AIDS Marking

[longjonsilver]

At school we have debated on the extremist idea to require a national testing for AIDS every few years on all individuals over a certain age. At that point all that tested positive would be given a barely noticable tatoo of the letters HIV on the pelvis. I know that this idea is way to extreme to ever be enacted but I am curious of everyone's oppinion. I understand it is harsh and probably unconstitutional, however it would greatly reduce the spread of AIDS and save millions of lives around the country. The location or the marking is also strategicly placed in an area that is only noticable to another individual about to engage in some sexual act that would spread the disease. Otherwise, in daily life the marking would be unnoticable.

[bobbylien]

Why is it extreme? This is a great idea. I don't really see how its harsh.

[longjonsilver]

The forced marking bobbylien seems a little scary to me. I've always wondered what I would do if I was actually in the position to activate that. I dont know if I would have the audacity to do it, but it seems like the juice is worth the squeeze. So as of right now I would enact it if I could.

[AlonzoMourning23]

No other deadly transmittable would have one. AIDS has a massive stigma attached to it and this would worsen it, and make people less likely to want to be tested. Public showers, beaches etc. would result in the mark being visible. And the idea of forcing tattoos onto people is disturbing to say that least. You're taking a victim and forcing them to have a mark on their body identifying them as such, when the vast majority of cases are transmitted by unknowingly.

It seems akin to forcing those who were abused as children to wear a tattoo on their pelvis alerting potential mothers of their children that they are at risk of abusing her future or present children, as statistically that group is more likely to be child abusers. It's like branding them as abused in an attempt to save their future child from having a statistically high risk parent.

[longjonsilver]

Alonzo it doesnt matter if people do not desire to be tested because as I said before it would be mandatory testing.

The mark would not be visible unless you were completly naked. A bikini does cover the pelvis area.

Yes it is pretty distubing to force tatoos on people, but it would save millions of lives.

Alonzo you said that most cases are spread unkowingly, which I completly understand. Thats why forced testings and tatoos would end the unknowing transfer of the disease because those about to engage in a sexual act can see the marking of AIDS. Also the manadatory testings would inform people of whether or not they were infected, eliminating ignorant transmission.

I follow your attempted analogy, but in fact it is not an analogy at all. Those infected with AIDS have just about a 100% chance of spreading the disease to someone else through unprotected sex. Its not just some percentage, its inevitable. Also we are talking about life and death. As far as I know AIDS has a 100% mortality rate. This isn't a minor disease like HPVS, it kills you and all those you spread it to.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I see it as a good idea.
2. This would protect those who would otherwise could not know.
3. When first infected those infected look normal.
4. And they may not even know they have it for awhile after they get it.
5. In my view, perhaps these infected people should be sent to HIV City, some where in New Mexico.
6. A New City, just for HIV victims.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[AlonzoMourning23]

Alonzo it doesnt matter if people do not desire to be tested because as I said before it would be mandatory testing.....

Also the manadatory testings would inform people of whether or not they were infected, eliminating ignorant transmission.


The point was people can do a lot of damage in 2 years. Even if I thought you could force everyone to be tested (I don't), you will prevent many from being tested until they have to, instead of when they think they have a reason to be tested.

The mark would not be visible unless you were completly naked.Â*Â*A bikini does cover the pelvis area.

The only way that would work is if you put it where a persons pubic hair is, and then would only be visible if they shaved. Anything else would be visible by many swimsuits.

Either way it's still a horrible thing to do, marking victims.

Yes it is pretty distubing to force tatoos on people, but it would save millions of lives.

It would not, because most are unwilling transmitted. For the tatoos to save so many would require that people with AID's having sex knowing they could infect people.

I follow your attempted analogy, but in fact it is not an analogy at all.Â*Â*Those infected with AIDS have just about a 100% chance of spreading the disease to someone else through unprotected sex.Â*Â*Its not just some percentage, its inevitable.Â*Â*Also we are talking about life and death.Â*Â*As far as I know AIDS has a 100% mortality rate.Â*Â*This isn't a minor disease like HPVS, it kills you and all those you spread it to.


