This is for my Sociology class, we are debating it. Should there be a cure for AIDS? Explain why or why not.

Question

Answers I have heard:
Yes-Saves Lives, Save populations such as in Africa, People can have unprotected sex without worrying

No-Population overpopulates the Earth, Those People with Aids get what they diserve for their unprotected sex and/or drugs, It would just incourage people to have more unprotected sex and/or use drugs.

NOT ALL OF THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE TRUE, THATS WHY ITS A HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE

PLEASE COME UP WITH SOME MORE IDEAS FOR ANY SIDE, IT IS GREATLY APPRECIATED.

Answer 1

there should be a cure

Answer 2

Yes there should be a cure for aids, for anyone that thinks it will keep our population down and people deserve getting aids because they had unprotected sex or drugs would be singing a different tune if their own child came down with aids... What about the babies that have aids because of blood loss or born to a woman with aids, does that baby deserve to die??? Aids is not a cure for over population! People are born everyday and people die everyday. Maybe if some of these people that have 10+ babies would think about what they are doing might keep down the population. In China a couple is only allowed to have 1 baby! I think that's unfair but how about this woman that's on TLC with 18 kids and wants more. So no I don't think aids is a cure for population. Protected sex will keep down our population... And anyone that truly believes that people deserve to get aids might want to rethink that because it might come back and bite them in the @$$ later...

Answer 3

I'd focus on the meaning of a "cure." That can mean anything from a total absence of symptoms (and inability to detect the HIV virus) for some period of time - perhaps a couple years - to a remission of symptoms (either all or the most eggregious).
My own take is that the focus for treatment should be on relief of the most eggregious symptoms so that victiims can leadd as nearly normal lives as possible.

The greater focus, however, should be on prevention - which means overcoming societal pressures to avoid information about or use of appropriate methods to control the spread of AIDS. We have had an unfortunate tendency, in this country and abroad, to "blame the victim" without addressing the underlying pressures that inhibit the implentation of effective preventive steps.

Answer 4

I would be on the no side of the argument for the sole idea that it is a moral issue however it isn't. Children born with AIDs did nothing immoral but will then have no reason whatsoever to be a moral person. Which in turn would and does increase the rate of immoral people having bareback sex and doing drugs and increasing the crime rate. In which case it should have a cure. As far as what that would do to the population. There is a cure for that too. Sterilazation to any female who has given birth to three healthy live children. And start killing all those losers on death row. You said they would die for that crime now kill them already.

Answer 5

Well, which side is your side.

If your side is no, then bring in that AIDS brings a sense of responsibility to the choices that can bring AIDS. Talk about how it's a consequence, and we aren't there to remove consequences.

If your side is yes, you can completely bring in the hemophilia AIDS epidemic of the 1980s. Whole group of people getting AIDS where it CLEARLY had nothing to do with their personal choices. We wouldn't want another mess like that, would we? (There's plenty of research on that...there's the posterboy of that whole thing, Ryan White, and then there was the whole hemophilia community).

Answer 6

Whoa this is deep, but let me try to explain this. Ok let's break this down. The first part: "Whiteness is nothing,..." is talking about the race White. However its not technically a race persay. If we had to simplify races down to black and white, then white would consist of people such as Jews, Italian, Irish, Greek, and so on, where as when we think of Black, it simply means African and African American. However, there is no such thing as a true White. We all have ancestors from various parts of the world. Therefore whiteness would include all ethnic groups where their skin is considered white not black. The second part of the quote: "...but an expression of race privilege." refers to the history of whites dominating power and structure. There are people who have and still believe that being white guarantees certain privileges in our society, instead of the notion "you earn what you work for". It has been demonstrated that in our past dating back as far as the history books will go, that the white people have had all the benefits that life will offer. As much as I hate to admit what our ancestors did and how they treated people based on their skin color, it is still a fact that whites had the privileges over blacks. Now combining the two parts simply means that Whiteness (used to describe all whose skin is white) means nothing since it is used to describe all types of ethnicities and its expression is assuming that all whites are entitled to more than any other race. I hope that made sense, I got confused there for a minute lol.

Answer 7

I can't see how anyone could ever say NO to a cure for AIDS. Not all AIDS victims are promiscuous, nor do all AIDS victims contract the virus through unsafe sex. So how could you justify letting innocent people suffer? Don't forget-- babies are born with the virus because their mothers have it. Should these children be condemned to death for something they had no part in?

Answer 8

Yes there should be. A newborn baby born to a mother that got AIDS from her philandering husband does not deserve to die. A young hemophiliac boy who needs a blood transfusion to live does not deserve AIDS. Any woman that is raped by a man with AIDS does not deserve to die. Or man raped by a woman.
Do you deserve to die for an error in judgement when you had unprotected sex? Or what if the condom breaks?
Does someone who has the disease of addiction and uses a needle deserve AIDS? There are plenty of other diseases they will get due to drug addiction.
In Africa, families are wiped out, mothers and fathers watch their babies and children die a miserable death as they are dying themselves.
NO ONE "DESERVES" AIDS!!!!

Answer 9

You are debating if there should be a cure for a disease? Are you serious? And there's a teacher in this class? Is the teacher as stupid as the students debating this subject?
What will you debate next? Should a person with a broken arm receive medical attention?

Answer 10

Yes we must discover a cure for this disease.
I do not tend to agree that all persons who got HIV/AIDS deserved it. how about those persons' sons and daughters who got their disease from their parents or those patients who got it due to negligence of hospitals' staff(i.e. syringe used to an infected person were again used to another person)
Sometimes we wrongly judged a person which is infected with these disease, much better if we first understand why that person got sick in the first place.
Lastly, what these sick people needs is symphaty and help.

Answer 11

well if there were a cure for HIV/ aids it would save masses of people infected.. not just in Africa, no one deserves to be infected of HIV for having unprotected sex.. that's like saying people who get skin cancer deserve it for not going outside with sun block on. Many choose to live their lives differently and shouldn't be burned on a cross. also if there was a cure for HIV'/ aids the government wold lose allot of money