Drug milkshake still no match for abstinence

[PeachMonkey]

It seems that our FDA, AMA, the pharmacutical kings among others ("they") want people to be taking the easy way out and do DRUGS DRUGS DRUGS (the irony of it doesn't escape you does it??) instead of teaching abstinence (whose who already have HIV/AIDS) which would eliminate the chances of HIV/AIDS from spreading... at least in theory.

Can you point out a single instance where the FDA, AMA, or pharmaceuticals suggest NOT avoiding HIV through sexual contact and instead relying on the drug cocktails? This suggestion is so asinine as to be beyond belief.

 

[shesulsa]

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’"

I have this on my fridge and bedside table and read it every day. Interesting, isn't it, that a bible scripture should be the mantra of the liberal left? Yet you won't see too many Democrats thumping the bible, just acting on it. Curious. Hmmmm.

Abstinence will always be hard to come by (no pun intended). And then there is always the issue of breastmilk being an HIV carrying body fluid. What next? Breastfeeding made illegal or a vast promotional by the babyfood and formula industries?

I still want to know why we insist upon keeping our children so ignorant on a national level about HIV infection. The materials presented to our children are clearly not frank enough, nor explicit enough.

All organisms either evolve or die out suddenly and quickly. For a long time, HIV did neither. It has now, apparently, made its choice.

 

[MisterMike]

Mister Mike in bold.

That particular strain of HIV has been found in one person out of hundreds of millions of infected people.

Axly, if the numbers are right and there are only 1 million HIV positives inthis country, it has been found in several people across several cities.

Wow. Now there is a reference we can rely on. "The Gospel According to Mel." If it happened to Jim Cavaziel, it MUST be true. We'll have to start listing that as a source on the thread dealing with the historicity of the Bible.

I find it amazing how you can cite the Gospels and then lambast progressives for their "moral crusade." You suggested RP700 read the Bible. Might I suggest you turn to Matthew, chapter 25?

Regards,

Steve

Sorry but I've yet to cite Gospels on this thread. It was other posters who immediately brought religion into this whole thing and of course, it had to be Christianity.

My point, or more accurately sheshula's point, was just that the very person you espouse as your savior believed in charity even for the "morally blameworthy", a far cry from "why should I have to pay out the nose"?

No, haven't wasted my money on "Passion of the Christ," nor spent the time to read the Bible cover to cover. I'll agree with MACaver on this point though: if you'd like to bring up my biblical expertise, or lack thereof, start a new thread.

Again, where did I espopuse this? Did you deduce this because I have taken up some threads in defense of the Christian right?

If you'd therefor like to take up my religion as a topic, come say it to my face. (not antagonistic, but I'd rather not discuss such things in public)

 

[JPR]

I have a question. One of the reservations some have to such programs as a needle exchange is that it does nothing to help a person change a destructive habit. It only makes the habit safer in some regard (in this issue the reduce risk of contracting HIV through a drity needle).

Supposing that you institute such a program, do you simply believe that X number of people are going to shoot up so accept it and make it as safe as possible? Or do you couple the needle exchange with something else to help disuade them from using?

Please don't read any bias or loading into these questions, I mean none.

JPR

 

[PeachMonkey]

Supposing that you institute such a program, do you simply believe that X number of people are going to shoot up so accept it and make it as safe as possible? Or do you couple the needle exchange with something else to help disuade them from using?

Ideally, you couple needle exchange programs with separate drug treatment programs to help people who want to break the cycle of addiction.

 

[PeachMonkey]

If I want to be charitable, I'll do it my way, in private, and not at the gun of the IRS dictating how much and how often. That's my only gripe.

This is where I always break with the libertarian position, which is, in essence, a cop-out. "Being good to people is nice and all, but social contracts aren't important -- we should choose whether or not we live in a world of crap."

 

[rmcrobertson]

In the first place, Mike, are we talking about "The Passion," that Gibson directed? Last I checked, that's kind of a Christian movie, and bringing it up would therefore be bringing uyp Christianity.

Second, the word, "abstinence," and the associated idea of, "abstinence-only," education--they're both specifically linked in this country to a) the Christian Right, b) conservative politics. You might want to check into the history of these words and the associated ideas--they appeared as part of a demand by Christian conservatives that sex education classes stop, "encouraging," sexual activity and promiscuity, and were made part of the school curriculum in this country. What's more, the same idea has been pushed world-wide, as the Bush governement has forbidden US-supported health program workers to so much as mention abortion and in some cases contraception.

In other words, "abstinence," has been loaded by right-wingers and fundamentalist Christians. This is, in my opinion, part of an ongoing suite of attacks on science (also visible in attacks on teaching biology and geology) and upon women's rights.

The fact remains that sensible sex and drug education programs--not the shrill propaganda kids get now, but programs that actually and matter-of-factly pass on accurate information as well as offer kids help on making decent choices--well, they work.

