The South Korean government should establish an AIDS colony on the island of Yeonpyeong

First of all I should like to state that I am indebted to my opponent for advising me that the island I had chosen for the South Korean AIDS colony had, by coincidence, come under heavy bombardment from the North Korean military a few hours before I posted this debate. What a coincidence! Never mind though, it negates the need to offer compensation and alternative housing for the civilians on the island, as they will now be fleeing for their lives leaving the smouldering ruins of their houses behind them. First I will address the subjective morality of the South Koreans and the wider implications of the proposal. The primary responsibility of the South Korean government – indeed any responsible government – is to protect its citizens, even though that may mean sacrifices in circumstances such as wars, famines and the occasion of lethal epidemics such as the spread of the AIDS virus represents. Desperate times call for desperate measures and just as South Korea didn't protest at the alleged American human rights abuses that took place in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay because they respected the right of the USFG to combat terrorist threats to American citizens, I would expect the United States to reciprocate by allowing the South Koreans to deal with their AIDS problem in the way they see fit. Furthermore, North Korea represents a potential threat to American commercial and military interests in the Pacific region, and with further development of their nuclear programme, the North Koreans could soon be capable of targeting long-range nuclear missiles on mainland United States – I very much doubt that the US would let her concerns about the civil liberties of a handful of HIV-positive men (who are, let's be honest, dying anyway) interfere with the American economy or national security. In any case, the South Koreans would not refer to the policy as "imprisonment in an AIDS penal colony" but rather something like "quarantined in an AIDS treatment facility" and will point to past occasions when they have quarantined some of their citizens for the greater public good, for example, during the recent outbreak of Avian Flu there. [1] With regard to treatment, it is true that certain drugs can mitigate the effects of AIDS and prolong life, but there is, as yet no cure. With regard to enforcement, it may well be the case that deliberately infecting somebody with HIV is, or should be, illegal but prevention is always better than cure and it would make sense to separate high risk individuals from society before they have a chance to commit that crime – rather like removing a firearm from a mentally-deranged psychopath before he had the chance to fire it. In addition, many transmissions take place by men who have unprotected sex with other men knowing the risks, or through the use of shared needles to inject illegal drugs. In these cases, the sufferers must accept a degree of culpability for their condition. With regard to testing, it is normal for people to have a comprehensive medical including blood tests at least once a year and this will include routine screening for AIDS. It is unlikely that somebody would jeopardise their health by foregoing their medical just on the off-chance that they may have contracted AIDS – unless, of course, they knew that they had deliberately put themselves at risk by having unprotected gay sex or by sharing heroin needles, in which case, as I said, they must be prepared to accept the consequences of their irresponsible actions – whatever they may be. Finally, my opponent observed that I made a distinction between male sufferers on one hand, and female and children victims on the other hand, and I did so deliberately for a very good reason - HIV is most commonly spread by adult males through unprotected penetrative sex [2] - females and pre-pubescent males cannot pass on AIDS in this way and are, therefore, low risk. Moving on to objective morality, it is absolutely the case that a minority of members of society pose a risk to the majority then that risk should be mitigated. That's why we incarcerate criminals, place people with profound mental health problems in secure psychiatric facilities and quarantine people who have contracted contagious and deadly diseases such as Avian Flu and other incurable infections. With specific regard to the inhabitants of Yeonpyeong Island, many have fled as I have said and few will relish living with the threat of future North Korean bombardments or even invasion and they will probably consider themselves be better off on the mainland. However, if some do want to take their chances with the shells, missiles and AIDS sufferers, I suppose they should be allowed to do so. In conclusion, the benefit to the South Korean population as a whole of ridding themselves, perhaps within a generation, of the deadly spectre of HIV/AIDS far outweighs any minor and short-term inconveniences a small number of terminally-ill AIDS sufferers will have to endure. Thank you. [1] . http://avianflunetwork.blogspot.com... [2] . http://www.cdc.gov...