Ask CDC. .
…
Center FOR DISEASE CONTROL.
I only posted their scientific data.
The researchers there seem to think its important.
I accept it but I disagree with it. Abortions happen. I don’t like it, but they do, and humanity’s scientific knowledge can benefit. Abortions will continue either way.
It’s important from a medical perspective and predicting who is at risk. But how is it important to research funding, the topic of the thread?
Ummm… you answered your own question.
None of that makes it right. And that’s what Mengele-esque about it.
I don’t agree with killing unborn children to save the homosexers who got the disease from their choice to engage in dangerous aberrant behavior.
Wow…you are so blind to realities. Do you know the number Heterosexual and undetermined causes of Aids has risen, while the number of homosexual and IV drug causes has gone down.
From the 2003 study…
In summary, heterosexual transmission of HIV and AIDS appears to be increasing in the USA and may be grossly underestimated by our present surveillance system. An insidious epidemic can be identified within the African-American heterosexual community that demands immediate attention. The increasing proportion of “undetermined” transmission may represent a large number of heterosexual cases that are not counted as such. The importance of recognising the true incidence and prevalence of HIV infection and AIDS among heterosexuals is a public health issue. The under-estimation of the heterosexual transmission rate falsely reassures the public and may actually increase the likelihood of HIV infection and AIDS in the general population over the next several decades.
| xposure category | 1986 | 1991 | 1996 | 2001 | % Change* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source: reference 4. | |||||
| *Percent change calculated by subtracting % in 1986 from % in 2001. | |||||
| Notes: See text for definitions of exposure categories. | |||||
| 1. Gay men include all men who report sex with men and those men who also report injecting drug use. | |||||
| 2. Injecting drug users excluding men who have sex with men. | |||||
| 3. Blood recipients include adults/adolescents who deny male homosexual behaviour and injecting drug use, and are haemophiliac or transfusion recipients of blood or blood components. | |||||
| 4. Heterosexual contact include adults/adolescent who deny male homosexual behaviour, injecting drug use, haemophilia, and previous blood or blood components, and report heterosexual contact with a person with HIV or AIDS, a bisexual male, injecting drug user or blood recipient. | |||||
| 5. Undetermined includes patients who do not meet any of the definitions above (see text). | |||||
| Children include all those under age 13 years at time of diagnosis regardless of exposure category. | |||||
| Adult/adolescent | |||||
| 1. Gay men | 9416 (72) | 26326 (58) | 30283 (44) | 14767 (34) | −38 |
| 2. Injecting drug users | 2136 (16) | 11155 (25) | 17027 (25) | 7473 (17) | +1 |
| 3. Blood recipients | 405 (3) | 1030 (2) | 869 (1) | 324 (1) | −2 |
| 4. Heterosexual contact | 485 (4) | 3387 (8) | 8821 (13) | 6904 (16) | +12 |
| 5. Undetermined | 468 (4) | 2925 (7) | 11473 (17) | 13515 (31) | +27 |
| Children | 187 (1) | 683 (2) | 678 (1) | 175 (0) | −1 |
| Total | 13097 (100) | 45506 (100) | 69151 (100) | 43158 (100) | – |
I am sure you will have some way to disparage the statistics posted. But it will not do a thing to negate your obvious blindness to HIV/AIDS being an issue for all people. You will just continue to focus on God’s revenge against the homosexuals for making Christians feel all icky inside right? And to your comment. They are not killing unborn children so they can harvest the tissue for HIV/AIDS research. They are taking that tissue from fetuses that have been aborted based on a parental decision. You act like abortions are happening solely to harvest tissue. That is just plain disingenuous on your part.
1 Like
I’ll believe CDC as to who is most at risk and who is most infected…
Gay and bisexual men are the population most affected by HIV in the United States. In 2016, gay and bisexual men are accounted for 67% of the 40,324 new HIV diagnoses in the United States and 6 dependent areas.
Now you did your part in suppressing information about who is most at risk. Call it a day. Besides, @Oryx says it is not important who and how many get infected. Dont argue with @Oryx.
No, the question is, how is it important to whether or not we fund research. That’s the topic of the thread.
Since you brought up sexuality, what does the sexuality of people with HIV/AIDS have to do with whether or not we should fund research
It doesn’t make abortion right. But since abortions happen and will continue to happen, we should use the situation to further medical knowledge.
The source of the tissue has no bearing on the normative nature of the research. The research doesn’t promote the actions that result in the fetal tissue, and it’s fallacious to link the two in a moral fashion.
2 Likes
Why don’t we fund much (if any) research into smallpox? Because no one gets it anymore.
Prove it…
With an unbiased source.
Stupid move by the government. Eradicating this disease should be a top priority.
1 Like
Nah. People who are brutally murdered should be donated with consent to medical schools.
Some here think we should do “everything we can” to eradicate it. Presumably that means eliminating all the carriers.
I don’t agree.
Smallpox was eventually eradicated because of unethical experimentation involving a live child.
You may not agree with abortion, but it’s not unethical to use the fetal tissue resulting from one to ensure live born children in the future never suffer from this disease.
1 Like
Which one of us are you accusing of wanting to murder Gay People?
Uh, no. The assertions made are the the research condones or promotes abortions. That’s what needs to be supported with evidence. Otherwise, I maintain that it’s an absurd notion that basically asserts that scientific researchers are somehow promoting an increase in abortions. Given the number of abortions that occur nationwide, it’s easy to see how this assertion is absurd. There’s no reason to promote abortions. They are already occurring. And because they are already occurring, it’s rational to make the best out of an otherwise unfortunate situation and use it to help save lives.
1 Like
It is unethical in order to save the lives of homosexers…that’s what I have taken from some here.