AIDS doesn't quite have a 100% mortality rate with treatment (Magic Johnson being a good example), but the logic here is flawed. Many abused as children do not go on to abuse their children, and many who know they have AID's do not go on to spread it or at least use protection and warn their partner (I've heard of some married couples doing this). Sure, if they have unprotected sex there's a very high change they'll spread it, just as if they beat their kid they're abusing the kid. But not all do, and not all AID's victims go on to spread it.

4. And they may not even know they have it for awhile after they get it.

Are you honestly suggesting people forget they have HIV?

5. In my view, perhaps these infected people should be sent to HIV City, some where in New Mexico.
6. A New City, just for HIV victims.

Your suggestions never cease to disgust me. Though, just to point out, Castro used to round up those with HIV and lock them in a hospital (no longer forced though). You go beyond then in relocating them away from their entire family and life. Your suggestion is on par with Japanese Internment.

[longjonsilver]

I don't really feel like discussing all your comments on my quotes alonzo, however I would like to clairify chesswars 4. When he stated that "they may not even know they have it for a while after they get it." he was saying that those who recieve AIDS obviously do not know that there partner is infected. So, they go about there daily lives until symptoms of AIDS apear, which can take years.

[Nathan Brazil]

Alonzo it doesnt matter if people do not desire to be tested because as I said before it would be mandatory testing.

I've a question for you. Why do you describe yourself as a libertarian? Mandatory testing? Mandatory marking? That ain't compatible with the philosophy of personal freedom. That's an old William F Buckley notion.

The libertarian position? Don't choose to have sex with people you don't know or can't trust. If they know they have HIV and willing spread it, they're committing a crime and should be jailed.


Yes it is pretty distubing to force tatoos on people, but it would save millions of lives.

Not really, it wouldn't. I can imagine all sorts of new tatoo styles that would hide the disfigurement, even a simple "Heart with Mom" in it over the state-sanctioned bio-hazard label. Not to mention the millions killed when they try to drag me in to test me.

Alonzo you said that most cases are spread unkowingly, which I completly understand.Â*Â*Thats why forced testings and tatoos would end the unknowing transfer of the disease because those about to engage in a sexual act can see the marking of AIDS.Â*Â*Also the manadatory testings would inform people of whether or not they were infected, eliminating ignorant transmission.

I follow your attempted analogy, but in fact it is not an analogy at all.Â*Â*Those infected with AIDS have just about a 100% chance of spreading the disease to someone else through unprotected sex.Â*Â*Its not just some percentage, its inevitable.Â*Â*Also we are talking about life and death.Â*Â*As far as I know AIDS has a 100% mortality rate.Â*Â*This isn't a minor disease like HPVS, it kills you and all those you spread it to.


Oh, that's simple. Take all know HIV and HPVS carriers and put them in a leper colony. Since both diseases are incurable and disgusting, get rid of both of them by quarantine. Bill Clinton can be their new leader.

I suggest Antarctica. They can get tans when the ozone wears thin.

[Nathan Brazil]

4. And they may not even know they have it for awhile after they get it.

Are you honestly suggesting people forget they have HIV?

I would expect that he's stating the obvious, that HIV is assymptomatic and still infectious for years before a person might develop AIDS complications. He's not stating they'd forget, but that they may not know. If it was obvious, they wouldn't need a test.

[longjonsilver]

Yes Nathan, I was stating that many people do not know they have the disease for years after they are infected, because symptoms do not appear imediately. But Nathan, about HPVS, I was pointing out that we DO NOT need to do something like that for those infected with HPVS because it is not a fatal disease.

But to clarify my position on the HIV tatooing. I understand it would not work. You would never be able to forcibly mass test an entire population, much less tatoo those infected. I do however think it is an interesting idea, but would never have the audacity to initiate something so cruel.

[Nathan Brazil]

Yes Nathan, I was stating that many people do not know they have the disease for years after they are infected, because symptoms do not appear imediately.Â*Â*But Nathan, about HPVS, I was pointing out that we DO NOT need to do something like that for those infected with HPVS because it is not a fatal disease.

Yes we do. If I recall, among other things, herpes causes birth defects. Thus it's spread should be contained.


