Should people with AIDS be allowed to have children?

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

Eoghan-psych

Magical Pete wrote:

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.

There is no difference in reality. 5% chance of transmitting HIV is unacceptable. When medical technolgy gets that down to 0%, fine. Until then, those infected with the virus should not be allowed to reproduce.

What kind of "perfectly loving parent" deliberately and knowingly puts their child's life in danger?

I ask again - it is *not* acceptable for someone to deliberately put their *partner* at risk of catching HIV, so why should it be acceptable for someone to deliberately put a *child* in the same position?

Lemming

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Until then, those infected with the virus should not be allowed to reproduce.

And how would you propose that? Incarcerate them for life? For what crime? 'Snip' them? Still wont prevent transmission of the disease. Castrate/mutilate them? What about their human rights as set down by UN charter?

What about someone who unknowingly passes the virus on (not knowing they themselves are infected) and pregnancy occurs from the event also? Not an outlandish scenario by any stretch of the imagination.

What kind of "perfectly loving parent" deliberately and knowingly puts their child's life in danger?

I ask again - it is *not* acceptable for someone to deliberately put their *partner* at risk of catching HIV, so why should it be acceptable for someone to deliberately put a *child* in the same position?

Well, by your own logic that means that unless you are a perfect human specimen with zero defects or at risk of hereditary conditions then you should not be permitted to have a child. After all you are "deliberately" putting your potential child's life in danger.....

It's a slippery slope and there IS no boundary. Think about it.

Eoghan-psych

Lemming wrote:

And how would you propose that? Incarcerate them for life? For what crime? 'Snip' them? Still wont prevent transmission of the disease. Castrate/mutilate them? What about their human rights as set down by UN charter?

The charter includes a caveat in relation to the pursuit of rights. Our rights only extend to the point where they impact on another - unless you want to argue that we should stop violating the rights of prison inmates? I hope not.

Lemming wrote:

What about someone who unknowingly passes the virus on (not knowing they themselves are infected) and pregnancy occurs from the event also? Not an outlandish scenario by any stretch of the imagination.

This thread specifically and explicitly relates to those who are aware that they have HIV.

Lemming wrote:

Well, by your own logic that means that unless you are a perfect human specimen with zero defects or at risk of hereditary conditions then you should not be permitted to have a child. After all you are "deliberately" putting your potential child's life in danger.....

HIV is not a hereditary condition. Its effects are not limited to the offspring of those affected. A hereditary condition is like a bullet, HIV is like a biological weapon. The bullet only harms the one it hits, whereas the bioweapon can affect many many more.

Lemming wrote:

It's a slippery slope and there IS no boundary. Think about it.

I have thought about it. We *already* regard it as unacceptable to place another person's life in danger. Do children not count as people?

pretty-in-pink

Exactly, its the group of people who delibrately put their partners and children at risk. If you know you have it, you shouldn't have children. Its unfair to all parties involved. Minimal risk is still risk, and HIV spreads....last I checked blindness,deafness,cancer,alcoholism,heart attacks,being overweight,being small or tall etc doesn't spread.

Why don't you focus on the argument, instead of citing things outside it as other reasons for people to either have or not have children.

And its been said people with HIV can adopt. If they are allowed, they too would have to be screened like any other couple. But adoption is different from conception, and so is only a tangent of the argument

Lemming

Eoghan-psych wrote:

The charter includes a caveat in relation to the pursuit of rights. Our rights only extend to the point where they impact on another - unless you want to argue that we should stop violating the rights of prison inmates? I hope not.

Omfg. Tell me I'm not reading this. Let me get this straight. You want to incarcerate innocent people who's only "crime" is to fall victim of an infection

This thread specifically and explicitly relates to those who are aware that they have HIV.

Really? I don't see that in the OP's remarks.

HIV is not a hereditary condition. Its effects are not limited to the offspring of those affected. A hereditary condition is like a bullet, HIV is like a biological weapon. The bullet only harms the one it hits, whereas the bioweapon can affect many many more.

Christ. Almighty. I'm not even sure HOW to respond to commentary of that ... "calibre".

I have thought about it. We *already* regard it as unacceptable to place another person's life in danger. Do children not count as people?

Evidently you haven't gotten past page three of the Sun newspaper by the looks of it. Think about what you're proposing again.

Lemming

naughty_girl wrote:

Exactly, its the group of people who delibrately put their partners and children at risk.

Such people already get jailed you know ....... :rolleyes:

If you know you have it, you shouldn't have children. Its unfair to all parties involved. Minimal risk is still risk, and HIV spreads....last I checked blindness,deafness,cancer,alcoholism,heart attacks,being overweight,being small or tall etc doesn't spread.

