If a Cure for AIDS was Invented...

[Rebdragon]

Denying people medical care with the intent to kill them because their number is increasing is essentially the same as genocide.

 

Someone doesn't know the difference between a sin of omission and a mortal sin.

 

 

 

BACK TO CHURCH.

 

 

 

[Medical care is never denied with the intent to kill... in fact, if a patient in dire need shows up at a hospital, by law the hospital can't turn them away. So... where are you going with this?]

[brunokiller]

Denying people medical care with the intent to kill them because their number is increasing is essentially the same as genocide.

 

Someone doesn't know the difference between a sin of omission and a mortal sin.

 

 

 

BACK TO CHURCH.

 

 

 

[Medical care is never denied with the intent to kill... in fact, if a patient in dire need shows up at a hospital, by law the hospital can't turn them away. So... where are you going with this?]

 

 

 

 

 

I am going at:

 

While I'm sure all of us here would love to save millions of people with a cure, it has effects other than so. Most of the virus is in third world countries, who have enough trouble feeding, housing, and supporting its own people. "Saving" 20 million people will only worsen this, causing even more suffering, loss of jobs, housing space, and competition for resources and food.

 

 

 

 

 

But let's drop the genocide discussion and go back to the topic.

[Rebdragon]

I don't see a counterpoint in there; I don't see why she's wrong. You're picking an odd time to stop talking and try and go back on topic, considering we already are on topic.

[brunokiller]

I don't see a counterpoint in there; I don't see why she's wrong. You're picking an odd time to stop talking and try and go back on topic, considering we already are on topic.

 

 

 

Go ahead and explain.

[Rebdragon]

What the... no, I'm saying I'm confused about what you're saying. How in God's name can I explain something that I, by the very definition of the adjective "confused", do not understand.

 

 

 

I already explained my point- a sin of omission is not the same as a mortal sin. Equating the two, i.e. calling not saving everyone on the planet "genocide", is [developmentally delayed]ed. If you don't know what they mean, look them up; that's not a problem of me not being clear, but of you not understanding.

[Laura]

Denying people medical care with the intent to kill them because their number is increasing is essentially the same as genocide.

 

Someone doesn't know the difference between a sin of omission and a mortal sin.

 

 

 

BACK TO CHURCH.

 

 

 

[Medical care is never denied with the intent to kill... in fact, if a patient in dire need shows up at a hospital, by law the hospital can't turn them away. So... where are you going with this?]

 

 

 

 

 

I am going at:

 

While I'm sure all of us here would love to save millions of people with a cure, it has effects other than so. Most of the virus is in third world countries, who have enough trouble feeding, housing, and supporting its own people. "Saving" 20 million people will only worsen this, causing even more suffering, loss of jobs, housing space, and competition for resources and food.

 

 

 

 

 

But let's drop the genocide discussion and go back to the topic.

 

Back to my point, where is the food to feed these 15 million people coming from? I don't think you can say that they'll make it themselves. People in Africa are already having a hard time feeding themselves at the time being. And I'm sure you know as well as I do that Africa has one of the highest doubling rates in the world, if not the highest. Why should we, without meaning too, encourage sex?

 

 

 

Giving them a cure will only have short-term benefits. Long-term, they'd starve to death

[brunokiller]

What the... no, I'm saying I'm confused about what you're saying. How in God's name can I explain something that I, by the very definition of the adjective "confused", do not understand.

 

 

 

I already explained my point- a sin of omission is not the same as a mortal sin. Equating the two, i.e. calling not saving everyone on the planet "genocide", is [developmentally delayed]. If you don't know what they mean, look them up; that's not a problem of me not being clear, but of you not understanding.

 

 

 

[hide=Wikipedia]Omission is, in Catholic teaching, the failure to do something one can and ought to do. If this happens advertently and freely a sin is committed. The degree of guilt incurred by an omission is measured like that attaching to sins of commission, by the dignity of the virtue and the magnitude of the precept to which the omission is opposed as well as the amount of deliberation.

