of lung cancer sufferers who got it through no fault of their own, but help being provided to the majority who DID get the disease because of bad decisions they made.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct.

Blah, Blah, Blah.
Click to expand...

Would you care to make a point? Do you even have a point?
 
Ziggurat said:
No. Lung cancer isn't transmitted at all. It's not an infectious disease. When you want to try to draw parallels, at least do it right.



Yes, that is correct.



Would you care to make a point? Do you even have a point?
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry didn't know you had narrowed it down to infectious diseases. How about tuberculosis?
 
Ziggurat said:
Would you care to make a point? Do you even have a point?
Click to expand...

Not to presume to speak for Spindrift, but the point might just be that lung cancer is also by and large a lifestyle disease, and yet no one is jumping up and down about how lung cancer research is overfunded.

ETA: One could also make a similar argument for coronary heart disease.

Or type II diabetes.

America: It's okay to be fat and lazy, just not gay.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Human nature being what it is, when you reduce the price people pay for making bad decisions, people tend to make more of those bad decisions. 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? If you think the answer is easy, you're a fool. But if you think that someone is evil simply for choosing a different answer than you, than you're a fool twice over.
Click to expand...

I see no moral dilemma here. If we have the ability, we should cure people with disease. If we don't have that ability, we should be striving to find a cure. Sure, prevention is most important, but it's absolutely immoral to not fund research because you don't agree with the "risky" behavior. This is just another example of "christian love" coming from the right.
 
Spindrift said:
Oh, I'm sorry didn't know you had narrowed it down to infectious diseases.
Click to expand...

I didn't. But you're intellectually sloppy enough to call it an infectious disease, which was my point in that response. You could have simply stated that most people who have lung cancer have it because of bad choices, and presumably whatever point you were trying to make (but never actually got around to making) would have remained.

Now, would you care to actually make a point? Because you still haven't.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I see no moral dilemma here. If we have the ability, we should cure people with disease.
Click to expand...

But we don't: we can't cure HIV, we can only treat it.

If we don't have that ability, we should be striving to find a cure.
Click to expand...

Which might be relevant if O'Donnell had said we shouldn't try to find a cure, but she didn't. Hell, she didn't even say that the government shouldn't spend money looking for a cure.
 
If women in third world countries would stop making poor lifestyle choices and being inferior in their cultures maybe I would be willing to help them.

Foremost among such cultural roadblocks is the role of women, who, in many developing societies, are economically dependent on their spouses and don't often demand that they practice safe sex. Dr. Geeta Gupta, president of the International Center for Research on Women, notes that women bear the heaviest burden of AIDS around the world.
Click to expand...

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1684462,00.html

I mean these woman are just loose drug using floozies right? Homos and pagans the lot of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom