Harper Skip AIDs Conference

jdobbin · August 19, 2006

I meant free condoms for Africa...not Canada. And the only reason why I suggested it was because of the dire situation in that country.
A part of me opposes that motion since I question the logic why should we be responsible for other nations' people....just because they have a corrupt government!

Africa seems to be bent on self-destructing.

However, there is no reason why we should be providing free condoms to everybody in Canada!

It is probably not necessary in Canada although I think it is worth looking to see if condom availability is as widely universal as people think.

Melanie_ · August 19, 2006

I meant free condoms for Africa...not Canada. And the only reason why I suggested it was because of the dire situation in that country.
A part of me opposes that motion since I question the logic why should we be responsible for other nations' people....just because they have a corrupt government!

Just to quibble, Africa isn't a nation, it is a continent made up of many nations all with different governments. And we aren't responsible for the people there, but we can be humanitarian.

And if you've already got a spouse...better just stick to your one and only partner. Fidelity makes a great come-back!

Fidelity still requires birth control.

newbie · August 19, 2006

In many parts of Africa birth control is not readily available; should they just not have sex? The entire continent? Doesn't it make more sense to make condoms available?

Ask the Pope. He seems to have all the answers. link

betsy · August 19, 2006

Fidelity still requires birth control.

You got me here...explain why Fidelity requires birth control....unless of course, they're onto family planning.

And there's already an abundance of various birth control.

We're talking of condoms in particular....because of AIDS.

betsy · August 19, 2006

And if you've already got a spouse...better just stick to your one and only partner. Fidelity makes a great come-back!

Fidelity still requires birth control.

Do you agree that Fidelity is one of the most effective ways to stop the rapid spread of AIDS?

This is a straight question: yes or no.

betsy · August 19, 2006

Where did you get that info? From supporters of this conference? You bet we'll be seeing a lot of spin and heart-breaking stories!

No link for it, I'm afraid. I did see it on the live streaming video of the conference and there is supposed to be some post conference transcripts afterwards. I'll see what I can find as it is posted.

Well I am skeptical of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they say....or show! Some special groups bent on pushing for their own agendas will stop at nothing...and that includes making misleading claims.

This AIDS CONFERENCE...all you hear is more funding...funds...donations...money! What poor third world country will not jump on the bandwagon and support this?

They are set on only some particular ways to combat what they want to picture as the most dangerous threat to mankind as far as diseases goes. Their actions and decisions however, do not lend credibility to the "desperate" struggle to contain this disease. It smells like a farce. It looks like a farce. And I think it just that....nothing more than a farce!

jbg · August 19, 2006

If the risk is so high that you've got 50% chance of getting HIV...then it's just the question of which is more important for the person: sex or health
And if you've already got a spouse...better just stick to your one and only partner. Fidelity makes a great come-back!

Ah, but that's common sense; a commodity in short supply among leftists. That's why I don't always get along with my fellow leftists (I am one) too well.

jbg · August 19, 2006

Well I am skeptical of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they say....or show! Some special groups bent on pushing for their own agendas will stop at nothing...and that includes making misleading claims.
This AIDS CONFERENCE...all you hear is more funding...funds...donations...money! What poor third world country will not jump on the bandwagon and support this?

They are set on only some particular ways to combat what they want to picture as the most dangerous threat to mankind as far as diseases goes. Their actions and decisions however, do not lend credibility to the "desperate" struggle to contain this disease. It smells like a farce. It looks like a farce. And I think it just that....nothing more than a farce!

Just to quibble, Africa isn't a nation, it is a continent made up of many nations all with different governments. And we aren't responsible for the people there, but we can be humanitarian.

Basically it's another money grab for the leaders of these countries. Little of the money goes for the actual "cause". I mean, can you really see the leader of Tanzania or Rwanda arranging for condom distribution or AIDS testing in some roadless villlage? The best that will happen is some agency will be established in the capital, and arrangements will be made for the leader and his friends to siphon the money.

I feel no need to be "humanitarian" to a dictator with a swelling Swiss bank account.

Melanie_ · August 19, 2006

Do you agree that Fidelity is one of the most effective ways to stop the rapid spread of AIDS?
This is a straight question: yes or no.

Fidelity is a great way to stop the spread of AIDS, as long as neither partner is already infected. But as you say, it is one way, not the only way. I don't understand why you are so against promoting condom use as another.

You got me here...explain why Fidelity requires birth control....unless of course, they're onto family planning.
And there's already an abundance of various birth control.

Do I really need to justify birth control in a monogamous relationship? There is not an abundance of birth control in Africa, its actually very hard to come by. Poverty is high, and the best way for women to control thier futures is to control their reproduction.

betsy · August 19, 2006

Do you agree that Fidelity is one of the most effective ways to stop the rapid spread of AIDS?

This is a straight question: yes or no.

Fidelity is a great way to stop the spread of AIDS, as long as neither partner is already infected. But as you say, it is one way, not the only way. I don't understand why you are so against promoting condom use as another.

I am not against the use of condom. It will help a great way too.

I am criticizing this AIDS Conference for refusing to acknowledge...and endorse Fidelity and Abstinence!

I am criticizing this AIDS Conference for not being brutally frank in lambasting PROMISCUITY and the decay of moral standards as the number one culprit why we have this....supposedly....humonguous problem.

Let's not try to pretend that this is not hugely connected to morality.

Band-aid solution is not good enough! There will be other fatal std after AIDS!

betsy · August 19, 2006

Do I really need to justify birth control in a monogamous relationship? There is not an abundance of birth control in Africa, its actually very hard to come by. Poverty is high, and the best way for women to control thier futures is to control their reproduction.

No, you just got me confused for a while. Anyway, condom had proved to be not too successful in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Just look at the problem we still have. So availability does not necessarily mean it will be used!

Besides, condoms is not the only method of birth control. We've got the pill, and the IUD.

THere's also the rythmn and the aspirin method...the cheapest kind there is!

Melanie_ · August 19, 2006

No, you just got me confused for a while. Anyway, condom had proved to be not too successful in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Just look at the problem we still have. So availability does not necessarily mean it will be used!
Besides, condoms is not the only method of birth control. We've got the pill, and the IUD.

THere's also the rythmn and the aspirin method...the cheapest kind there is!

As I said before, though, not having them available is a guarantee they won't be used. Yes, we in North America have access to the pill and the IUD and Depo Prevera and the patch and other forms of contraceptives - they aren't available there. Rhythm depends on having a predictable cycle. Aspirin may be cheap here, but not so much there - and its not a terribly effective method.

Eagle · August 19, 2006

I don't feel that it was crucial that Stephen Harper attended the conference. The Minister of Health was present, that should show the representation of the Canadian government.

However, I do believe that AIDS activists will likely hold his feet to the fire when it comes to election time.

Riverwind · August 19, 2006

However, I do believe that AIDS activists will likely hold his feet to the fire when it comes to election time.

And how many of those 'activists' would even consider voting conservative in the first place? I am guessing 0.0001% tops.

jdobbin · August 20, 2006

And how many of those 'activists' would even consider voting conservative in the first place? I am guessing 0.0001% tops.

So it is okay to ignore the issue because it isn't a vote winner?

geoffrey · August 20, 2006

And how many of those 'activists' would even consider voting conservative in the first place? I am guessing 0.0001% tops.

So it is okay to ignore the issue because it isn't a vote winner?

Yes.

Charles Anthony · August 20, 2006

So it is okay to ignore the issue because it isn't a vote winner?

Of course.

I am not one to defend democacy much but face it: if you use votes to determine what "the people" want and if not enough people vote them out of power, what do you expect???

jdobbin · August 20, 2006

It's still doubtful that he'll be able to ignore it in the long run. While it might it might not win votes, it is health issue that will be a drain on health resources if it isn't dealt with accordingly.

geoffrey · August 20, 2006

It's still doubtful that he'll be able to ignore it in the long run. While it might it might not win votes, it is health issue that will be a drain on health resources if it isn't dealt with accordingly.

I don't think AIDS is a big cost to Canada. The government's AIDS policy has absolutely zero effect on my voting intentions and likely zero effect on 98.5% of the populations'.

jdobbin · August 20, 2006

I don't think AIDS is a big cost to Canada. The government's AIDS policy has absolutely zero effect on my voting intentions and likely zero effect on 98.5% of the populations'.

Most issues don't have the power to defeat a government. Generally, things reach a tipping point when the 2% who get pissed starts to mount up with different people on different issues.

geoffrey · August 20, 2006

I don't think AIDS is a big cost to Canada. The government's AIDS policy has absolutely zero effect on my voting intentions and likely zero effect on 98.5% of the populations'.

Most issues don't have the power to defeat a government. Generally, things reach a tipping point when the 2% who get pissed starts to mount up with different people on different issues.

Well gay rights and AIDS are pretty much the same lobby... the AIDS lobby might get a little bit of support from the humanitarian lobby I guess...

Still, the average Canadian could care less about either.

Why not fight diseases like influenza that kill many people in Canada right now and aren't diseases of choice most of the time? That'd be wise, I'd like that.

jdobbin · August 20, 2006

Well gay rights and AIDS are pretty much the same lobby... the AIDS lobby might get a little bit of support from the humanitarian lobby I guess...
Still, the average Canadian could care less about either.

Why not fight diseases like influenza that kill many people in Canada right now and aren't diseases of choice most of the time? That'd be wise, I'd like that.

The average Canadian can't even identify a picture of Stephen Harper as prime minister when shown so it takes a lot to get their attention either good or bad.

gc1765 · August 20, 2006

1.- Certainly, making it illegal and being subject as a criminal offense and imprisonment, I think it would like it did in the 70's, it kept them in the closet and for the most part and relatively inactive unlike to-day.

I'd probably disagree with that. I don't think the law has much influence on a person's sexuality, especially when it's so hard to 'catch' or prove someone is having homosexual sex. But you'd probably disagree with me, so there's not much sense in arguing it. I do have one question though: Should we make smoking illegal? Or eating fatty foods? These things contribute to many more deaths than AIDS. Sure, you could make the argument that HIV is infective, whereas cancer and heart disease are not, but it's usually transmitted through sexual activity. Having unprotected sex with someone who you are not 100% sure is free of HIV is a risky activity, just like smoking, so that argument doesn't really hold. Unless you think people who get infected with HIV aren't to blame?

2. Heterosexual sex can also transmit HIV but where did the heterosexuals pick it up? Most heterosexuals that acquire this disease are prostitutes and wives of bisexuals or wives of husbands who also run around with prostitutes.

Whether you like it or not, HIV is in the heterosexual community, and has been for a long time. Let's assume for a minute that you are correct that homosexuals are to blame for spreading HIV into the heterosexual community...should we punish homosexuals today (and in the future) for something that was transmitted in the past to the heterosexual community? Now that HIV is in the heterosexual community, it is possible for a straight man/woman to go to a bar, meet a straight woman/man, have sex and acquire HIV from that person, who acquired it from heterosexual sex with someone else etc... Like I said before, even if there is less chance of that happening than there is between two males, there is still a chance of it happening, wouldn't you agree?

I haven't heard of many married heterosexual women whose husbands don't cheat on them acquiring the disease. Have you, or can you provide stats.

You are talking about a married couple (with one partner) here. Like it or not, unmarried heterosexuals also have sex. See my example above. Should we make it illegal for couples to have sex before marriage? In other words, should we only be allowed to have one partner? That would definately reduce HIV infections.

I don't think it's a question of where you draw the line concerning how easily it is transmitted but to try to eliminate initially the most common form of transmission being made by male homosexuals and male bisexuals and that is to make homosexuality illegal.

You are talking again about the initial form of transmission, so I must reiterate: should we punish homosexuals for having sex because initially, many years ago, they are (supposedly) responsible for transmitting the disease to heterosexuals?

geoffrey · August 20, 2006

No need to punish people that have high AIDS risk activities, chances are they'll get it and that's punishment enough. Doesn't affect anyone that is responsible other than maybe some increased health care spending.

Leafless · August 20, 2006

gc1765

If you want to protect homosexuals concerning the spread of HIV and compare other diseases such as cancer and heart disease on heterosexual lifestyles on some sort of equal footing is your prerogative but does not compare. It's like justifying the use of drugs simply because alcohol is already a legal commodity or cigarettes being classified as a drug.

This is not about blaming or punishing homosexuals for the spread of HIV but rather controlling or eliminating this killer disease which cannot be compared to any other transmitted sexual disease.

So how do you accomplish this when homosexuals are the root cause regarding the transmission of this disease?

I suspect your answer is to treat HIV just the same as any other disease that causes death.

Unfortunately the spread of killer HIV is in the same category as say a killer flu but only worse.

But even up to now these deadly flu's respond and can be controlled and eliminated with antibiotics something HIV cannot be.

Personally I think we would not have this disease in Canada to-day on the levels we have to-day if it was not for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and think homosexuality once again should be banned.