Should people with AIDS be allowed to have children?

pretty-in-pink

Well does anyone here think that once someone has contratced the disease they should be allowed to have children? And how about sex?

Please state reasons for your opinion-

Should they be forced to inform all sexual partners who may have caught the disease from them?

Kevin_rc_ie

I think you should change the title of this thread to "Should people with AIDS have children?". I can't see anyother way of expressing your idea without sounding like some kind of .....

Rabies

I think they should be legally obliged to tell all previous and future sexual partners about their health.
As for having kids, I think both partners should understand the risks first and the possibilites of the disease getting passed on. If it was possible to screen and filter the aids virus prior to conception then i would be all for it. But really the decision ends with the consenting adults and if they want to risk infecting their unborn child.

DrIndy

Don't be ridiculous!

Women who are HIV positive can receive treatment which reduces the chance of transmission to any children to less than 2% risk. This is being further refined and will shrink much more over time.

It is VERY important to know statistics before expounding sweeping statements.

There is also a VERY big difference between someone HIV+ who is on treatment with a very low viral count and someone with AIDS. You have grouped them together which is also inappropriate.

GerardKeating

naughty_girl wrote:

Well does anyone here think that once someone has contratced the disease they should be allowed to have children?

What exactly could be done about it, if it was banned, manditory terminations ?

naughty_girl wrote:

Should they be forced to inform all sexual partners who may have caught the disease from them?

This assumes they are not the victim, they caught it from someone. Also how far back do you go? Yuo can never pin point when it is caught, so how does one figures which patners are before and after.

Now it should be mandatory to inform "future" patners, but this aint gonig to happen either.

sci0x

I do think people who have contracted the disease should be allowed have children. Yes you will be giving this child an incurable disease and they are going to die sooner than later, however isn't it inevitable that we are all going to die anyway? There are many people with serious diseases that have made a huge impact on other peoples lives Helen Keller for example.

Nasty_Girl

See tis a complex one,
If you and your partner both have the disease, say in a badly affected developing country where treatment is scarce, would it be better to be try control the spread by becoming celllibate or have the baby and hold out hope for a cure?
A cure could be around the corner for all we know.... Or it could be many decades on...

Macmorris

naughty_girl wrote:

Well does anyone here think that once someone has contratced the disease they should be allowed to have children?

No, they shouldn't be allowed to have children. They should be forcefully sterilised as soon as they're diagnosed with the disease. To inflict an innocent child with a disease like Aids is a form of child abuse.

pretty-in-pink

DrIndy wrote:

There is also a VERY big difference between someone HIV+ who is on treatment with a very low viral count and someone with AIDS. You have grouped them together which is also inappropriate.

Is that for me? I didn't put them together, I can't see that anyone did,I know they are different, as I assume everyone does.

Also if you got regular std/sti checks you could pinpoint to within a year/six months- however often you go get checked

To contract the disease would imply you're a victim....I'm pretty sure very few people would choose to get AIDS

Capt'n Midnight

During the 1918/19 flu pandemic sneezing was banned in the street.
Sex is too taboo to ban

Put another way - you need a license to have a dog, but anyone can have a child - can't that changing anytime soon.

Fysh

My question here is, why are you restricting it to AIDS?

I mean, if we're going to say that people with AIDS shouldn't be allowed to have sex/reproduce, why not extend it to other diseases? Why not widen it to people with genetic defects or family histories of hereditary illnesses (to use your own phrase, I can't imagine any more people choosing to have these than would choose to contract HIV/AIDS)? In fact, why not just regulate breeding entirely at a government level?

Believe it or not, I'm not being as facetious as it sounds. Books like Brave New World go into these sort of ideas at some depth, and I would say that you'd want to have a lot of careful thought given to the idea before reaching a decision, especially one couched in as sweeping terms as yours was.

