Thursday, May 28, 2009

Any debaters! Please help me on my negative affirmative for hiv/aids in africa

Any debaters! Please help me on my negative affirmative for hiv/aids in africa?
Im a negative speaker and i have to explain the hiv aids epidemic is NOT exaggerated in sub saharan Africa. Please help!
Current Events - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
See attached. The AIDS epidemic is alive in Africa. With care and support, people in America are trying to combat this deadly disease.
2 :
do your homework, babies are being raped because some men believe sex with a virgin will cure them, then they are left to die because no one will touch them. just google HIV/Africa, if anything it's understated.
3 :
[This is done in the sense of helping, although it is a tough sell; I personally feel that the epidemic is worse than we have been told] One approach you can take is that many diseases are rampant in Africa and it just may be easier to say someone has AIDS in order to get medical attention to their plight and help them in that manner

Read more discussions :

Sunday, May 24, 2009

is it possibble to acquire HIV/AIDS in just a single sex or one night stand

is it possibble to acquire HIV/AIDS in just a single sex or one night stand?
is it possible to have aids in a single contact with your partner where you got infected with chlamydia or gonorrhea? is it curable at the first stage?
STDs - 14 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Yes Yes Yes
2 :
AIDS/HIV is incurable. The other STD's are except herpes
3 :
Yes, one sex act is all it takes to get a sexually transmitted disease. Yes, you can get HIV at the same time as other diseases. This is not a one-to-a-customer situation. No, HIV is not curable at the first stage. It can be managed, but it can not be cured.
4 :
Having unprotected sex puts you at risk for a lot of diseases, including HIV. Getting infected with chlamydia or gonorrhea doesn't mean that you have AIDS, but you do need to get treated for those diseases as soon as possible. Use condoms and get tested... never trust someone with your life, there is no harm in knowing.
5 :
You can get it in a single contact, and it isn't curable at any stage. It is treatable but not curable.
6 :
HIV/AIDS can be transferred with minimal sexual contact, in only one encounter, and is not curable. The other STD's you mentioned can also be gotten this quickly, but are easily treatable if you seek immediate medical attention. Your best defense is a condom EVERY TIME!!!!
7 :
Yes, you can get multiple STDs including HIV/AIDS in a single sexual encounter.People with Chlamydia often also Gonnorhea.A person with Chlamydia runs a bigger risk of contracting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Unfortunately HIV is not curable at all, though symptoms may not start showing for about 10 years. However, an infected person may not get an accurate test for HIV antibodies until 6 months after exposure. And that person would be infectious to other people pretty much from the start. If you suspect you may have been exposed to Chlamydia or Gonorrhea, get tested immediately. Tell the doctor you also want an HIV test at 3 months (not as accurate) and at 6 months. Do NOT have sex with anyone for 6 months. It's irresponsible and increasingly people who know or suspect they are HIV positive are ending up in court as if they didn't have enough to worry about. Condoms will "reduce" not eliminate the risk of passing on HIV. http://www.smart2ask.org/popups/HIV.htm
8 :
one night stands are the worse.. why? you don't have any kind of information on the person nevertheless a name.. atleast if u knew the person and they infected u with HIV, you can report it to the police.. otherwise, u are stuck with no name, no info, and maybe a STD.. never ever even risk ur life for a one night stand..
9 :