 

 

 

 

 

In Roman Catholic moral theology, a mortal sin, as distinct from a venial sin, must meet all of the following conditions:

 

1. its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter;

 

2. it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (though nobody is deemed to be ignorant of the moral law, embedded into the consciences of every human being);

 

3. it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.[/hide]

 

 

 

I don't really understand the first one(author is a bit vague), but she is still saying that no aids cure -> millions of people dying > Aids cure saving millions of people. (No offence Laura)

 

 

 

And since you are talking about churches, since when does the church like that?

 

 

 

 

 

Back to my point, where is the food to feed these 15 million people coming from? I don't think you can say that they'll make it themselves. People in Africa are already having a hard time feeding themselves at the time being. And I'm sure you know as well as I do that Africa has one of the highest doubling rates in the world, if not the highest. Why should we, without meaning too, encourage sex?

 

 

 

Giving them a cure will only have short-term benefits. Long-term, they'd starve to death

 

Ignoring the point that most poor Africans(usually those with aids) most likely will not be able to afford said medicines,

 

 

 

Them starving from death is something completely different than dying from aids.

 

Not everyone with aids 'is gonna die of hunger' and viceversa.

 

 

 

Improved agriculture techniques and genetically modified plants can increase the food production too. A lot of the farming is still in the state it was like in the Middle Ages.

[Laura]

What the... no, I'm saying I'm confused about what you're saying. How in God's name can I explain something that I, by the very definition of the adjective "confused", do not understand.

 

 

 

I already explained my point- a sin of omission is not the same as a mortal sin. Equating the two, i.e. calling not saving everyone on the planet "genocide", is [developmentally delayed]. If you don't know what they mean, look them up; that's not a problem of me not being clear, but of you not understanding.

 

 

 

[hide=Wikipedia]Omission is, in Catholic teaching, the failure to do something one can and ought to do. If this happens advertently and freely a sin is committed. The degree of guilt incurred by an omission is measured like that attaching to sins of commission, by the dignity of the virtue and the magnitude of the precept to which the omission is opposed as well as the amount of deliberation.

 

 

 

 

 

In Roman Catholic moral theology, a mortal sin, as distinct from a venial sin, must meet all of the following conditions:

 

1. its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter;

 

2. it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (though nobody is deemed to be ignorant of the moral law, embedded into the consciences of every human being);

 

3. it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.[/hide]

 

 

 

I don't really understand the first one(author is a bit vague), but she is still saying that no aids cure -> millions of people dying > Aids cure saving millions of people. (No offence Laura)

 

 

 

And since you are talking about churches, since when does the church like that?

 

Ok, let's say that the country of Africa is now an island with 20 deer. Many deer are killed after 10 years due to a parasite. Now, let's say researchers wanted to save these deer, so they rid all the deer of parasites, and make the deer resistant to them. Now the deer's life expectancy has doubled, allowing a life span of twenty years averaged. Now, initially, the deer population will experience exponential growth, that is, growing rapidly without limiting factors. But since this is an island, food is limited, and because of the rocket in deer population they over graze, and have little food left, and in turn, the population drops. Either way, with or without the parasite, the deer would have died. But, with the cure the deer had to compete with each other, and in the human world would mean violence, over turning governments, etc. Is that better?

 

 

 

And, if turning down patients is a sin, you'd love hospitals. I worked as an intern under a neurosurgeon. Nine out of every ten patients (just an estimate, but I suppose you get my point) were denied treatment.

[brunokiller]

Deer and people are two very different subjects.

 

 

 

You can't go toying around with people like you would with deer, can you?

 

 

 

 

 

But, with the cure the deer had to compete with each other, and in the human world would mean violence, over turning the goverment.

 

 

 

Denying them an aids medicine wouldnt?

[Laura]

Deer and people are two very different subjects.

 

 

 

You can't go toying around with people like you would with deer, can you?

 

 

 

 

 

But, with the cure the deer had to compete with each other, and in the human world would mean violence, over turning the goverment.

 

 

 

Denying them an aids medicine wouldnt?

 

It's the same result, exponential growth, mass competition and disease.

 

 

 

And no, it wouldn't, no against the African government, as I doubt they'll be the ones making the cure.

