CompuServe Messages

David, you have, once again, forced me to go back and reread my previous posts on this thread and I must say I can't discover what you refer to as my "continued referral to morality and all that implies." See my reply to Erick earlier in this thread for an examination of what I think are the moral issues involved in this discussion. I can't help but wonder what you mean by all that morality implies. You must think the implications of morality are pretty bad, though in my limited experience and witless outlook I haven't noticed any particular harm inflicted on people who attempt to lead a moral life. For me, leading a moral life provides its own rewards and doesn't depend on a vengeful God for punishment or justification. In this matter, my beliefs run to the new dispensation rather than the old. I think you are wrong about AIDS breaking out of high risk groups. When you consider that being the sexual partner of an intravenous drug abuser puts one into a high risk group, there are very few instances of AIDS outside of high risk groups. Why is AIDS spreading very rapidly heterosexually among minorities? Drug abuse is very common among minorities in inner cities and that's where the spread is occurring. Nothing that human beings do involves zero risk but for a heterosexual, non-intravenous drug abuser who has a moderate number of sexual partners, there is next to zero risk of contracting AIDS. Oddly enough I read yesterday that in NY at least, heroin users are beginning to avoid injecting themselves to avoid AIDS. Perhaps the skyrocketing of AIDS in this group will begin to fissile. As to AIDS in Africa, that's a canard and as an MD you should know it. There is virtually so such thing as an untainted blood supply in Africa and very few disposable needles. Also, a clinical picture of the average African infected heterosexually would reveal a person virtually riddled with venereal diseases, suppressed immune system, open sores, etc. …Warren