As do a lot of other diseases, hereditary or not. Pot. Kettle.

I'm deaf in one ear. My mother contracted German measles whilst pregnant with me. I could have been any one of a number of conditions up to and including stillborn.

So ... should my mother have been prosecuted? After all .... it was putting me at risk by trying to give birth to me :rolleyes:

Why don't you focus on the argument, instead of citing things outside it as other reasons for people to either have or not have children.

Why don't you actually sit down and understand what it is you're arguing instead of issuing knee-jerk opinions based on page 3 of the Sun newspaper.

MrPudding

Lemming, allow me to draw your attention to your own sig.

MrP

Eoghan-psych

Lemming wrote:

Omfg. Tell me I'm not reading this. Let me get this straight. You want to incarcerate innocent people who's only "crime" is to fall victim of an infection

How you got that from my post is beyond me. The UN charter includes the caveat that our rights only extend up to the point where their excercise impacts on the rights of another. That is the basis on which we incarcerate criminals - their attempts to excercise their rights impinges on the rights of others, therefore violating their right to freedom is justified. The right of a child to safety and protection supercedes the rights of a potential parent.

Lemming wrote:

Really? I don't see that in the OP's remarks.

Really? It has been reiterated about 3 times - you did *read* this thread, yes?

Lemming wrote:

Christ. Almighty. I'm not even sure HOW to respond to commentary of that ... "calibre".

Are you unable to understand simple analogies? A genetic defect affects the child, and only the child. It cannot affect anyone else. HIV is different - not only does it impact on the life of the child, but also on the lives of other people. One bullet, one injury. One microbe, one outbreak many injuries.

Lemming wrote:

Evidently you haven't gotten past page three of the Sun newspaper by the looks of it. Think about what you're proposing again.

Healthy children. Yes, shame on me - how dare I hold healthy children above sick adults. How dare I propose that we use the same criteria - it is *already* unacceptable to place another adult at risk. This is already unacceptable in our society. Why should this not apply to children?

Eoghan-psych

Lemming wrote:

I'm deaf in one ear. My mother contracted German measles whilst pregnant with me. I could have been any one of a number of conditions up to and including stillborn.

So ... should my mother have been prosecuted? After all .... it was putting me at risk by trying to give birth to me :rolleyes:

Eh, are you *actually* incapable of seeing the irrelevance of that?

This thread - if you care to actually read it - refers to those who *have* and are *aware* that they have HIV. It has nothing - as in 2-2 - to do with those who contract an illness while pregnant.

But thanks for trying to divert it into irrelevant hysteria.

Lemming

Eoghan-psych wrote:

How you got that from my post is beyond me. The UN charter includes the caveat that our rights only extend up to the point where their excercise impacts on the rights of another. That is the basis on which we incarcerate criminals - their attempts to excercise their rights impinges on the rights of others, therefore violating their right to freedom is justified. The right of a child to safety and protection supercedes the rights of a potential parent.

It's very simple Eoghan. You wanted infected people to be prevented from reproduction. I asked how you would then do that to which you were unable to provide me with an answer.

You then mentioned criminals in response to my remarks on the UN charter regarding human rights.

From that I can surmise that your "suggestion" is to have infected people imprisoned on the possibility that they may attempt to reproduce at some point in life. It's a reasonable assumption given what went before.

Really? It has been reiterated about 3 times - you did *read* this thread, yes?

It was not stated in her original remarks. This was not amended either and what she clearly asked did not specify those who knowingly pass on the virus. As someone else then pointed out, risk can be reduced to a very very very low chance. You and your ... ilk ... then proceeded to ignore that fact and bleeted on in fine "Sun" tradition

Are you unable to understand simple analogies? A genetic defect affects the child, and only the child. It cannot affect anyone else. HIV is different - not only does it impact on the life of the child, but also on the lives of other people. One bullet, one injury. One microbe, one outbreak many injuries.

Tell me ..... who gets affected by a hereditary disease? Just the victim? What if the victim falls prey at an inopportune moment which then causes the deaths of others? I know I'm being nit-picky here, but the point is to show the absurdity of your position.

Healthy children. Yes, shame on me - how dare I hold healthy children above sick adults. How dare I propose that we use the same criteria - it is *already* unacceptable to place another adult at risk. This is already unacceptable in our society. Why should this not apply to children?

Tell me ..... should we abort children who will have defects that preclude them frmo being "healthy"?

Hmmm ... can of worms ... now where's that tin-opener.