I can't really say off the top of my head. I don't think it should be a restriction, since it's a disease that we're working on treating and having at least some success with - and it's certainly not the only defect that a child could contract through what might be called "careless breeding" if I were that callous (oh, look, I am ). Subsequent reading may change my mind or reinforce this stance.

Since you haven't explicitly stated your opinion yet (although I can take an educated guess, given the tone of your post), what are your thoughts on the idea? And what are your reasons?

pretty-in-pink

Ha ha, your assumption would be correct.

I don't think they should be allowed to have children- aside from the defects the child would have- they would also give it to their partner.

The reason I'm focusing on AIDS is because it can be avoided through being careful and it needn't be passed on. Other diseases- such as birth defects, are not passed on through sex/excahnge of bodily fluids.

In the case of two infected people having a child, they might not make eachother sicker- but think of the poor kid.

Nasty_Girl

Here's a few sky newsies on the disease itself

Here

sky news wrote:

80 MILLION MAY DIE OF AIDS

More than 80 million Africans may die from AIDS by 2025, the United Nations has warned.

The organisation says that, if urgent action is not taken, up to 10% of the population or 90 million people would be infected with HIV by then.


More than 25 million African have already been infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

UNAIDS estimated that £105bn is needed to save 16 million people from death and 43 million people from becoming infected.

The UN agency has examined potential scenarios for the continent in the next 20 years depending on the international community's contribution to fighting the epidemic.

Researchers estimate that even with massive funding and better treatment 67 million will die in Africa.

Dr. Peter Piot, the head of UNAIDS said: "The scenarios are not predictions, they are plausible stories about the future.

"Millions of new infections can be prevented if Africa and the rest of the world decide to tackle AIDS as an exceptional crisis that has the potential to devastate entire societies and economies.

"AIDS already has a devastating impact on the continent.".

UNAIDS has reported that life expectancy in nine countries has dropped to below 40 because of the disease.

There are 11 million orphans, while 6,500 people are dying each day and last year 3.1 million people were newly infected

And here

sky news wrote:

NEW STRAIN OF VIRUS FOUND

A new strain of the Aids virus that has so far proved drug-resistant has been discovered in New York, it has been confirmed.

The finding has put the city's hospitals and doctors on alert and it is thought the strain causes a quick onset of the full-blown disease.


An unidentified man in his 40s, reported to have had multiple male partners and unprotected sex, has been infected. He is thought to have developed Aids in as short a time as two to three months.

The use of the illegal drug crystal methamphetamine - a powerful stimulant - was probably a contributing factor, experts believe.

The New York Times has quoted two Aids specialists who say the case, discovered on January 21, may have been an isolated incident.

But Doctor Thomas Frieden, commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, has called it a potential major problem.

"It's a wake-up call to men who have sex with men, particularly those who may use crystal methamphetamine," Dr Frieden said in a statement.

The new strain of the Aids virus has been named 3-DCR HIV and was found to be resistant to three of the four classes of drugs used to treat HIV.

Fysh

And? What about the poor kid who inherits the genetic code for a massive heart attack at forty from both parents? Why is that any better, just because you can't sexually transmit the genetic material involved? The end result is still a child with a biological sword of Damocles hanging over them.

I'd also say that the double-standards in our current childbirth/childcare system are more of a concern - as in, anyone can have a child, but to adopt you have to pass a series of stringent tests (or at least, so the theory goes - although the story about that indonesian kid suggests otherwise). I think there are more cases of children in the West being born to parents who aren't entirely competent to care for a child than there are children born with HIV (that said, I don't have stats on the matter, so don't take this as a given). I'd also point out that there is a significant difference between having HIV and having AIDS; a difference which becomes quite important in the context of being allowed to breed as per your suggestion.

pretty-in-pink

Oh I totally agree ther are double standards,and i have some ideas about how this could be tackled.....but I think that nearly deserves a thread of its own as its complex

and the parents on boards wouldn't like my suggestion very much. What solution would you propose?

Nasty_Girl

Bit of mental issue all around

DrIndy

naughty_girl wrote:

The reason I'm focusing on AIDS is because it can be avoided through being careful and it needn't be passed on . Other diseases- such as birth defects, are not passed on through sex/excahnge of bodily fluids.

Newsflash!

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=820556&issue_id=7984

Ever heard of the Lindsay Tribunal?

HIV is difficult to transmit - it is a fragile virus. A person on effective treatment (which most are) have a very low viral count, which makes it even more difficult to transmit. HIV+ people do not neccesarily have AIDS.

pretty-in-pink

DrIndy wrote:

Newsflash!

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=820556&issue_id=7984

Ever heard of the Lindsay Tribunal?

HIV is difficult to transmit - it is a fragile virus. A person on effective treatment (which most are) have a very low viral count, which makes it even more difficult to transmit. HIV+ people do not neccesarily have AIDS.

Second and last time I'll say it. I am not talking about HIV, you're the one who brought it up. I am talking about full-blown AIDS. Now if you feel HIV is deserving of a seperate thread then knock yourself out, however if you continue to keep harping on about how HIV is different and avoiding what I actually asked, then you are meerly showing yourself to be a thread jacker- and so not worth wasting the time or energy answering

simu

If we were to prevent certain people from having kids, we'd have to allow abortion in Ireland as well and that is'nt going to happen any time soon...

Such a banning might lead to people having kids in secret without medical treatment. Never a good thing.

pretty-in-pink

perhaps,but if people with AIDS are going to have kids, then the situations mesed up. Anything could go wrong-what if the mother accidentely cuts one of the nurses/doctors,and they get the blood of the mother mixed with their own? (is this possible actually?) Its just plain messy- I see no good side to letting poeople with AIDS have children, why would you delibrately want to put your partner and children in that kind of danger?

DrIndy

What I am attempting to assert is the fundamental differences between being HIV positive and having AIDS. This difference is not something you have noted throughout your comments which are somewhat inflammatory.

My references to the Lindsay Tribunal demonstrate that it is possible to become infected through no hand or part your own, in contrast with your previous statement "because it can be avoided through being careful".

To clarify, people who are HIV positive can now be treated in such a way that they will never become ill with AIDS. Whilst pregnant, they can now be treated in such a way that the odds of transmission to their children are slim and verging on none.

This will be further adjusted in the future as newer and even better treatments become available. In theory, people currently on the newest treatments will never develop AIDS as they have been completely stable with a very low viral load. Time will tell if it has been truly effective.

Your comments that they should not have children is a moot point and a tad inflammatory. This is why I challenge it.

People with full blown AIDS are very sick with other infections. They will spend much of their time in hospital and on a lengthy list of medication. Chronic illness makes people infertile and the likelyhood of them having children is very low indeed. Hence children born to "AIDS" parents are in fact HIV+. HIV+ people are generally symptom free. The cause of the spread of this infection is attributed to people who are HIV+ (and a high viral load) but without AIDS - as they are mostly well and do not know they are infected.

simu

naughty_girl wrote:

Second and last time I'll say it. I am not talking about HIV, you're the one who brought it up. I am talking about full-blown AIDS. Now if you feel HIV is deserving of a seperate thread then knock yourself out, however if you continue to keep harping on about how HIV is different and avoiding what I actually asked, then you are meerly showing yourself to be a thread jacker- and so not worth wasting the time or energy answering

HIV causes AIDS so if you have AIDS, you must also be HIV positive but afaik, people may transmit HIV to others but not the AIDS itself - that's something that can only develop later on in the HIV-infected person.

So, I don't see how it makes a difference whether the parent has developed full-blown AIDS yet unless you're taking the viewpoint that this will make them too weak to look after their child?

Kevin_rc_ie

Naughty_girl you give me the impression you don't seem to see that people with diseases, all diseases, have the same basic human rights as people without.

simu

naughty_girl wrote:

perhaps,but if people with AIDS are going to have kids, then the situations mesed up. Anything could go wrong-what if the mother accidentely cuts one of the nurses/doctors,and they get the blood of the mother mixed with their own? (is this possible actually?)

Should we leave them untreated if they're in a car crash as well?

pretty-in-pink

Actually the reason I picked AIDS- and just AIDS is because of all the health complications with it. Nor do i see why people with diseases with full health should be ostracised....

AIDS is not a normal disease.If I wished to discuss HIV- or indeed any other disease, I would have mentioned it. I don't see how I was being inflammatory-if you are aware you have the disease you can take every step there to prevent the spread of it, and so spreading it beacuse of ignorance of selfishness is inexcuseable.

As for my question re catching it in a hospital, I don't mean that medical treatment should be withheld- but surely they would need really tight procedures to prevent the further spread of the disease.

DrIndy

naughty_girl wrote:

perhaps,but if people with AIDS are going to have kids, then the situations mesed up. Anything could go wrong-what if the mother accidentely cuts one of the nurses/doctors,and they get the blood of the mother mixed with their own? (is this possible actually?) Its just plain messy- I see no good side to letting poeople with AIDS have children, why would you delibrately want to put your partner and children in that kind of danger?

In general most women in labour are discouraged from wielding sharp implements or using them on the attendant staff. :cool:

HIV positive mothers deliver babies under controlled circumstances where the midwives and doctors are gowned and double gloved. All swabs are carefully counted and the delivery suite is carefully sterilised. They also normally deliver by caesarian section which further reduces the odds of infection.

Nasty_Girl

DrIndy wrote:

In general most women in labour are discouraged from wielding sharp implements or using them on the attendant staff. :cool:

HIV positive mothers deliver babies under controlled circumstances where the midwives and doctors are gowned and double gloved. All swabs are carefully counted and the delivery suite is carefully sterilised. They also normally deliver by caesarian section which further reduces the odds of infection.

but what about developing countries?

simu

naughty_girl wrote:

Actually the reason I picked AIDS- and just AIDS is because of all the health complications with it. Nor do i see why people with diseases with full health should be ostracised....

What complications exactly? If the woman is that weak, the pregnancy probably won't get carried to term anyway. Also, if you have a disease, you're not in full helath.

AIDS is not a normal disease.If I wished to discuss HIV- or indeed any other disease, I would have mentioned it. I don't see how I was being inflammatory-if you are aware you have the disease you can take every step there to prevent the spread of it, and so spreading it beacuse of ignorance of selfishness is inexcuseable.

But you can do that - http://www.ndsc.ie/DiseaseTopicsA-Z/AntenatalHIVTesting/

As for my question re catching it in a hospital, I don't mean that medical treatment should be withheld- but surely they would need really tight procedures to prevent the further spread of the disease.

They already have.

simu

Nasty_Girl wrote:

but what about developing countries?

If you're talking about the developing world, you'd have to start with making contraception and education on how to use it available to all so that the rate of HIV infection starts to fall. You can't just tell people (who may not even know they are HIV-positive) that it's forbidden for them to get pregnant!

DrIndy

Nasty_Girl wrote:

but what about developing countries?

Trickier. There is a 15% chance of transmission from mother to child without therapy versus less than 2% with anti-HIV drugs. This brings a separate issue to the fore, that people in Africa cannot afford lifesaving antiHIV therapy due to the high cost that US multinationals insist must be paid.

Hopefully, these companies can be made to change their mind.

AIDS is not a normal disease.If I wished to discuss HIV- or indeed any other disease, I would have mentioned it.

Simu and I have both clearly explained the differences and similarities between HIV and AIDS.

In fact AIDS is a very normal disease, it occurs because the immune system ceases to function normally - this also occurs in leukaemia, inherited conditions, certain drugs and immunosuppression to prevent rejection of organ transplants.

The only difference between AIDS and other immune suppresion is it is acquired via a virus.

