The wonders of science.

[dragonranpu]

I would have to agree with Supersmoke on that one.

[Ankaris]

Ah, but define too much sex.<br><br>If for instance, someone without previous sexual relations (person A) has sex with someone who<br><br>a) has HIV (but doesn't know it) and<br>B) has had multiple partners and not told them just how many,<br><br>then contracts HIV themselves, would you allow person A to have the vaccine / treatment?

[Ozymandias]

<!--QuoteBegin-Supersmoke+Dec 6 2004, 02:20 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Supersmoke @ Dec 6 2004, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> But I considered factors such as the mentality Mtv creates.<br>"Have sex! Sex is Good! Do drugs! This is girl is sexy, thus girls that look like her are the girls you want to have sex with!"<br><br>If people get the idea in their head that they can get vaccinated for HIV or AIDS or STDs, they'll get the idea in their heads that they can go around doing whoever they want as much as they want, without worry or care.<br>STDs and the like are nature's way of saying "don't be a whore," or "don't reproduce so much." By taking away these things, humans are just setting up the world for overpopulation.<br><br>I admit, there's people in the world who get AIDS and HIV unfairly. But if people get it from too much sex, then let those people die, and give treatment to those who deserve it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> The mentality issue is one of a social environment - there are lots of sources telling us lots of different things - for instance, MTv saying that sex is good, and I'm sure someone here must have a school that teaches "no sex before marriage". In the end, both things are legal, so the choice is ultimately up to the person.<br><br>I would much faster liken an STI to a common cold virus or, say, scurvy - take clamidia: that's just an inbalance of various things inside the body: nothing to do with having too much sex.<br><br>There is also the fact that a condom is a contraceptive. As well as protecting against all sorts of STIs, they are also good at stopping people having kids. So, if you want to have sex with your partner, but don't want a kid, chances are that you'll go get a condom.<br><br>And why not have an active sex life? OK, there's the moral issue of being faithful, but when you bring it back down to nature, there is nothing to stop us from doing what we like. Isn't that the point of a democracy?<br><br>I believe treatment should be available to anyone; if an 8-year-old kid ran into the road to get a ball, and in the process got run over, I can't imagine anyone saying:<br>"No, don't call an ambulance - it was his own stupid fault. Let him bleed to death."<br>This is to say, everyone deserves treatment.

[Supersmoke]

<!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Ah, but define too much sex.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>More than three times a week seems fair.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> If for instance, someone without previous sexual relations (person A) has sex with someone who<br><br>a) has HIV (but doesn't know it) and<br> has had multiple partners and not told them just how many,<br><br>then contracts HIV themselves, would you allow person A to have the vaccine / treatment? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>See previous post to yours:<br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I admit, there's people in the world who get AIDS and HIV unfairly. But if people get it from too much sex, then let those people die, and give treatment to those who deserve it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Person A would possibly fall under the category for "those who deserve the vaccine."<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> The mentality issue is one of a social environment - there are lots of sources telling us lots of different things - for instance, MTv saying that sex is good, and I'm sure someone here must have a school that teaches "no sex before marriage". In the end, both things are legal, so the choice is ultimately up to the person.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>You're exactly right. It IS that person's choice. But he/she COULD decide to follow Mtv's example, which is more the lower path than the higher. I'm pretty sure it's been proven that teens today prefer the media over what their teachers say.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I would much faster liken an STI to a common cold virus or, say, scurvy - take clamidia: that's just an inbalance of various things inside the body: nothing to do with having too much sex.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>But consider how these are transmitted, rather than their symptoms. Clymidia is transmitted through sex. Common colds and viruses can POSSIBLY be transmitted through even small contact between two people. Are you sure having too much sex has nothing to do with it?<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> There is also the fact that a condom is a contraceptive. As well as protecting against all sorts of STIs, they are also good at stopping people having kids. So, if you want to have sex with your partner, but don't want a kid, chances are that you'll go get a condom.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>But if people are getting vaccinations, and there's people who are more worried about not getting STDs rather than pregnancy, condom use will eventually drop. And condoms don't stop ALL STDs. Keep that in mind.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> And why not have an active sex life? OK, there's the moral issue of being faithful, but when you bring it back down to nature, there is nothing to stop us from doing what we like. Isn't that the point of a democracy?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Sure people can choose to, but think of it this way. Someone has been having a sexual relationship with your mother, behind your and your father's back. It's an active sex life, because (just saying this PLEASE don't take offense) the sexual activity between your parents had died. Is it natural? Yes. Is it morally right? No. Does democracy allow adultery? Yes. This is one reason why sex rules over our lives.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I believe treatment should be available to anyone; if an 8-year-old kid ran into the road to get a ball, and in the process got run over, I can't imagine anyone saying:<br>"No, don't call an ambulance - it was his own stupid fault. Let him bleed to death."<br>This is to say, everyone deserves treatment. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Bad example. An 8 year old would not know any better. But an older person would. Which should be the case with sex. People should not be having too much of it. It may be my opinion, but I think it's good to think about.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>Here's the bottom line.<br><br>Some of you have overlooked one point. It's a vaccine. (I may have done so, too.)<br>We're talking about a VACCINE. What is a vaccine? It is usually something that <b>PREVENTS</b> a virus or a disease. I'm saying that if people get this shot whether it be for AIDS, HIV, or any STD, they WILL get the idea in their heads that they can go around having careless sex. Why? Because they have been, hopefully, protected against getting any kind of disease transmitted through sex. They THINK they are invicible to such things, thus their MENTALITY is such. If these vaccines are made and allowed to used on the public, I fear for the future. In my own personal opinion, I say instead of a vaccine, there should be an antibiotic. Although it would still give people the same said mentality, I think it would be a much better decision.

