Christine O'Donnell is not "Pro-Life"

[johnny karate]

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.

Yeah, kind of like lung cancer.

Or coronary heart disease.

Or type 2 diabetes.

Or cirrhosis of the liver.

And yet I don't see any sexually-repressed, religious conservatives demonizing victims of those diseases.

Gee... I wonder why.

 

[eeyore1954]

Yeah, kind of like lung cancer.

Or coronary heart disease.

Or type 2 diabetes.

Or cirrhosis of the liver.

And yet I don't see any sexually-repressed, religious conservatives demonizing victims of those diseases.

Gee... I wonder why.

I lot of people die from heart disease who engage in basically healthy lifestyles. I don't know the statistics but I personally know two people who died from lung cancer who never smoked and lots of people die from other cancers.
Most Christians are not against any research for AIDs

And yet I don't see any sexually-repressed, religious conservatives demonizing victims of those diseases.

Don't generalize much do you?

 

[eeyore1954]

http://www.everydayhealth.com/lung-cancer/why-non-smokers-get-lung-cancer.aspxSmoking is the No. 1 cause of lung cancer, which causes about 160,000 deaths each year. Yet not all people with lung cancer are — or were — smokers. In fact, 10 to 15 percent of lung cancer deaths are from other causes.

 

[johnny karate]

I lot of people die from heart disease who engage in basically healthy lifestyles. I don't know the statistics but I personally know two people who died from lung cancer who never smoked and lots of people die from other cancers.

Not all people who have AIDS got it from being gay.

Most Christians are not against any research for AIDs

I never claimed they were.

Don't generalize much do you?

Quite the opposite actually. I was specifically describing Christine O'Donnell.

 

[johnny karate]

http://www.everydayhealth.com/lung-cancer/why-non-smokers-get-lung-cancer.aspxSmoking is the No. 1 cause of lung cancer, which causes about 160,000 deaths each year. Yet not all people with lung cancer are — or were — smokers. In fact, 10 to 15 percent of lung cancer deaths are from other causes.

Not all people who have AIDS got it from being gay.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not all people who have AIDS got it from being gay.

Nobody gets it from being gay. And I doubt O'Donnell approves of the activities that lead to most infections of heterosexual either.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, kind of like lung cancer.

Or coronary heart disease.

Or type 2 diabetes.

Or cirrhosis of the liver.

And yet I don't see any sexually-repressed, religious conservatives demonizing victims of those diseases.

If you don't think religious conservatives ever criticize smoking, heavy drinking, and gluttony, well, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[johnny karate]

Nobody gets it from being gay. And I doubt O'Donnell approves of the activities that lead to most infections of heterosexual either.

Funny, I didn't hear her mention anything about heterosexuals.

 

[johnny karate]

If you don't think religious conservatives ever criticize smoking, heavy drinking, and gluttony, well, you haven't been paying attention.

Do they criticize people with diseases from those lifestyle choices and propose that we not spend so much money on research to help them?

 

[Biscuit]

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

Who is parroting the talking points of the christian right by brining out the old "lifestyle" defense for not caring about AIDS victims, or "participants" in their world.

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.

Really? I didn't know some people were immune to AIDS. ANYONE can get AIDS. Some people are at a higher risk than others. In the U.S. this includes people who need blood transfusion for any reason, rape victims, people who engage in unprotected sex, even people with blood fetish (thank you twilight). Around the world this group is widely expanded and not based on any "lifestyle" but rather the circumstances that minority classes find themselves in and the quality of medical facilities for a start. Is being a Ugandan a lifestyle choice? Is needing a blood transfusion a lifestyle?

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.

Only the most brazen of nuts has the balls to say it like that. The rest just say its a "lifestyle" disease, I have made this point about 3 times now. What's sad is that I think these people truly believe that God is punishing people with the AIDS disease and since they are christian they are immune.

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

Go on....

Actually, for the most part, it really is.

Well almost all diseases are the result of activities that one engages in. Teachers get more colds but thats a lifestyle choice they made and deserve to get more colds. Coal miners get black lung but who cares because they choose to go into the mine to support their family and they deserve it. Soldiers can suffer from PTSD but they choose to be soldiers so they had it coming. Right?

Or is it just that christians hate gay people and have for a long time tried to sell AIDS as gods punishment?

 

[eeyore1954]

Not all people who have AIDS got it from being gay.

No one gets AIDs from being gay.
But I believe a much smaller % get AIDs who have not engaged in the "high risk activities" than people who avoid the high risk factors for heart disease or cancer who still get those diseases.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well almost all diseases are the result of activities that one engages in.

If you want to call being alive an activity.

Coal miners get black lung but who cares because they choose to go into the mine to support their family and they deserve it.

"Deserve it"? Nobody here said anything about deserve. But potential coal miners SHOULD expect that coal mining increases their risk. And they should act accordingly: either don't take the job, or demand compensation (including benefits) commensurate with that risk. And the people asking coal miners to mine coal (ie, the mining company, NOT the taxpayer) should provide adequate compensation in return for those services if they expect anyone to accept that risk. Do you actually feel otherwise?

But what about having unprotected sex with multiple partners, or re-use IV drug needles? They're taking a risk, and when they lose that gamble, compensation for that risk is coming out of the pockets of people who didn't ask them to take that risk. There is a difference. Do you honestly not understand why anyone could be opposed to that arrangement other than them being evil?

Soldiers can suffer from PTSD but they choose to be soldiers so they had it coming. Right?

Again, no: they assume a risk on behalf of others who ask them to take a risk, and so compensation for that risk should rightly come from those who ask them to take that risk.