Nasty_Girl

simu wrote:

If you're talking about the developed world, you'd have to start with making contraception and education on how to use it available to all so that the rate of HIV infection starts to fall. You can't just tell people (who may not even know they are HIV-positive) that it's forbidden for them to get pregnant!

didn't say ya could, I had a big long-ish rant but DrIndy has posted in response so my points no longer need to be made as they have been answered

BuffyBot

They should be forcefully sterilised as soon as they're diagnosed with the disease.

Give us some compelling reasons why. Go on, you know you want to!

bang_bang_rosie

To deliberatly have a child knowing you are infected with HIV or AIDs is selfish. Why would someone want to live with a black clould over their head for their life when they never even had a choice.
A genetic history of heart attack etc etc is different as no. 1 the parents more than likely haven't had one to know,
no. 2 you cannot pass it on to a sexual parter (and therefore don't have to give up a major part of life).
no.3 you can enjoy a large proportion of your life without contast medical attention, tests and or medication.

I do think that the same applies to all diseases that have the same effect and such a high rate of transmission.

Is surrogacy an option?

Kevin_rc_ie

To deliberatly have a child knowing you are infected with HIV or AIDs is selfish

How so? I assume you mean either, giving birth to children with the disease (i think Drindy has spoken about this ^^) or giving birth to children with/without the diesase and probably dying soon is selfish.

DrIndy

bang_bang_rosie wrote:

To deliberatly have a child knowing you are infected with HIV or AIDs is selfish.

Unfortunately, far too many women find out they are HIV Positive when they go in for a pregnancy checkup and then get the grim news.

The medical profession recommend not to become pregnant, because the risk is not zero for transmission, yet. When it is, then even advocating against pregnancy will be wrong.

But what it comes down to is that pregnancy happens. Most pregnancies are unplanned. So it is a case of harm minimisation, this is possible with drugs.

pretty-in-pink

It is selfish "I want a baby, but I've got AIDS, ah heck we all die sometime, so it makes no difference to my baby- lets do this"

If you have AIDS and you want a child why not adopt? Plenty of people have kids and give them up- you still have a baby, but you're not delibrately putting their health in danger.

pretty-in-pink

DrIndy wrote:

Unfortunately, far too many women find out they are HIV Positive when they go in for a pregnancy checkup and then get the grim news.

Different story---it was said if you know you have it and proceeed to try have children its selfish. Not if you find out during your pregnancy, u didn't know u had the disease,

If you did know you had the disease but had unprotected sex then you're a fool

bang_bang_rosie

Kevin_rc_ie wrote:

How so? I assume you mean either, giving birth to children with the disease (i think Drindy has spoken about this ^^) or giving birth to children with/without the diesase and probably dying soon is selfish.

Well it would be nice for all children to be born by parents that will live for most of their childhood years, but we all know sadly that this impossible.
What i mean by selfish is that the parents decide to have children for their own desires ( again on the assumption that it is planned) and since the child has no part or knowledge in this desision, it is selfish to knowingly inflict the high possibility of such a life theatening illness on them.
Never mind the fact that it makes them 'different' their whole life. Imagine being a teenager with that hanging over your head.
And yes I know they wouldn't have a life if it wasn't for the parents but they would never know.

simu

naughty_girl wrote:

It is selfish "I want a baby, but I've got AIDS, ah heck we all die sometime, so it makes no difference to my baby- lets do this"

People who have genetically transmitted diseases with a higher transmission rate than HIV are allowed to have kids though. There's always a risk with having kids - where do you draw the line?

Eoghan-psych

sci0x wrote:

I do think people who have contracted the disease should be allowed have children. Yes you will be giving this child an incurable disease and they are going to die sooner than later, however isn't it inevitable that we are all going to die anyway? There are many people with serious diseases that have made a huge impact on other peoples lives Helen Keller for example.

In summary then, it is ok to give children debilitating illnesses just to satisfy the needs of someone else.

That's absurd.

As for citing Helen Keller - she didn't have AIDS. She was blind, not infectious.