 

 

 

How could they afford it anyways? We should hand it out for free? The United States is trillions of dollars in debt. So is China, and many other countries to add to that. Again, if we can't support ourselves, how can we possibly support others?

 

 

 

HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is currently a pandemic, with infection rates as high as 25% in southern and eastern Africa.

 

Yeah, I don't think that's feasible.

[brunokiller]

How could they afford it anyways? We should hand it out for free? The United States is trillions of dollars in debt. So is China, and many other countries to add to that. Again, if we can't support ourselves, how can we possibly support others?

 

 

 

Charity.

 

 

 

In 2007, an estimated 33.2 million people lived with the disease worldwide, and it killed an estimated 2.1 million people, including 330,000 children.

 

 

 

Source: wikipedia.com

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS

 

 

 

Say the aids cure costs $300 per person(assuming the person who invents in doesn't want to make too much money with it).

 

 

 

33.3 million*300=100 billion. That is indeed a lot of money. Say we finance it in a period of 10 years, then that is 10 billion a year. It can be done( but I'm aware that it is a buttload of money, lol).

[Laura]

By then, even more people would have the infection, and the population would increase. Charity would help, but 100 billion dollars or more? Even then, something like Gardasil costs:

 

Complete effectiveness requires three doses of vaccine. Our local chapter of Planned Parenthood charges approximately $180 for the first dose and $165 for the second and third doses. That brings the total to $510. Our local average across different types of provider is: $500 +/- $50.

 

I can imagine the HIV/AIDS vaccine to cost much, much more. And, even if charity was made to "help" people in Africa, they would indeed be doing the exact opposite. There is no child support in most cases, in Africa. There are few consequences of sex, other than STD's. If we take that away, not only could women be raped more frequently (in many cases, it's a daily event), the populations would soar over the years, leading to mass starvation. There are to many variables to consider before handing out cures like that to 3rd world countries who haven't developed a fully capable legal system or means of supporting its people to full extent.

 

 

 

Rape statistics from South Africa are so shocking as to be almost unbelievable - women's rights activists say one South African is raped every 26 seconds.

 

 

 

Oh yes, and then there could be resistant strains of HIV/AIDS, which would keep us on the search for another cure.

[brunokiller]

I can imagine the HIV/AIDS vaccine to cost much, much more.

 

 

 

10 million people that cannot work due to their HIV and the medical treatments they need aren't free either.

 

There are few consequences of sex, other than STD's. If we take that away, not only could women be raped more frequently (in many cases, it's a daily event), the populations would soar over the years, leading to mass starvation. There are to many variables to consider before handing out cures like that to 3rd world countries who haven't developed a fully capable legal system or means of supporting its people to full extent.

 

I could say the very same about America.

 

I quote:

 

 

 

Nine out of every ten patients (just an estimate, but I suppose you get my point) were denied treatment.

Very capable system :?

 

 

 

Rape statistics from South Africa are so shocking as to be almost unbelievable - women's rights activists say one South African is raped every 26 seconds.

 

 

 

How does the 'Aids cure -> more women raped' mechanism work? I don't think rapists care about the diseases they pass on to those women.

 

 

 

Oh yes, and then there could be resistant strains of HIV/AIDS, which would keep us on the search for another cure.

 

 

 

The tbc medicine does not create resistant viruses if used correctly. I think we should keep that argument for when a cure is actually found and we know how it works.

 

 

 

You also have not once mentioned the ethical aspect of this issue #-o.

 

 

 

But it's 1 am so I figure it'd be the best to sleep.

[Ginger_Warrior]

How could they afford it anyways? We should hand it out for free? The United States is trillions of dollars in debt. So is China, and many other countries to add to that. Again, if we can't support ourselves, how can we possibly support others?

 

Going back to the argument about capitalism, you're treading a fine line there. The reason so many of the developed nations are in debt is because we're finding out there isn't enough capital in the world for global capitalism to sustain itself.

[warri0r45]

Did anyone else besides me read this?

 

 

 

Cure for Aids?

 

 

 

They haven't done extensive testing, but it's something I guess?

