AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease spread by those who have unnatural
desires, lack proper hygiene, mingle with more than one partner and perform
unfaithful acts against their spouse. As far as I know AIDS has been blamed
on man. I haven’t heard as of yet, that nature is the intended villain. For
this tragedy to be ruled as natural, is to say it’s of nature.
The AIDS virus could never be viewed nor considered as a natural way to
stabilize population control, that’s absurd. I find this question a little
disturbing. How could such a terrible disease be natural, it lies solely
upon the shoulders of those who throw caution to the wind, then blind
themselves to the aftermath of their actions.
Aids is another plague upon man for his corruptible behavior of the flesh.
It’s a deadly warning for man to change his ways. I say man in context of
the bible, it pertains to man and woman as hold. A virus that can erase the
lives of thousands at a time is hardly population control, it’s a disaster,
it’s an enemy we need to defeat.
If we considered AIDS as a natural dispensation of nature, our souls would
have to turn dark enough for our hearts to no longer sympathize with those
suffering a slow and agonizing death. Thereby, we can excuse ourselves from
the burden of caring. Could a world turn so cold? I think not. I sincerely
hope not.
Could we look anyone in the face who has been effected with AIDS by a
loved one and tell them it’s a natural stabilizing of population control?
What about doctors who have used tainted needles on their patients? Should
I dare believe that they are doing their civic duty to assist nature, by
causing a new outbreak of a so called natural event designed by to control
the population.
What about the forced victims? Women living in impoverished and war torn
countries or here in the USA, who are raped and become infected. Should we
just shrug our shoulders and declare it as natural? What about the innocent
newborn babies? Should they be denied proper care because they’re a product
of population control? Would this stance hold firm, if it’s were a friend,
relative or loved one of the petitioner? I think not.
Nature shouldn’t be made the antagonist of what is clearly an act of man
and man alone. Besides there’s a flaw in this line of thinking which can’t
be ignored…should it be accepted as natural for man to be a sexually
diseased predator without morals or boundaries? The life force surrounding
us is natural to it’s ways, not to the ways of man.