And so do needle exchange programs. It's just that we're so busy passing judgement, passing off demogogery as discussion (listen to ANY episode of Hannity or Savage, if you'd like to hear out-of-control, dimwit screeching and mean-spirited bullying passed off as, "discussion!"), and thumping the Bible, that we simply won't get real, let alone do what's right.

Nor is this going to change, with our current crop of fools, ideologues, spoiled rich boys, bullies, and greedy creeps. Far as I can see, when Colin Powell left, we lost the last one with a brain and some moral fiber.

 

[davidg553]

I have this on my fridge and bedside table and read it every day. Interesting, isn't it, that a bible scripture should be the mantra of the liberal left? Yet you won't see too many Democrats thumping the bible, just acting on it. Curious. Hmmmm.

This made me laugh. Just to be upfront, I'm too lazy to bother looking up references or citing sources so don't bother asking me to or lambasting me for not "proving" my words.

The only real problem that the liberal left has is that they are trying to "act" on it via the government and forced redistribution. I thought the New Testament in large part was concerned with the actions of individuals not governments. I'd be much more impressed if they were trying to "act" on it using their own dollars. The comparisions between how much "liberals" and how much "conservatives" give to charity is quite interesting. IIRC the amount given by President Bush compared to his two presidential opponents combined is also quite interesting

 

[MisterMike]

In the first place, Mike, are we talking about "The Passion," that Gibson directed? Last I checked, that's kind of a Christian movie, and bringing it up would therefore be bringing uyp Christianity.

Second, the word, "abstinence," and the associated idea of, "abstinence-only," education--they're both specifically linked in this country to a) the Christian Right, b) conservative politics. You might want to check into the history of these words and the associated ideas--they appeared as part of a demand by Christian conservatives that sex education classes stop, "encouraging," sexual activity and promiscuity, and were made part of the school curriculum in this country. What's more, the same idea has been pushed world-wide, as the Bush governement has forbidden US-supported health program workers to so much as mention abortion and in some cases contraception.

In other words, "abstinence," has been loaded by right-wingers and fundamentalist Christians. This is, in my opinion, part of an ongoing suite of attacks on science (also visible in attacks on teaching biology and geology) and upon women's rights.

Well Robert, bringing up Christianity, if we're going to follow a chronological order, was brought up by either you or someone else around post 3. My mentioning it afterwards does not constitute bringing it up.

Secondly, I seem to recall Janet Reno telling kids it's better to go flog the dolphin thne have unsafe sex. Doesn't sound like something I heard from the conservative Christian right wingers you rant about destroying this country's freedoms and enslaving women.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Again, where did I espopuse this? Did you deduce this because I have taken up some threads in defense of the Christian right?

If you'd therefor like to take up my religion as a topic, come say it to my face. (not antagonistic, but I'd rather not discuss such things in public)

I'm talking about the following, posted by you earlier in response to rmcrobertson:

"3. Being religous doesn't mean giving through your nose so someone else can have the pleasures of hookers, bath houses and heroine."

As for bringing up each other's religions, I just don't see how whether I've watched "Passion..." is relevent. The thread's about AIDS prevention, social policy, and awareness, not whether board members have watched some 3-hour fundamentalist propaganda flick.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, Mike, I'd thought that you were in fact writing from a conservative and fundamentalst position. If I was wrong, my apologies.

Second--and as I noted--the word, "abstinence," is itself entwined with right-wing and fundamentalist thought. The only reason we use the word in debating these issues, in fact, is that--for good or ill--Christian conservatives pushed it. And so has the Bush administration. It's code for their claim that "liberals," have corrupted kids and our schools, in fact--obvious nonsense, but that's the screeching claim.

As for needle exachange programs, the well-documented fact of the matter is this: they work. They cut HIV and Hep 3 rates, they cut down drug-related crime, etc. And, they save everybody money. Sorry about reality.

Incidentally, Janet Reno was Att'y General. You're thinking of Jocelyn Elders, who was Surgeon General under Clinton. And she was talking about masturbation. talking about masturbation.

 

[shesulsa]

I thought the New Testament in large part was concerned with the actions of individuals not governments. I'd be much more impressed if they were trying to "act" on it using their own dollars.

Our government is made up largely of representatives of the people - individuals who have been given license of voice. The people are supposed to be represented by their government.

And those government dollars ARE our dollars. They're called taxes.

 

[PeachMonkey]

And those government dollars ARE our dollars. They're called taxes.

Welcome to the world of conservative doublespeak, shesulsa.

Government money is our money when it's being "pickpocketed by the man", to prove how evil liberals want to spend everyone else's money on their precious social experiments.

Government money isn't our money when it's used as a cudgel in some poorly-backed point about how much more "generous" conservatives are than liberals.

 

[shesulsa]

Welcome to the world of conservative doublespeak, shesulsa.

Government money is our money when it's being "pickpocketed by the man", to prove how evil liberals want to spend everyone else's money on their precious social experiments.

Government money isn't our money when it's used as a cudgel in some poorly-backed point about how much more "generous" conservatives are than liberals.