[Henohenomoheji]

I think this was the topic of last night's South Park... but I kinda walked in at the midpoint of the story... it was kinda weird...<br><br><br>...personally, I think planet Earth is overpopulated enough already...

[Tavis]

I might as well put in a couple notes on this topic of my own...<br><br>I feel that as far as general health is concerned, an HIV vaccine will be beneficial for the many places in the world in which it has become an epidemic. Simply because there is the potential for abuse and the possibility that there are people we feel might not deserve this treatment does not mean it should not be used at all. Sex from multiple partners is not the only way AIDs is transmitted, although it is the most common form. It also occurs in blood transfusions and the use of contaminated syringes.<br><br>Prevention is the best medicine, but of course if everyone stopped reproducing, the population will die along with that generation. Monogamous relationships have a purpose in survival, as does the traditional view of one man and one woman being mated for life. If one did have a sexually-transmitted disease without knowing it, only one other person could potentially be infected, and the disease would be contained. However, one person within a sexually active population could potentially infect several people and become a serious epidemic. This model of course does not take into account other vectors for the transfer of HIV.<br><br>I am not going to judge people. That is not my place. And it is not my place to decide who deserves treatment. Such things will more likely be left in some form of triage or test system until those medications can become more widely available and more reliable. A good example would be a trauma ward, where medical miracles happen all the time, and people are brought virtually from the brink of death after getting shot repeatedly, consuming a dangerous and toxic substance, or just plain doing something completely reckless. When someone is in the emergency room, doctors cannot afford to waste time deciding that a person's life is not worth saving just because he or she may be a drug dealer, a bigamist, or a rapist.<br><br>The knowledge gleaned from producing a working vaccine for HIV will help aid the study of preventing other diseases in general, especially in retroviruses. Anything that can help ensure the good health of our world population is welcome.

[Supersmoke]

BTW, I was only talking about the United States.

[Tavis]

Even if one were only to consider the United States, the need to preserve life would still be of importance. What would you say if a convicted murderer/rapist needed treatment from AIDS, and a cure was available? This can be a controversial subject based on the value of life, poetic justice, concerns about wasting a scarce resource (i.e. curing a death-row inmate from a fatal disease instead of treating another patient elsewhere), offering humane treatment, and so on. If treatment was denied, due process may fail to be delivered in some cases, and in others victims may feel that a criminal might be let off a penalty such as a death or life sentence too easily.<br><br>Then there is the question of whether an appeal proved a convicted person's innocence later on. Should this change anything?

[Henohenomoheji]

OOOH! OOOH! I sense a good/evil debate coming up!

[dragonranpu]

Good and evil has nothing to do with it. All life deserves a chance. If a vaccine is available then it should be available for everyone and not only a select few who are deemed as worth of it. <br>Plus Nature in its ultimate wisdom will find another way of dealing with population control anyhow and another new virus will show up sooner or later. IF you look at it this way nature will deal with the people who it deems as not worthy. We not being gods do not have the right to judge. That is natures job.<br>

[Henohenomoheji]

Humanity vs. Nature.<br><br>...I think humanity is winning, but if Nature goes she takes us with her. <br><br>and my point was I sensed a debate. Debates don't have to relate to the topic, just like this one. <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Supersmoke]

<!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Even if one were only to consider the United States, the need to preserve life would still be of importance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>I don't want to sound like a donkey, but IMO only US citizens feel that way.<br>Several other countries want the U.S. to die. Not necessarily the American people, but the American people that run the country.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> The knowledge gleaned from producing a working vaccine for HIV will help aid the study of preventing other diseases in general, especially in retroviruses. Anything that can help ensure the good health of our world population is welcome.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>The only thing I'm worried about is that people will take advantage of that. If scientists go about creating vaccines or cures for every disease harmful to man, the future is gonna be terrible. Diseases and viruses are part of nature. Their main reason for existence is to be parasites and kill their hosts. It keeps certain species from becoming overly populated. If everyone in the future is protected, people will only die of old age, and from being killed. One instinct of humans that other animals do not have is the instinct to preserve their species. IMO, I think it's stupid. We should just go along with nature and stop trying to do such a pointless thing. If someone gets a terminal disease, people are gonna get all emotional and whatever. If an animal gets a terminal disease, others of their kind won't give a hoot. Sorry if it sounds so pessimistic, but I honestly think the human race has corrupted itself into thinking that humans are the uber-important beings of the universe.<br>Diseases and viruses are part of nature. And messing with nature ain't that smart a thing to do.<br><br>[EDIT]<br>Bah, I just read your quote again.<br>Did you know that the biggest root of the tree of knowledge is the root called "corruptness?"<br>Think about that one.

[ShadOtterdan]

I bet you won't have the same attitude when you are the one with the life threatening disease.

[Supersmoke]

I bet I would.<br>I do not fear death.

[Gizensha]

<!--QuoteBegin-Supersmoke+Dec 8 2004, 02:21 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Supersmoke @ Dec 8 2004, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> One instinct of humans that other animals do not have is the instinct to preserve their species. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> I was rather under the impression that the survival instinct all animals have was partially towards the individual, and partially towards the species...<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Supersmoke+--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Supersmoke)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I bet I would.<br>I do not fear death.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>I'd like to say I'm in the same boat, but that would be a partial truth. I don't fear my death, I do, somewhat, fear the death of those close to me. I also fear the effect my death might have on those close to me. But... I don't fear death itself.