If you have posted the link, my suspicion that you didn't want the whole of the exchange to be made public was wrong, and I owe you an apology for it.
I would be interested in knowing where you posted it, since it wasn't to me. But I don't need to search for it, because a friend kindly PM'd it to me.
I shall now share with your good friends here some additional parts of the conversation about Africans and sex that we are discussing.
My posting an article began the conversation:
February 3, 2001
AT HOME ABROAD
Bush and AIDS
By ANTHONY LEWIS
LONDON -- The most
profound and immediate
threat to life on earth is the
AIDS epidemic. According to
the National Institutes of
Health, more than 36 million
people in the world now have
H.I.V. or full-blown AIDS.
Every day about 15,000 are newly infected with
H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.
The grimmest figures are in developing
countries; in sub-Saharan Africa 8.8 percent of
people 15 to 49 years old are H.I.V.-infected.
But the United States and other Western
countries are hardly going to be immune from
the consequences of the plague. As millions die
around the world, leaving millions of orphans —
as whole societies crumble — our moral
posture will be challenged. So will our economic
outlook, based as it is on global prosperity.
Those realities made it shocking that George
W. Bush, in his first major decision as
president, took an action that will increase the
spread of AIDS. That was his decision to deny
U.S. aid to family-planning organizations abroad
that inform women about medical options
including abortion.
Mr. Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer,
explaining the decision, said, "The president
does not support using taxpayer funds to
provide abortions." But that was a non sequitur.
Government funding of abortions abroad has
been prohibited by law since 1973. The Bush
rule says that clinics in developing countries
will lose U.S. funds if they even discuss
abortion with their patients.
What it means on the ground is this: A woman
who has AIDS comes to a clinic somewhere in
Africa or Asia. Drugs to prevent transmission
of the disease to newborn infants are not
available there. She desperately wants to avoid
bearing the child. But the doctor or nurse
cannot advise her on a safe, legal abortion if
the clinic wants to keep its American funds.
Many family planning groups, knowing that
women will not understand a refusal to discuss
abortion, will decide to give up U.S. support.
That will have drastic consequences, because
U.S. dollars may provide most of the
contraceptives.
The result? Families will not get
contraceptives. Without them, more people will
be infected with H.I.V. — and in due course
develop AIDS.
The gag rule on discussing abortion, first
imposed by President Reagan, was dropped by
President Clinton. But otherwise the Clinton
administration's record on fighting the
worldwide menace of AIDS was unimpressive.
The most shameful action of the Clinton years
in this regard was the pressure Vice President
Al Gore put on South Africa to keep it from
going ahead with a plan to impose compulsory
licensing on drugs made by the big international
drug companies, so others could make and sell
them far more cheaply.
The drug issue remains a crucial test of
American understanding — and honor. It was
explored by Tina Rosenberg in The New York
Times Magazine last Sunday in one of the most
moving and important articles I have read in
years.
In the United States and Europe, the
anti-retroviral drugs that have made AIDS a
containable disease for many sufferers cost
either the patient or the society $10,000 to
$15,000 a year. It has been widely assumed
that poorer countries cannot afford them, and
in any event do not have health systems that
could use them effectively.
Ms. Rosenberg showed that those assumptions
are false. Brazil now makes the drugs itself
and has cut the cost by nearly 80 percent;
government commitment has produced clinics
to supervise the treatment effectively. Many
lives, and much money, have been saved.
The big drug companies are frantically
resisting the precedent. And they have great
lobbying power in the United States, achieved
by campaign donations.
Will George W. Bush find it in him to resist the
drug companies? To lead a great American
campaign to get treatment for the H.I.V. and
AIDS sufferers around the world?
The example of the abortion gag rule gives
little ground for hope. There, in the name of
life, he imposed a policy that will produce more
death: terrible death.
I doubt that he did it with knowledge of the
consequences. He just wanted to please his
anti-abortion supporters. So perhaps, on the
larger issue, he may still decide that
compassion and self-interest both demand
serious American action to fight the AIDS
epidemic.
You then provided us with this insight:
<<<Dear E. just a little tidbit on the social customs of young Saharan African's. Basically the young girls their believe that they cannot be raped. Sex is like a males right. So in a place where the customs embrace this idea the proposition that family planning will in some way slow the spread of aids among those who live in mud huts is truly stupid. The situation in Saharan Africa is a tragedy, but finding stupid bogus theories to place blame instead of trying to find ways to educate is what I expect from the very best and brightest of the truly stupid vacant liberal minds. This could be a story penned by hillary. Under the deeds of moral leadership of Jesse Jackson I see great danger for the spread of aids in the American black community. Under the moral leadership deeds of Bill clinton I see the danger in the spread of aids in all young Americans.>>>
To which I replied with the post containing the part that elicited the "intimate relations" phrase from you:
<<<First tidbit. We're not talking about "Saharan Africa." That would be people who live in the desert. Where Bedouins live? You know? The "Sahara" desert?
The issue is sub-Saharan Africa, as anyone who knows a thing about the subject of AIDS in Africa knew before they read this article, and surely should have known after reading it.
Second. I lived in sub-Sarahan Africa for five years, and I assure you I know abundantly more about the "social customs of young Saharan [sic] Africans" than you do, and I have known, personally and well, many more African girls-- and women-- than you have. They surely do know they can be raped. Do you truly think any woman anywhere really doesn't know the difference between consensual and forced sex? But I'm wondering how that sick, ignorant fantasy of yours even got into the conversation. It seems not to have a thing to do with cutting off funds for education, contraception and medical care in clinics that merely inform women about medical options including abortion.
Now let's go on the the amusing, surreal part where YOU call people stupid:
<<stupid bogus theories to place blame instead of trying to find ways to educate is
what I expect from the very best and brightest of the truly stupid vacant liberal minds. >>
It is not a bogus theory of mine that clinics that tell women about abortion have their funds cut for
~the education you espouse, and I do
~contraception
~prenatal care
~aftercare for women who have had botched abortions elsewhere
~maternity care
"What it means on the ground is this: A woman
who has AIDS comes to a clinic somewhere in
Africa or Asia. Drugs to prevent transmission
of the disease to newborn infants are not
available there. She desperately wants to avoid
bearing the child. But the doctor or nurse
cannot advise her on a safe, legal abortion if
the clinic wants to keep its American funds."
Will she have an AIDS baby, and hope, because she will love it, that she outlives the poor child? Or will she go for an abortion into the bush, and have it done with a dirty stick?>>> |