But to clarify my position on the HIV tatooing.Â*Â*I understand it would not work.Â*Â*You would never be able to forcibly mass test an entire population, much less tatoo those infected.Â*Â*I do however think it is an interesting idea, but would never have the audacity to initiate something so cruel.


Cruel? I don't think it's cruel. Impractical. Mass testing is also a violation of basic libertires.

But back in the good old days, people didn't get treatment for VD unless they informed the doctor who they'd had sex with, so those people could be informed and treated also. But HIV has rights, so the people infected with it don't have to go through the embarassment of letting the world know they have an infectious fatal incurable disease.

IMO, no one diagnosed with HIV/AIDS should recieve ANY treatment for ANYTHING until they've disclosed the names of all their butt buddies, unless it can be proven they've gotten the disease via contaminated blood and haven't passed it on to anyone else.

[Labrocca]

I think mandatory testing would be excellent.Â*Â*However the markings would never fly constitutionally.Â*Â*Anything can be counterfitted as well so I would think plastic surgeons or creams would be invented to remove the tatoo.Â*Â*

I think mandatory yearly tests for all College students would be a great start.

btw...I think 95% of all people that contract AIDS deserves it. It's easily avoidable as an STD if you have 2 cents worth of common sense. My Uncle died of AIDS..it was the best thing that happened to him. He was a Junkie for 20+ years...but he lived his last 5 clean sober and as a good person. I miss him but I do believe he would have died of an OD eventually anyways.

[Nathan Brazil]

I think mandatory testing would be excellent.Â*Â*However the markings would never fly constitutionally.Â*Â*Anything can be counterfitted as well so I would think plastic surgeons or creams would be invented to remove the tatoo.Â*Â*

I think mandatory yearly tests for all College students would be a great start.

btw...I think 95% of all people that contract AIDS deserves it.Â*Â*It's easily avoidable as an STD if you have 2 cents worth of common sense.Â*Â*My Uncle died of AIDS..it was the best thing that happened to him.Â*Â*He was a Junkie for 20+ years...but he lived his last 5 clean sober and as a good person.Â*Â*I miss him but I do believe he would have died of an OD eventually anyways.


Why should someone that hasn't done anything to get the disease be forced to undergo testing for it?

There's way too much mandatory nonsense in this country already. Seat belts...once non-existent, then optional, then a required part of the vehicle, then use of them was required, and now failure to use them is a valid excuse for the police to stop the vehicle and search it. If someone wants to die in a car accident, let'em.

If someone wants to have sex with a person that may have HIV, teach 'em the risks, then tell them to make up their own minds. Frankly, I don't care if drug users give themselves a horrid disease...they don't care about themselves, why should anyone else?

If someone doesn't care enough about themselves to know if their sex partner is HIV+, then let'em get sick and die. Evolution hasn't stopped, you know.

But don't force me to take a test simply because other people are acting irresponsibly. That's a gross and totally unjust violation of my body and my freedom. If someone has the disease spreads it, shoot 'em and be done with it.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But, yes everyone should have the test, people infected should be given a nice notice.
2. Then a bus ticket to a *New* city, say in New Mexico.
3. Where they will be given a job, and a place to live, etc, etc.
4. This is humane and correct actions.
5. Then we send in Barbra Streisand , to sing to them.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Love America]

I think it is ridiculous that anyone who considers themselves a republican would consider such things.Â*Â*The whole idea behind the republican party is to have less big government.Â*Â*Certainly requiring to have everyone tested would not only be hard to impose, but extremely expensive.Â*Â*It doesn't make any sense at all.Â*Â*Not to mention the problems people would face if they started a precedent to mark diseased people.Â*Â*You could then be marked for diseases such as Diabetes, so that your potential partner would know the risk offspring would face.Â*Â*It opens to many doors.Â*Â*Imagine what would happen if insurance companies were able to get there hands on these lists.

[Nathan Brazil]

I think it is ridiculous that anyone who considers themselves a republican would consider such things.Â*Â*The whole idea behind the republican party is to have less big government.

No.Â*Â*That's what the voters feel they want.Â*Â*The politicians who run the party LIKE big government, that's why the GOP has grown government like no one but Roosevelt since they got full control of the ship.