 

 

 

Yeah, I saw it on the news yesterday. It's pretty interesting, but obviously it's far off being a realistic treatment.

 

 

 

I'd say it's too much of an effort to try and eradicate 33 million cases of the disease if only around 1 in 1000 people have the bone marrow necessary to cure someone. I suppose they'll take it down the gene therapy route instead.

 

 

 

I'd be all for such a cure for HIV, but as some other people have suggested, it's a bit of a dire scenario where you cure people of the virus only to have them starve to death. My (rather simplistic) suggestion to overcome this would be to educate everyone in poverty-stricken areas about contraception.

[Laura]

10 million people that cannot work due to their HIV and the medical treatments they need aren't free either.

 

Exactly. They still need resources, but they're finite, as they only live so long. Now imagine if we had them live longer. While I'm not saying it's bad that they're living, I'm just saying the world as a whole won't and can't continue to sustain itself the way it's growing is. You can't say that mankind will not hit the carrying capacity, and making us resistant to disease and infection only shorten the time until we reach it.

 

 

 

Nine out of every ten patients (just an estimate, but I suppose you get my point) were denied treatment.

 

Do you know the reason they were denied treatment? Half were because they did not have the insurance to cover it, and certainly not the cash in hand. Saving one patient with a high-risk operation that cost thousands ultimately takes away from budget. That budget, could perhaps be used to better the hospital to save other with lower risk operations needed. 5 for 1?

 

 

 

How does the 'Aids cure -> more women raped' mechanism work? I don't think rapists care about the diseases they pass on to those women.

 

It is most certainly a factor in many cases. People [in Africa] have been taught of the dangers of HIV/AIDS. Taking away the risk could ultimately cause outbreaks far worse than we see today of rape crimes. Again, another variable.

 

 

 

The tbc medicine does not create resistant viruses if used correctly. I think we should keep that argument for when a cure is actually found and we know how it works.

 

 

 

You also have not once mentioned the ethical aspect of this issue .

 

Any medicine has the potential to create resistant strains, it's still survival of the fittest, even at cellular level.

 

 

 

Ethics? Of course many people will tell us to "save the ill!" but in reality, you're not prolonging the longevity of the country as a whole. Using a similar example, why would you have another baby, if you haven't enough food for the other twelve? Not only is food an issue, but rapid disease outbreaks can occur on a larger scale because of closer quarters.

 

 

 

Although I base a lot of my examples and quotes on the people in Africa, it happens in many other countries to.

[Nom]

You also have not once mentioned the ethical aspect of this issue #-o.

 

 

 

This entire debate is grounded in ethics. It is ethics. Ethics isn't defined as what you see as morally right.

[Furah]

my sister's religion teacher would be completely against it and even a complete cure of/immunity to cancer, because he believes that if you get it that means you did some aweful sin and God is punishing you for it (he is the biggest form of an extremist I have even seen, he will get fired soon for what he teaches)

[brunokiller]

10 million people that cannot work due to their HIV and the medical treatments they need aren't free either.

 

Exactly. They still need resources, but they're finite,

 

An once-time aids cure isn't finite?

 

 

 

as they only live so long. Now imagine if we had them live longer. While I'm not saying it's bad that they're living, I'm just saying the world as a whole won't and can't continue to sustain itself the way it's growing is. You can't say that mankind will not hit the carrying capacity, and making us resistant to disease and infection only shorten the time until we reach it.

 

 

 

Nine out of every ten patients (just an estimate, but I suppose you get my point) were denied treatment.

 

Do you know the reason they were denied treatment? Half were because they did not have the insurance to cover it, and certainly not the cash in hand. Saving one patient with a high-risk operation that cost thousands ultimately takes away from budget. That budget, could perhaps be used to better the hospital to save other with lower risk operations needed. 5 for 1?

 

 

 

How does the 'Aids cure -> more women raped' mechanism work? I don't think rapists care about the diseases they pass on to those women.

 

It is most certainly a factor in many cases. People [in Africa] have been taught of the dangers of HIV/AIDS. Taking away the risk could ultimately cause outbreaks far worse than we see today of rape crimes. Again, another variable.