Ah yes. why should the average middle-aged white collar white male have to pay his hard-earned dollar to government programs he wouldn't dream of supporting - but when people of another opinion wouldn't put their money to the cause of war, it's too bad because it's not their money to spend.

One can call it whatever one wishes. But facts are facts - it's still the people's money.

And anyone of any spritual persuasion who doesn't think we are under a moral obligation as spiritual persons to be our brothers' keepers is a member of a misplaced religion IMHO.

Back on topic - question: how does one teach abstinence if one refuses to teach what one is supposed to abstain from?

 

[MisterMike]

I'm talking about the following, posted by you earlier in response to rmcrobertson:

"3. Being religous doesn't mean giving through your nose so someone else can have the pleasures of hookers, bath houses and heroine."

As for bringing up each other's religions, I just don't see how whether I've watched "Passion..." is relevent. The thread's about AIDS prevention, social policy, and awareness, not whether board members have watched some 3-hour fundamentalist propaganda flick.

It's because I didn't catch your "joke" and thought that if you had actually read the Bible or watched the Passion, you would see that there was a lot more bleeding than from hands and feet. You don't have to be Christian to read or watch either of them. I've read books on Budhism. So it was not to bring up your own religious viewpoint. But if you were going to talk on the issue, I assumed that you might be a little well-read in the matter. Call it what you like.

 

[MisterMike]

The only real problem that the liberal left has is that they are trying to "act" on it via the government and forced redistribution. I thought the New Testament in large part was concerned with the actions of individuals not governments. I'd be much more impressed if they were trying to "act" on it using their own dollars. The comparisions between how much "liberals" and how much "conservatives" give to charity is quite interesting. IIRC the amount given by President Bush compared to his two presidential opponents combined is also quite interesting

Yea, it's nice to tell others to be charitable just because you are too.

You know, I'm so far from Boston I really don't want to have to give money for needles, abortions, welfare, Big Digs (no that's not some kind of abortion but itlooks like it)or whatever else they think is good for Boston.

Time for a little more local control.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Local control? The spread of HIV isn't a local problem, it's quite national. People move from state to state, people go on vacations, HIV stays dormant for quite a few years after reception. How are any of these better dealt with on a local level rather than nationally?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Skipping over all that Biblical jazz about one's duty to one's fellow human beings, there is the minor fact that when you are born into a society, you are born into a social contract from which you profit in innumerable ways. Despite the extent to which right-wing political correctness says that you and only you count, you actually took advantage--and you still do--of the labor of a helluva lot of people. Or do you not have water, sewer, electricity, roads, medical care, etc.?

In other words, you're part of society whether you like it or not. And as was mentioned, sometimes that means helping to pay for things and projects that no one person could possibly afford. Some of us have to help pay for manifest stupidities like the useless B-2 bomber (or, sorry, looks great at parades and airshows...and only 2 billion a copy!)--and some of us are asked to help pay for schools.

Then, there's the minor fact that things like needle exchange programs work. They save society, and the government money in all sorts of ways. They are cheaper. They help cut crime and illness. How many ways are there to say it?

Folks who are stuck in rightist political correctness don't seem to want to face it: sex ed, support for the addicted, WORKS. It's cheaper. It helps cut crime.

Sorry; some of us just prefer reality.

 

[heretic888]

The only real problem that the liberal left has is that they are trying to "act" on it via the government and forced redistribution. I thought the New Testament in large part was concerned with the actions of individuals not governments.

Actually, at face value, the "New Testament" advocates a type of theologically-based communal socialism we see earlier from the likes of Pythagoras and Plato. Its very much anti-Judaic in orientation, and reflects the prevalent philosophy of the educated at the time.

It also advocates paying one's taxes ("give unto Caesar what is his") without question or resentment.

Just sayin'.

 

[modarnis]

>>Folks who are stuck in rightist political correctness don't seem to want to face it: sex ed, support for the addicted, WORKS. It's cheaper. It helps cut crime.

Sorry; some of us just prefer reality.>>

Well as someone who works in the criminal justice system you could have fooled me. But who cares about the minor externalities like an elderly victim bilked out of $20,000 by someone supporting their habit, or the inconvenience of coming home after a hard day at work to a burglarized home where your heirloom jewels were stolen and fenced for $30. There are plenty of people I would characterize as working poor who are victims of crime, who live paycheck to paycheck, often without renters insurance or health insurance who eat a great deal of the costs of crime. Add those figures in to the supposed savings of treatment programs and jail will seem like a bargain

Despite the litany of programs available here in Connecticut as alternatives to incarceration that include long term 12-18 month residential addiction programs, sober houses, and adult risk reduction programs, there is greater than 65% recidivism rate, which usually includes escalating criminal activities like Robbery and Burglary to support habits. Needle exchanges may impact HIV transmission rates, but I highly doubt they would affect crime unless they included free narcotics with those needles.

Funny thing about jail, it allows people to detox and it keeps people from stealing to support their habits. They get cleaned up, and other citizen's life and property is protected.