Or is it just that christians hate gay people and have for a long time tried to sell AIDS as gods punishment?

Or is it just that you hate christians and want to characterize all of them by the actions of the worst of them?

 

[johnny karate]

No one gets AIDs from being gay.

Tell that to Christine O'Donnell.

But I believe a much smaller % get AIDs who have not engaged in the "high risk activities" than people who avoid the high risk factors for heart disease or cancer who still get those diseases.

Where is the line drawn? What is highest percentage of people who get a disease from lifestyle choices that is acceptable? At what point do we as a society get to say "Okay, too many of you have this disease because of your own irresponsibility, and so we're going to limit the money we spend on research to help you"?

 

[Ziggurat]

At what point do we as a society get to say "Okay, too many of you have this disease because of your own irresponsibility, and so we're going to limit the money we spend on research to help you"?

We already say that about every lifestyle disease, and about every non-lifestyle disease as well. We have to, because resources are limited. As to the question of where to draw the line, well, my whole point is that having an opinion on the matter doesn't make you evil.

 

[Biscuit]

If you want to call being alive an activity.



"Deserve it"? Nobody here said anything about deserve. But potential coal miners SHOULD expect that coal mining increases their risk. And they should act accordingly: either don't take the job, or demand compensation (including benefits) commensurate with that risk. And the people asking coal miners to mine coal (ie, the mining company, NOT the taxpayer) should provide adequate compensation in return for those services if they expect anyone to accept that risk. Do you actually feel otherwise?

You can get AIDS from just one sexual encounter, just one rape, just one exposure. The miner, the teacher, and the soldier are not likely to be afflicted with just one day in the profession and never going back.

AIDS does not require a lifetime of bad choices, AIDS does not discriminate between homosexual and hetrosexual sex, AIDS doesn't know if the rape victim is a nun. You can argue that we spend to much on AIDS research but when your evidence is that its a "lifestyle" and not a disease you loose all credibility.

But what about having unprotected sex with multiple partners, or re-use IV drug needles? They're taking a risk, and when they lose that gamble, compensation for that risk is coming out of the pockets of people who didn't ask them to take that risk. There is a difference. Do you honestly not understand why anyone could be opposed to that arrangement other than them being evil?

We are asking if it is the christian thing to do. I say that casting out the leper, blaming the sick, and not caring about the afflicted is rather un-christ like behavior. Money? I am sure christ would have valued the fraction of a penny from his taxes over the AIDS victim.

Again, no: they assume a risk on behalf of others who ask them to take a risk, and so compensation for that risk should rightly come from those who ask them to take that risk.

I never asked anyone to take that risk for me and I disagree with the way our military is being used but I have no problem with soldiers receiving the best care possible.

Or is it just that you hate christians and want to characterize all of them by the actions of the worst of them?

Or is it that the actions of the worst of them, like O'Donnell, are so very un-christ like? More concerned with a fraction of a penny than the life of a another human and using some twisted morality to place a greater value on money than life.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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.

If homosexuality was a poor lifestyle choice, you might have a point. She hates homosexuals, the fact that she thinks she can cure homosexuals of "the gay" disease proves it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Just like you hate Christians.

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

I just hate their lifestyle choice.

 

[Ziggurat]

You can get AIDS from just one sexual encounter, just one rape, just one exposure. The miner, the teacher, and the soldier are not likely to be afflicted with just one day in the profession and never going back.

So what? It's still people choosing activities which carry risk.

IDS does not discriminate between homosexual and hetrosexual sex

It discriminates between vaginal and anal intercourse. The latter has a higher transmission probability than the former. And the transmission rate is also higher going from the penetrative partner to the receptive partner than the other way around. When those roles are reversible, total transmission rates are higher than when those roles are not reversible.

So you're wrong: AIDS does discriminate.

You can argue that we spend to much on AIDS research but when your evidence is that its a "lifestyle" and not a disease you loose all credibility.

When you create strawmen, you lose all credibility. O'Donnell never said AIDS was a lifestyle and not a disease. In fact, here's a direct quote, from the OP's source:
"However, our approach to AIDS, when you're in a high risk behavior, is to eliminate the consequences so that you can continue in your lifestyle which brings about this disease".
She's saying explicitly that AIDS is a disease, and her use of "lifestyle" is in reference to behavior (such as sex with multiple partners) which creates high risk of infection. Now, you may not agree with this statement regarding our approach to AIDS, but it rather clearly DOES NOT mean what you are claiming it means. And is she right about lifestyle? Well, also from that source, we have this:
"She said that individuals could bring their chance of getting AIDS down to almost zero if they didn't have sex outside of marriage, by having a monogamous marriage and by not using drugs that can spread HIV."
You may not find that an adequate public policy, but the statement itself is correct.

We are asking if it is the christian thing to do.

You might just be "asking" (well, no, you're not asking, you're telling us it's not), but the OP actually called her evil.

I never asked anyone to take that risk for me

But we, collectively as a nation, have, through the democratic process.

and I disagree with the way our military is being used

And you have every right to voice that disagreement, and to try to change that through the democratic process. Just as O'Donnell was trying to do.

 

[johnny karate]

We already say that about every lifestyle disease, and about every non-lifestyle disease as well. We have to, because resources are limited. As to the question of where to draw the line, well, my whole point is that having an opinion on the matter doesn't make you evil.

No Ziggurat, we don't limit expenditures on cure research because the disease is a product of a lifestyle choice. It has never been suggested that research for lung cancer or coronary heart disease should be restricted because smokers or overweight people got it through irresponsible behavior.

And no, having an opinion on the matter doesn't necessarily make you evil.

But being a homophobic bigot might.