(September 30, 2015 at 10:34 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:(September 30, 2015 at 10:22 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Because it is silly.
Syphilis is curable; it's a bacterium.
And HIV is permanent (so far) but totally treatable and suppressible with modern medications.
So, as we've said, it's like saying that because they had "consequences" of sex, the STD, they have to not have the medications to stop it from ruining their life because they "should have known better when they chose to have sex".
So the fact they would carry that for the rest of their lives is irrelevant? Have you all gone completely mental?
Its different from being pregnant and getting pregnant is a circumstance unique to women. Noones arguing against that.
But to say that, what? Its *nothing*? That it isn't worthy of being considered even remotely being in the same league?
If that person, male or female reveals their condition they will be treated negatively for the rest of their lives. I don't consider that nothing. Sorry. To say that women are the only ones who suffer the consequences of unprotected sex is just wrong. Demonstrably wrong.
Is that really something that needs to be responded to with "Oh yeeeeah but people can see when you're pregnant." Oh cool, I'll just pop round to Africa and tell everyone theres nothing to worry about then.
Slow your roll, man. Nobody said women suffer the only consequences of sex; they do, however, suffer the bulk of them, to the point that the male element of it is effectively irrelevant for the point of discussions of this sort.
I say this as a person who has worked for HIV/AIDS charities and activist organizations as a volunteer for two decades, now.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.