Because it is a virus, an HIV infection is not curable at any stage. Yes, you can get HIV from having unprotected sex with an HIV+ person just one time. However, its possible that you may not as well (it is not a guarantee). Its also possible to contract more than one STD from one sexual encounter. If a woman has or has had Chlamydia, she is 5 times more likely to contract HIV if exposed, so that is something to consider. The good news, though, is that both Chlamydia and Gonnorhea, being bacterial infections, are easily curable with antibiotics. If you think you may have been exposed to HIV, then it would be a good idea to get tested. Its important though that you realize that you must wait 3-6 months after the possible time of exposure to receive an accurate postive test result. So any negative test results you receive before that window may be false. The bottom line is wait 3-6 months to be tested for HIV, but go ahead and get tested fot other STDs right away if you had unprotected sex and think you may have been exposed to something. Another thing to remember: all of the STDs you've listed may not exhibit any symptoms and most of the time they don't, so if things seem normal, don't take it as a sign that you are in the clear. It is still important to get tested. Also, do not have unprotected sex with someone who you are not positive is clean (and being positive means your parnter has been tested and you have proof). It's best to avoid sexualy contact if you think you have an STD, but if this is not the case, then use protection CORRECTLY and EFFICIENTLY eveytime. There are 10 steps to using a condom, and I don't mind explaining them if I have to! : )
10 :
If that person you had sex with for one night had it, then you have it. You see you don't know who that person has had sex with, and when it comes to HIV and STD's you are also having sex with everyone else he had sex with. There is currently no cure to HIV/AIDS.
11 :
You don't acquire aids after sex. There is a lot of misconception with the general public when it comes to HIV and AIDS. AIDS isn't specific, it can be caused by a fungi or even a harmless bacteria cell that your body can't eliminate because of a severely weakened immune system. Yes, you can acquire this horrendous virus from a one night stand, but realistically, assuming you did not use a condom, your chances of being infected with this virus is 0.0005%. That is if you had insertive penil-vaginal intercourse. So you can see many people don't get HIV from one encounter. However, having sexually transmitted diseases, as you stated, increase the chances because of tears in the skin. This virus often enters many people's blood stream but is destroyed. However, in very few cases, the HIV virus over takes your immune system. Also, needle sharing and anal sex increase your chances slightly. I once heard a doctor on T.V., who has worked at an STD clinic for thirty years, state he has never had a patient acquire HIV through strictly heterosexual contact. Honestly, I wouldn't be worried from one encounter. Take a big, deap sigh of relief! The majority of people who get HIV have flu like symptoms 2-4 weeks after. And being treated during the acute stage can add on a large amount of years to your life. Best of luck.
12 :
Yes(hiv not aids), Yes, and No
13 :
While the answer is YES it is possible the reality of it is vary rare. One if this was a one time happening your risk is very limited even if your partner was infected. On that note heterosexual sex it is very rare as well to cath it if it is a one night fling. Overall you can get all the diseases at one time but it is unlikely. I would get checked for chlamydia or gonorrhea at 1 week then get an HIV test to put your mind at east at 4 weeks 3 months and 6 months....I think your ok with the HIV but the other stds you are at risk....please get checked
14 :
Of course it's possible to be infected just after 1 time. And no, it's not curable.