 

Last time I read about a rape in the newspaper, the rapist didn't care about his victim.

 

 

 

 

 

The tbc medicine does not create resistant viruses if used correctly. I think we should keep that argument for when a cure is actually found and we know how it works.

 

 

 

You also have not once mentioned the ethical aspect of this issue .

 

Any medicine has the potential to create resistant strains, it's still survival of the fittest, even at cellular level.

 

In short, we should not use ANY medicine because it'll cause resistance?

 

 

 

Ethics? Of course many people will tell us to "save the ill!" but in reality, you're not prolonging the longevity of the country as a whole. Using a similar example, why would you have another baby, if you haven't enough food for the other twelve? Not only is food an issue, but rapid disease outbreaks can occur on a larger scale because of closer quarters.

 

 

 

I think we should educate people about birth control instead of making more people die.

[Howlin0001]

10 million people that cannot work due to their HIV and the medical treatments they need aren't free either.

 

Exactly. They still need resources, but they're finite,

 

An once-time aids cure isn't finite?

 

 

 

No I think what she means is, when they get the treatment and get cured they will want/need to work but seeing as there is limited resources it will get used up fairly quickly.

[l0l0lpur32]

Did anyone else besides me read this?

 

 

 

Cure for Aids?

 

 

 

They haven't done extensive testing, but it's something I guess?

 

Very unrealistic on a large scale.

[Satenza]

Rofl. We're scumbags for supporting capitalism? Low blow mate.

 

 

 

It essentially means a "perfect competition" which is a form of monopoly. Does free trade really mean free trade?

 

Holy jesus I barely even made it to the end of that sentence. I'm scared to read the rest of the post.

 

 

 

Laugh while you have the consensus.

 

 

 

There are two ways this can work out.

 

 

 

1. You guys realise how [bleep] stupid you are and the general consensus starts shifting to the left and we go from there.

 

 

 

2. You continue your little game, and people get tired of it. Eventually, the people who have had everything taken from them will TAKE IT BACK FROM YOU. All of it. By force.

 

 

 

Such is the nature of a class war.

 

 

 

The choice is yours.

 

 

 

So are you not going to tell us another economical system that can produce as much as capitalism does?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Rofl. We're scumbags for supporting capitalism? Low blow mate.

 

 

 

It essentially means a "perfect competition" which is a form of monopoly. Does free trade really mean free trade?

 

Holy jesus I barely even made it to the end of that sentence. I'm scared to read the rest of the post.

 

 

 

Laugh while you have the consensus.

 

 

 

There are two ways this can work out.

 

 

 

1. You guys realise how [bleep] stupid you are and the general consensus starts shifting to the left and we go from there.

 

 

 

2. You continue your little game, and people get tired of it. Eventually, the people who have had everything taken from them will TAKE IT BACK FROM YOU. All of it. By force.

 

 

 

Such is the nature of a class war.

 

 

 

The choice is yours.

 

 

 

So are you not going to tell us another economical system that can produce as much as capitalism does?

 

So are you not going to tell us another economical system that can waste as much as capitalism does?

[Ginger_Warrior]

In any case, this debate over capitalism vs socialism about waste and production is neither here nor there. The fact is, there is enough food in the world being produced to sustain the world's population. It's just that, for capitalism to work, those at the lowest end of the social hierarchy must be exploited to pay for the lifestyle of those above. As a result, we throw away tonnes and tonnes of food while the poorest starve. Under socialism, in theory, everyone receives more or less the same quantity of food, so either everyone starves, or few do.

 

 

 

If you want to support a system that leaves millions to starve to death each year, then fine. It's a free country, it's widely accepted as the world's most popular economic model and it does produce the most - I'm not gonna stop you or try and change your mind. But at least understand what capitalism is before pledging your support for it.

[Faux]

my sister's religion teacher would be completely against it and even a complete cure of/immunity to cancer, because he believes that if you get it that means you did some aweful sin and God is punishing you for it (he is the biggest form of an extremist I have even seen, he will get fired soon for what he teaches)

 

seeing as he's a religion teacher, he should get a raise