So please, drop the delusions and try to see the GOP for what it is: another left-wing big government enemy of the people.


Certainly requiring to have everyone tested would not only be hard to impose, but extremely expensive.Â*Â*It doesn't make any sense at all.Â*Â*Not to mention the problems people would face if they started a precedent to mark diseased people.Â*Â*You could then be marked for diseases such as Diabetes, so that your potential partner would know the risk offspring would face.Â*Â*It opens to many doors.Â*Â*Imagine what would happen if insurance companies were able to get there hands on these lists.

Don't worry.Â*Â*One day DNA will be a biological marker on your ID.Â*Â*Then the insurance companies will deny coverage to anyone not supplying a full DNA breakdown to them.Â*Â*It'll be "voluntary".

Socialist Security cards were originally banned from use as ID.

Then again, once seat-belts were optional equipment.Â*Â*

Government marches on.Â*Â*One side compromises and the nation shifts to the left, then the other side compromises and the nation shifts to the left some more.Â*Â*It's shifted so far to the left that formerly mainstream ideas are considered right-wing extremism, like demanding ID for voters.

[Love America]

Government marches on.Â*Â*One side compromises and the nation shifts to the left, then the other side compromises and the nation shifts to the left some more.Â*Â*It's shifted so far to the left that formerly mainstream ideas are considered right-wing extremism, like demanding ID for voters.


I do understand your point.Â*Â*I completely agree that what was once considered liberal is now construed as conservative.Â*Â*I don't think that requirement of ID cards to voters can be compared to testing and marking diseased individuals.Â*Â*Perhaps it is more like the markings Hitler forced on the Jews.Â*Â*People get so caught up in what is liberal and what is right wing extreme that we forget the basic principles of what this country was founded on, "Freedom".Â*Â*

If you start taking away the rights of others, whose to say yours won't be next.

[longjonsilver]

Love America you are wrong about Republicans. Republicans do not desire a smaller government. You could possibly prove they want the government as small as possible in fiscal areas, however, when it comes to social issues they are just as extreme pro-government as the populists. Thats why they want the government telling you who you can or cannot get married to, just as they want the government to restrict you from doing things to you own body such as euthanasia. So all though you think you are marching alongside those who desire a smaller government you are really in a pseudo-party of those who crave the dictation of civil rights.

[Love America]

Love America you are wrong about Republicans.Â*Â*Republicans do not desire a smaller government.Â*Â*You could possibly prove they want the government as small as possible in fiscal areas, however, when it comes to social issues they are just as extreme pro-government as the populists.Â*Â*Thats why they want the government telling you who you can or cannot get married to, just as they want the government to restrict you from doing things to you own body such as euthanasia.Â*Â*So all though you think you are marching alongside those who desire a smaller government you are really in a pseudo-party of those who crave the dictation of civil rights.


Like there are so many choices.Â*Â*I can either vote Republican or Democratic.Â*Â*To vote for an independant is like throwing away your vote.Â*Â*I don't agree with any one party on every single issue.Â*Â*The conclusion I have come to is that I overall agree with the foundations set by the republican party, and I cannot say the same for the democrats.Â*Â*

Yeah those terrible Repulicans stopping people from helping others committ suicide, what a travesty.Â*Â*Â*Â*

[Nathan Brazil]

Yeah those terrible Repulicans stopping people from helping others committ suicide, what a travesty.Â*Â*Â*Â*


Ah, the old "don't throw your vote away" gag. Millions upon millions of Republicans every election swallow that one. It's what the corrupt leadership counts on, that there'll be enough saps to carry them over the edge.

If the candidate doesn't support your ideals, you're only wasting your vote when you vote for him, and he wins. What'd did you get for your vote? A guy you don't like, and you helped put him there.

As for the suicide issue....if it ain't your body, it ain't your choice. Holds true for babies about to be murdered by their mother and it holds true for people trying to stop someone with the pain of terminal cancer from ending it gracefully.

[RightWingJuggernaut]

I don't know if I agree with the marking or not, but it reeks of some familiar history.

http://www.wsherc.org/ENewsletter/Jan2006/star_Lodz.jpg