mocktwinkie saidI stand corrected on this one. It is true that there are ways people contract HIV without necessarily engaging in risky sexual activity with multiple partners -- I'm glad that was pointed out. Nevertheless, it is THE prominent cause for the spread of HIV.
Proving what? That because SOME people engage in irresponsible risky behavior, which can result in HIV infection, that HIV funding should be reduced for everyone across the board? Forgetting about those that you yourself now admit were innocently infected, through no error of their own? And overlooking the fact that money for HIV also goes to education and community outreach programs, to reduce risky sexual behavior in the first place, along with other non-sexual high-risk activities, like needle sharing.
Using your model and that of Christine O'Donnell, I guess heart research & treatment gets too much money, too. After all, SOME people develop heart problems because of poor diet and lifestyle choices, not just because of their genetics. In fact, some studies suggest that MOST heart disease can be avoided or lessened, the development of symptoms being delayed, by making healthy choices, versus making poor choices. Well, then since many heart problems are known to be "linked to behavior" let's slash that money, too.
And how about lung and throat cancer? Pretty strong correlation there to smoking, and some other cancers, as well. So once again these people brought it on themselves, because those US cigarette packs do have a government warning on them. No reason the rest of us should pay for a smoker's mistakes, either, so let's cut the budgets for lung cancer, that, similar to HIV, includes spending on education to discourage unhealthy behavior.
Naturally I'd reduce the EMT emergency services budgets for victims of motor vehicle accidents, too. We'd save money by triaging for people that are found to have not been wearing their seat belts, especially in those US States where buckling up is the law. It's their choice to ignore those manufacturer warning stickers all over the car, and sometimes violate the actual law, so let 'em bleed to death along the side of the road, while those wearing seat belts are saved first. They have only their own poor behavior to blame, and I see no reason why my tax dollars should be used to bail them out of their own predicament.
Does all this sound like familiar logic to you? Because that's what you & O'Donnell are in effect arguing.