Mobbing For AIDS and Cancer.

We've seen the effects of both cancer and AIDS. We've seen the damage it strikes in the ones we love, hate, and don't even know. So given what we know and what we hear, imagine that you had the power to either cure AIDS or cancer. Which one would you choose? To some people this will be a very personal decision.

All types of cancer?

I voted for aids. What causes cancer is not entirely known. Even if we do have cure, it will keep re-appearing. But we know the source of aids. If we cure each and every aids/hiv carrier, including animals, we might eradicate aids altogether. Maybe the virus will remain dormant somewhere and reappear on contact, I don't know. But cancer atleast doesn't spread. So there is no danger of an epidemic that AIDS currently poses.

Cancer

No need to cure these. If only the pope would say the three words "condoms are allowed" then 90% of all AIDS victims would still be alive...

About cancer, I think the same as svsg.

IMHO, diseases like cancer are just nature's way to battle against the human overpopulation. There are already too many people now...

while i'm not negating the severity of AIDS, alot of cases in that particular disease come from one's own self-carelessness. for example, i read something a while ago that stated & proved through polls & expert opinions that were heavily weighed in, that a staggering amount of the causes of AIDS came from people who didn't bother checking their partners for STDs, or people who had sex with someone they barely knew, obviously without knowing anything about their newfound partner's sexual history. & of course, being that most of these people were gay, & it being common knowledge that the homosexual community is the main victim in the AIDS epidemic, i can't help but wonder how you can be so careless about your health, knowing that, hey, engaging in this activity with this person whose sexual history i don't know could very likely cause me my life. while that doesn't apply to all or adherent death - which i'm not implying, but just incase someone misinterprets it that way - & while i would never wish that on anyone - this just seemed to be an interesting & relative piece of information for this topic.

that being said, i think i'd go with cancer. but having the chance or choice to invent a cure for either disease would obviously be a huge advance in not only the medical community, but society as we know it.

Yeah, the perils of Catholicism, eh?

I'm glad I'm a heterosexual atheist. :p

You naughty blasphemist! I should stone you to death

Obviously cancer.

AIDS affects people who don't take precautions. And why is Herpes there as an option? Cancer striked randomly and frequently, and so I would cure it before anything else

That's a difficult and interesting question. I chose cancer merely because I'm aware of the effects it has on people. I've had my share of relatives and friends lives be changed greatly.

Cancer can be controlled if being diagnosed in early stages. Frankly, we've no clue on how to cure AIDS yet.

A healthy lifestyle including staying away from too much of fried foods and all chemical oxidizing agents and also having a happy and peaceful mind can reduce the risk of getting cancer. It is believed that cancer is also hereditary, so if you have it among your close relatives, you need to have regular check ups. Also cancer is not contagious.

Regarding those who think you get AIDS only through a reckless lifestyle, I think I need to remind you of the number of people who got AIDS through getting infected blood after losing blood in an accident in hospitals, through having a root canal, having sex with their unloyal spouse, born from an infected mother, hemophiliac patients regularly in need of blood products, sharing razors, needles and toothbrushes, etc.

AIDS is contagious and targets your immune system. If you're diagnosed with AIDS you'll not be treated with the same mindset that there is toward cancer. People try to keep away from you, and rightfully so, because you can pass it through your body fluids to everyone who has an open wound on their body.

I would choose AIDS.

Afs, glad you echo my epidemic fear, I thought I would be the only one

I'm really not sure how that could even happen. Do you mean dentists catching it from their patients?? I only bring this up, cuz that's my joy on Thursday... freakin' root canal. Only cuz I had nothing better to spend $1000+ on this month... :rolleyes:

As for the question - it's a good point that AIDS is contagious while cancer isn't. It's also a good point that cancer can be acquired among anyone, at any time, without much regard to behavior or lifestyle or accident.

It's a very good question that's really hard to answer.

On the one hand, curing an epidemic disease that could be destined to be the next Plague would be a good idea, I think! On the other hand, "The Big Casino" is more rampent.

Kids get both, and normally my choice would be to cure whatever benefits kids the most.

But this is tough. Logically, I would think AIDS, because it is contagious while Cancer isn't. But I'd like to vote for BOTH.

I'm really not sure how that could even happen. Do you mean dentists catching it from their patients?? I only bring this up, cuz that's my joy on Thursday... freakin' root canal. Only cuz I had nothing better to spend $1000+ on this month... :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]Ouch... Best of luck to you. If you are going to spend that much, I'm sure your dentist is cautious enough to take all the safety measures. This happens when dentists don't sterilize their devices properly and have had a visit from an infected person previously, so their next patients are in danger. Hardly ever happens in the US...

I recently found out that my father has cancer, so if there was anything I could do to help him and the millions of other people worldwide suffering from various forms of cancer, then I'd do that.

I love you Mobb. Even though you're wrinkly but so are raisins and they're nice.

Cancer is a disease that is non-infectious. It comes from within your own body, and when it comes right down to it, you are either highly at risk of cancer or not largely because of genetics and luck (i.e. exercise person who has cancer but a smoker of 60 years is completely fine).

AIDS, on the other hand, is a disease that can be prevented by protecting yourself. While communicable and tragic, the disease has resulted because of miseducation and carelessness (as others have mentioned with sharing of drug needles). The vast majority of Americans with AIDS are the result of those who either a.) shared drug needles and/or b.) participated in unsafe sex with an infected partner(s). Genetics or luck have nothing to do with it.

So I selected cancer to be cured, because I have seen too many people close to me die because of this wasting, evil disease.

Obviously, because a religion fundamentally disagrees with a particular procedure or action, it is the Pope's fault that people don't use protection? Last time I checked, the Pope was simply an advisor, and didn't have control over peoples free will, which I why I think blaming the Pope/Catholicism for the spread of AIDS is a particularly ignorant stance.

Hmm, you are true to say that he is merely an advisor, and not someone who has actual power.

But don't forget that a large majority of Africans still believes strongly in God, but also in the Catholic Church and the Pope. When the Pope says something this foolish (which forbidding condoms is, IMO) then I just think "Whatever, dude". But Africans would rather obey what he says.

Of course it's also the mentality of African men (prefer intercourse without condoms) and African women (don't object strongly), but I think the Pope still has the power to do something about this problem in Africa.

Nice avatar change btw. Like him better than Theodore...

Again, whether or not the Pope is an influential figure does not mean that free will is eliminated from the individual. I think most American men and women would prefer to have sex without condoms or other forms of birth control if at all possible, but this is curbed through education, common sense, and sociological standards. That doesn't mean that people use condoms because the church says so (though a small minority probably does). Though a practicing Catholic, I certainly have no objection to the use of prophylactics such as condoms. I can however understand why the Pope would object, because a condom (as well as all forms of birth control) are designed to prevent a natural and spiritual process of conception, and, can easily lend itself to questionable lifestyle decisions (such as promiscous sex for lust). I would much rather see people use condoms that not (turn on an episode of "Cops" or "Jerry Springer" and see how shallow the gene pool can be), but I see why the Catholic Church would oppose most forms of birth control, with the exception of the rhythm method.

My point is simply this - whether or not the Catholic Church disagrees with birth control has little consequence, imho. As you've already said, most African men and women (and I would think all men and women) find it more pleasurable to have natural, unprotected sex.