Read more discussions :

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Is there a chartiy that provides sterilization for women with HIV/AIDS

Is there a chartiy that provides sterilization for women with HIV/AIDS?
I see all those commercials asking us to give and help children with AIDS. It's heartbreaking, but to be honest, it's hard to see the point. I doubt these women want to have babies that suffer. Wouldn't our money be better spent offering these women permanent birth control?
Gender Studies - 10 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
When your immune system is compromised by something like HIV/AIDS, elective surgery like that is dangerous.
2 :
Seems like a pretty controversial thing to found a charity on. For some reason sterilization on a mass scale has not been suggested as a way to deal with the AIDS crisis. I assume you're referring to third world countries - If a dictator enforced sterilization on his people, or a portion of his people, even if they were all affected with a disease, that would probably be seen by others as a horrible thing. You're talking about eugenics, where one person decides that certain people are worthy of reproduction and others aren't, based on an arbitrary set of rules. Even if this were well-intentioned, as a way to control the spread of the disease, it still could be perceived as a little too close to the acts of an evil dictator such as Hitler or Idi Amin. Look at the reactions to enforced female circumcision and you'll see what I'm talking about. Selective breeding is basically what you're proposing, which has become associated with Nazi abuses and the extermination of undesired population groups. Developments in genetic and reproductive technology have made huge advancements, but even if what you're proposing would lessen human suffering, it would be very controversial and a tough sell. A charity would probably get more support if it focused on education about birth control and protection from STDs in these third world countries.
3 :
Why is it that only women have to be sterilised for? Better education in third world countries(dispell the myth that men having sex with a baby will cure Aids) and condoms being more widely available will help.
4 :
It logical and probably humane but it isn't PC so you will be getting flamed for even asking. Personally I think all Felons should be made sterile as well as any man or woman who thinks abortions should be used as a form of birth control.
5 :
and what about the men who impregnated them with both a fetus AND the disease? What do we give them to help stop spreading the disease in the first place?
6 :
I hate the concept of sterilization - it sounds like a manual implementation of Darwins theory of survival of the fittest. I know that the intention to offer sterilization to women with HIV/AIDS are good, nevertheless where will we ever draw the line? Who else will we begin to offer sterilization to in order to better "their" life? I read a theory once which proposed to isolate all sufferers of HIV/AIDS for the next 50 or 60 years in order to free the world of the virus once they had all died. It was inhumane. These people need to be educated on birth control and safe sex, they should not be exposed to an operation which ultimately tells them that they are not wanted and neither are their off spring. Overall, sterilization will NOT improve stats anyway - approximately 22 million people were living with HIV at the end of 2007 in Sub-Saharan Africa. They weren't all born with the virus.
7 :
I really don't think this would be the best way to deal with the AIDS crisis. The most that could be done here is to give women - and men - the option of sterilisation, but you can't forcibly do it. You can't make someone do anything with their body that they don't want to do. Also, many women who discover they have HIV do so at the same time they find out they're pregnant, so it would be too late. I think charities should focus on educating people about how to stop the spread of AIDS, and on medication to help the people who already have HIV. Babies born to HIV-positive parents won't necessarily have the disease themselves - it's usually passed on during birth, not during the pregnancy, and so in Western countries especially the baby is often born HIV-negative. HIV-positive children usually result from the myth that raping a virgin can cure AIDS, which better education would prevent. "At least 75% of babies born to HIV positive mothers will test HIV negative without medical intervention. Studies have shown that for properly nourished HIV positive expectant mothers receiving regular prenatal care, over 90% of their children test negative with no drug therapy." http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/mothers_babies/mothersbabies.html
8 :
So you are pro-sterilization of low income women who suffer from AIDS? We of course would have to continue helping the children that have already been born with AIDS. I have attached an article that discuses PACTG 076 which allows women to have babies while they have AIDS. Many of the women have opted to not be sterilized after it came out. However it is to costly to implement in third world countries. UNFPA says that "Protecting the reproductive rights of HIV-positive women, including preventing coerced abortions or sterilization, is a critical human rights issue." So I guess the battle would be against human rights activist who are probably against abortion and sterilization. I did find an article were in the 1970's whites attempted to sterilize Latinos and Puerto Ricans because they saw them as unfit mothers. This was not a good thing so forced sterilization is probably not a good idea. However; Planned Parenthood assist women with no condition or with AIDS and various other conditions receive sterilization.
9 :
First of all, sterilization is not helpful to people living with AIDS. Secondly, it goes against the basic tenet of human rights that you cannot force someone to undergo medical intervention against their will. Thirdly, here you are holding women responsible for something that is an epidemic. It takes two people to transmit a disease. You could just as easily advocate forced male sterilization, forced abortions or forced incarceration and all would be equally unacceptable solutions. Fourthly, forced sterilization has often been associated with genocide and war. In thi case, given the overwhelming predominance of coloured people concerned by the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the "developing world" this would almost certainly be considered genocide. Fifthly, not all pregnant women transmit the virus to their foetus. It is a risk and a possibility, but not a given. Lastly, the AIDS epidemic is also perpetuated by poverty, lack of education and accessibility to birth control, and treatment not simply by women having babies. Forced sterilization would still not prevent men from transmitting it to women or vice versa, it would only address on aspect of this crisis, which is women carrying a feotus that is affected. In conclusion, this seems like a well intentioned but blind-sided solution that ignores most of the pressing issues behind this crisis, with complete disregard for the socio-cultural, political and economic as well as medical context within which it exists.
10 :
I do understand what you are getting at, and in a world where common sense rules, it would probably be the way things are done. However we live in a world were everyone is worried about being P.C. and hurting other people feelings completely forgetting that there are solutions to certain problems if we would just get over our hang ups. That being said, you are merely suggesting OFFERING this to them and everyone is jumping down your throat. I am sure alot of women with HIV/AIDS would jump at the chance to have that done. I am sure they would never want to bring a baby into this world who would possibly suffer as much as they do. But there are always those people who will protest and say "HIV/AIDS carrying people have a right to reproduce too!" Because we live in a world of self centeredness. So your idea would never get off the ground because the protesters would make such a huge stink about it that it would get shut down before it ever started up. So even if something makes 100% sense, but may offend 1 person you can be 99% sure it will never happen.

Read more discussions :