HIV / AIDS is a contagious disease which is dangerous to public health. It should not be treated as a civil rights issue. Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct. Criminal penalties should apply to those whose willful acts of omission or commission place members of the public at risk of contracting HIV / AIDS.
2007-02-17 19:34:06 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Health ➔ Diseases & Conditions ➔ STDs
I agree. And so does the state of Illinois.
2007-02-18 06:26:38 · answer #1 · answered by Aaliyah & Natalie's Mommy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1.) HIV/AIDS is a contagious disease which is dangerous to public health.
Definitely. If you have any questions about this, just simply look at it's affect in Africa.
2.) Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct.
Who defines perverted? I'm not sure perverted even equates to unsafe. If it is referring stop funding to lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans gender programs then it would be blatant discrimination. Services to these (sometimes significantly socio-economically disadvantaged) populations shouldn't be cut off because someone is close minded and uneducated and things homosexuality automatically equals AIDS. Furthermore, I don't think the US government sponsors programs that encourage promiscuity, anyway.
3.)Criminal penalties should apply to those whose willful acts of omission or commission place members of the public at risk of contracting HIV / AIDS.
I'm not a big fan of trying to protect people from themselves. If someone is having unprotected sex with someone else then they should ask the person what they're HIV status is. If the infected person doesn't know they are HIV-positive or no one asks then I think they should not be held responsible. If someone isn't responsible enough to ask then they should not be able to hold the other person responsible for their own negligence and irresponsibility. (If they really want to stay HIV-, then what are they doing practicing risky behavior in the first place?)
If a person who knows they are HIV+ is asked, lies, and proceeds to have unprotected sex with someone who is HIV-negative, then they should be criminally prosecuted.
2007-02-19 00:17:58 · answer #2 · answered by a j 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't agree with anything after the first sentence. No other spreadable disease is criminalized. I've heard people claim that people with HIV should be legally required to inform others of their HIV status. This isn't true for people with TB, which is much more easily spread. Sure, people with certain jobs have to be tested regularly, but they don't have to inform everyone they are around. This statement is fueled by bigotry and ignorance. It also seems to suggest (based on the wording) that this is a disease only spread amongst gay men. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but the phrasing of "perverted...sexual contact" seems to suggest this.
As for the comment that under no circumstances should the federal government subsidize the encouragement of such acts, I'm not sure what is being referred to. It was inaction of the Reagan administration that allowed this disease to spiral out of control. Currently the subsidies fund research, health care and basic needs (such as food and housing) as well as prevention programs. I'm not sure where that plays into encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct. Furthermore, I'm not sure that it's the government's place to decide what sexual conduct is "perverted or promiscuous."
2007-02-18 04:28:57 · answer #3 · answered by SDTerp 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Drop the word "perverted". There's a big risk associated with reassuring people that "normal" practices are less dangerous when in fact, they are just as dangerous. Promiscuity, however, is a no-brainer. Otherwise, I agree fully. People forget that syphilis was once an incurable, highly contagious and devastating disease that could cripple, blind, disfigure and destroy the mind. Only behavior held it under control until antibiotics were discovered. It was normal until relatively recently for a couple to get "blood tests" for a marriage license. This was not optional.
2007-02-18 03:53:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You better stop having unprotected sex then! Karma's a b-itch. People like you who make such ignorant statements about a disease they know nothing about, should get it. This coming from a 11 year veteran of HIV!
We are in big trouble when the government is in your private lives and bedrooms.
2007-02-18 11:15:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
As a nurse I believe that people should have to disclose if they have HIV/AIDS. As it sits right now people do not have to disclose that information because it is considered confidential information and is therefore private. If you have to tell your healthcare worker that you had a minor disease when you were little, you should have to tell them that you have AIDS
2007-02-18 03:49:18 · answer #6 · answered by frankie3919 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Strongly disagree. It is not true that AIDS is a result of promiscuity alone. Babies of affected mothers also get affected... so what is the baby's fault.
2007-02-18 04:07:11 · answer #7 · answered by ? 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with your first and last sentences. Everything else in the middle was a little too radical for me. Subsidizing perverted behavior? Please list examples as your word usage comes across too strong.
2007-02-18 03:39:11 · answer #8 · answered by zzzzzzzzz27 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it's way too general and looks like your planning to persecute homosexuals under the guise of them being at fault for AIDS which is denied by scientists.
2007-02-18 04:05:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am HIV positive and I agree with you
2007-02-18 07:54:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