There are enough sick people in this world already thanks, we don't need to deliberately manufacture more. If AIDS sufferers are *that* desperate to have kids, there are plenty of healthy children out their looking for adoptive parents.

Eoghan-psych

simu wrote:

People who have genetically transmitted diseases with a higher transmission rate than HIV are allowed to have kids though. There's always a risk with having kids - where do you draw the line?

When the child's health is at risk. The rights of a child *far* outweigh those of a parent.

Eoghan-psych

naughty_girl wrote:

The reason I'm focusing on AIDS is because it can be avoided through being careful and it needn't be passed on. Other diseases- such as birth defects, are not passed on through sex/excahnge of bodily fluids.

Precisely - AIDS is a *disease*, it isn't a birth defect. It isn't a genetic condition. It isn't normal human variation. It is a serious, dangerous disease. The "a cure is around the corner" idea doesn't work - there are enough AIDS sufferers in the world as it is without attempting to manufacture more.

Eoghan-psych

DrIndy wrote:

But what it comes down to is that pregnancy happens. Most pregnancies are unplanned. So it is a case of harm minimisation, this is possible with drugs.

Hysterectomies and vasectomies are much more effective.

Magical Pete

People with AID's would probably not be physically capable of having sex/getting pregnant, so your tilted first question is mostly irrelevant. It also means you can stop saying "people with AID's having kids" all the time too. Sex is great, but not all that common when you're lying in a hospital bed hoping your lack of an immune system doesn't kill you today.

People who are HIV+ are, as has been said, a very different class of folk. And yes, they should be allowed to have children. Or do you think they should be stigmatised even more than they are already? That humans beings with a disease are still human beings and have the same rights as the rest of us may be surprising. Yeah, equal rights can be a bitch like that.

Now, i don't know a huge number of HIV+ people. In fact, to my best knowledge, i only know one. The anti-babies crowd would be happy to know that she won't be reproducing, having no ovaries can do that to you. Plus she has no real interest in making babies or even making love. But that's not to say that had she the capabilities, she shouldn't have the right. There's a risk to the child, but a parent will love and care for that kid as much as you or i ever will, and only he or she has the right to decide whether it's fair on the child to risk being born.
Most people wouldn't do that to their children, would not risk giving them what it's not their fault they have, but they have the right (and responsibility) to choose, nobody else does. So whether they should be "allowed" or not is a moot point if there's a 5% risk of transmission.

DrIndy

Well said and very true.

Eoghan-psych

Magical Pete wrote:

But that's not to say that had she the capabilities, she shouldn't have the right. There's a risk to the child, but a parent will love and care for that kid as much as you or i ever will, and only he or she has the right to decide whether it's fair on the child to risk being born.

And what of the child's rights?

As a society we should hold the rights of a healthy child *far* above those of a sick adult. In fact the rights of children should wholly supercede those of adults.

I agree with an earlier poster - mandatory sterilisation. That might sound harsh, but newsflash - HIV/AIDS is harsh. Unlike genetic conditions, it *spreads*.

Magical Pete

Eoghan-psych wrote:

And what of the child's rights?

As a society we should hold the rights of a healthy child *far* above those of a sick adult. In fact the rights of children should wholly supercede those of adults.

I agree with an earlier poster - mandatory sterilisation. That might sound harsh, but newsflash - HIV/AIDS is harsh. Unlike genetic conditions, it *spreads*.

And what of the parents rights? I would love to see what possible right you or anyone else has to sterilise someone? Newsflash yourself, you don't have the right to do something to someone else because of what -might- happen.

AID's is clearly harsh, in fact, while it's slightly unrelated, has anyone here been ostracised by society completely for something you can't do anything about? For something you didn't ask for or even know you were being given? I'd bet not. Have you ever seen the reaction of an otherwise perfectly normal person to the simple statement "I have HIV"? Declaring you're Hitlers' eviller twin couldn't guarantee the same look of sheer mortification. But looking mortified doesn't give you the right to point a finger and declare that -you- shall not reproduce. Neither does a <5% chance of passing it in. THIS may sound harsh, but it's a calculated risk. It's comparing how much you'd love to have a child with the possibility that you would inflict a horrendous disease on them. That is not a choice anyone would enjoy making, but it's one that ONLY the people involved have any say in. Not you, not me, not the kids.

DrIndy

Eoghan-psych wrote:

I agree with an earlier poster - mandatory sterilisation. That might sound harsh, but newsflash - HIV/AIDS is harsh. Unlike genetic conditions, it *spreads*.

Newsflash - HIV is an infection and so sterilisation does absolutely nothing to prevent its spread.

Genetic diseases are spread much more rampantly than HIV is.

Eoghan-psych

DrIndy wrote:

Newsflash - HIV is an infection and so sterilisation does absolutely nothing to prevent its spread.

Genetic diseases are spread much more rampantly than HIV is.

It reduces the number of people *born* with HIV, and it reduces the number of people *orphaned* by HIV.

Genetic diseases *can't* spread - they are not caused by virii or bacteria. You cannot pass on a genetic disease through sex.

What you are essentially arguing for here is the right to create sick people.

If you knowingly have unprotected sex with a partner who doesn't know you are HIV+ it is assault. It is not ok for you to pass HIV to a partner - why should it be ok for you to pass it to a child?

As a society we pass laws to protect children all the time - this should be no different. Social services, for example, regularly takes children from abusive homes - by your logic these children should be left alone as the parents rights to have children outweighs the childrens' rights to healthy and safe lives.

Magical Pete

Please take the time to differenciate between a loving parent who runs a (again, <5%) risk of passing on HIV to their child and a disturbed, abusive parent who's sole aim appears to be to hurt and torment their progeny.

Sterilisation will only prevent otherwise perfect parents from realising their goal to carry on their name and genes to future generations. That fewer than 1/20 of these parents will pass on their illness doesn't validate your argument. This is not the creation of "sick children", nobody -wants- their son or daughter to be brought into the world with a debilitating disease. But, once again, if two loving parents decide they want a child, and one or both are HIV+, it is THEIR decision whether or not they are willing to risk that (<5%) chance their child will suffer from HIV.

Remember too that this is not whether parents should or shouldn't create babies that may be HIV+. Needless to say, they really shouldn't for their child's sake risk it. But they have the right to decide whether or not they do, just as they have the responsibility to accept the outcome and result of pro-creating with such a risk.
Put it this way, if i met, loved and married someone who was HIV+, what you or anyone else had to say about whether or not we should have kids wouldn't matter a damn to me. If she and i wanted it and were willing to live with the consequences, then that'd be that. I see no reason why it should be any different for anybody else.

Finally, if you feel happy comparing not telling your partner about your HIV before sleeping with them and have a baby while knowing you have HIV, then you should also feel happy accepting that forced sterilisation is nothing more than murder by proxy and is a denial of basic human rights.

Lemming

naughty_girl wrote:

Second and last time I'll say it. I am not talking about HIV, you're the one who brought it up. I am talking about full-blown AIDS. Now if you feel HIV is deserving of a seperate thread then knock yourself out, however if you continue to keep harping on about how HIV is different and avoiding what I actually asked, then you are meerly showing yourself to be a thread jacker- and so not worth wasting the time or energy answering

For the love of god ....

AIDS is not different to HIV. AIDS is a 'classification' of HIV sufferer, hence the term 'syndrome' as opposed to, oh say, ... "virus". HIV is the virus. Not AIDS, so the question surrounding HIV is HIGHLY and entirely appropriate.

AIDS is the classification that one gets when their immune system drops so low that they contract one of 25 odd opportunistic viruses. Some die. Some actually manage to fight it off and raise their immune level again, yet will always remain AIDS category since their immune system did drop to such a level at one point.

If you're going to make sweeping hysterical arguments about something, at least understand what the hell it is you're making sweeping hysterical arguments about