Woman with AIDS

[Serenity]

As we all know [or should know], AIDS can be transmitted from a mother to her unborn child. There are drugs a woman can take during her pregnancy to minimize the chances of her child contracting the disease to 8%. However, there's still that 8% chance that her child will contract HIV from her.

My question is this: taking all of that into accout, do you feel it's irresponsible for a woman with AIDS to intentionally have children, knowing she could pass on a disease that could potentially lead to their deaths, or do you feel she deserves the right to have children as much as any other woman since there's a low risk of infection and there are risks with any woman's pregnancy?

[redcar]

The same could be said about people with schizophrenia, or a variety of other illnesses. The way I look at it there is a 92% chance she wont pass it on.

I think she should have the same chance to be a mother as anyone else.

Slightly veering off topic, here is an add thats part of four thats been run on Irish tv, highlighting a very important issue.
http://www.stampoutstigma.ie/media/EamonSOSPixandSndLoc.mp4

[thesphinx]

Well I think if you are purposely putting your child in danger just so you can have a baby then I think it is some what irresponsible.

[redcar]

Thats true but the same could be said about so many other diseases.

You can take hundreds of other diseases and apply the same logic, so would you say the same with say depression? Heart disease? They are genetic, so should people with these have kids? Or are we just applying this to Aids?

[Serenity]

The only reason I used AIDS as an example is b/c that happens to be the unit we're studying in Health ftm and it got me thinking. We can expand it to all genetic diseases though.

[Bobby]

It's her choice (and it was also most likely her choice to get aids). Just because a child has AIDS doesn't mean you can't love them.

[thesphinx]

well the difference I think with for example AIDS vs depression, is because AIDS will kill the child eventually. depression they may have to deal with but its not life threatening(physically at least)

[Serenity]

It's her choice (and it was also most likely her choice to get aids). Just because a child has AIDS doesn't mean you can't love them.

Well I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that someone who has a genetically transmitted disease that generally kills the person infected is in essence potentially sentencing their child[ren] to death. Unless of course sometime during the child[ren]'s lifetime they find a cure, but it's quite a gamble- the life or death of your offspring.

[redcar]

So you guys are saying, even with the fact that there is a 92% chance she won't pass on the disease, she shouldnt have children?

So at what level does society deem it acceptable, for a woman who is cursed with this horrible disease, for her to be able to be a mother?

Because to me 92% is enough.

[Serenity]

I'm not at all saying she shouldn't, I actually haven't completely made up my mind on the subject- that's why I posted the thread, to see what other people argued. I'm saying it's awfully unfair to be born already sentenced to die.

[AutumnDae]

It is unfair to be born and be sentenced to die, the baby didn't choose it. But as with all diseases, no one chooses to have them. I think lets say the woman doesn't know she has AIDS, gets pregnant, then I would think it is acceptable to have the child. But that also brings in my view on abortion. Either way, you get an abortion, or you risk passing AIDS on. I would say have the baby that you are pregnant with, and don't have any more. A woman with AIDS probably shouldn't be having sex either. 0.o

[Serenity]

I think lets say the woman doesn't know she has AIDS, gets pregnant, then I would think it is acceptable to have the child.

I meant a woman who was aware that she was infected. It's obviously not irresponsible of her if she thought she was perfectly healthy.

But that also brings in my view on abortion.

Yeah let's please not even go there.

[Whisper]

if your unaware and find out during pregnancy then ya of course

but if your fully aware...then why the hell are you having unprotected sex period?

Ever herd of "adoption"?

Theres tens of thousands of kids that are forced to grow up in foster care
why not help them?

[redcar]

But for some people adoption is not an option. Some people find it hard to accept a child that is not their own.

I just think 92% chance of not passing it on, is acceptable. I know its a horrible disease, but people who are inflicted with it shouldn't be made suffer more than they have to.

[Whisper]

I agree for the baby but what about the partner?
and if both already have it does that affect the chances for the child at all?

[Serenity]

I know its a horrible disease, but people who are inflicted with it shouldn't be made suffer more than they have to.

What would cause more suffering, not having children, or passing the disease on and knowing you're the cause of your child's eventual demise? I know it's a slim chance but still...I just don't think I could live with myself.

[AutumnDae]

Does both parents having AIDS affect the chances of it being passed on? Actually, probably not. Eh, what do I know.

[Serenity]

The male in the relationship doesn't effect the chances, only the woman -

Mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) is when an HIV positive woman passes the virus to her baby. This can occur during pregnancy, labour and delivery, or breastfeeding.

[Hyper]

It's her choice (and it was also most likely her choice to get aids).

What? That is one of the most hypocritical things I have ever heard. Did you just mess-up with your wording or do you actually think that?

It may have been her fault partially but it was not her choice

well the difference I think with for example AIDS vs depression, is because AIDS will kill the child eventually. depression they may have to deal with but its not life threatening(physically at least)

AIDS does not directly kill, period. Get your facts staright.

I agree for the baby but what about the partner?
and if both already have it does that affect the chances for the child at all?

Artificial fertilization.


I think she should have the right to do it even with 90% chance.. Thats just me..

Sorry but if you think no even with 8% I just think you are missing out on alot beatiful in life.. Having your own child to love is indescribable, I don't even know it yet but I can somewhat imagine.. Compassion, empathy ftw..

[Whisper]

Why would you do that though artificial is VERY expensive
The chances of it working is slim and would they even do that if you had AIDS
like would a clinic even do that

and if the guy doesn't have AIDS then why would having your own baby even be a consideration because the chances of him getting AIDS is high

[Hyper]

Why would you do that though artificial is VERY expensive
The chances of it working is slim and would they even do that if you had AIDS
like would a clinic even do that

and if the guy doesn't have AIDS then why would having your own baby even be a consideration because the chances of him getting AIDS is high

Ok.. Scenario..

Woman has AIDS
Man doesn't have AIDS..

Man gives some of his sperm.. And the woman is artificially fertilized so the man doesn't get AIDS....

EDIT:

and if the guy doesn't have AIDS then why would having your own baby even be a consideration because the chances of him getting AIDS is high

Because he loves her.

[Prince Jellyfish]

Because he loves her.

BAM. That's the most compelling argument yet.:yeah:
/thread

[Serenity]

So because he loves her, he would spend a ton of money to get slim chances just to impregnate her, and assuming that works they have the next gamble of that child they worked so hard to get turning out to be HIV positive. His love for her is worth endangering an unborn child's life?

Of course that kind of spans out to 'who knows what the child would want'- there's every possibility that after growing mature enough to understand the situation, the child would be glad he/she got a chance at life at all. OR the child might decide he/she really would have been better off had he/she never been born so that there wouldn't have been any suffering...

But then again there are just innumerable variables- what if a cure is found in their lifetime, what if the virus remains dormant and they can lead a normal life, etc, etc...

[Hyper]

So because he loves her, he would spend a ton of money to get slim chances just to impregnate her, and assuming that works they have the next gamble of that child they worked so hard to get turning out to be HIV positive. His love for her is worth endangering an unborn child's life?

Of course that kind of spans out to 'who knows what the child would want'- there's every possibility that after growing mature enough to understand the situation, the child would be glad he/she got a chance at life at all. OR the child might decide he/she really would have been better off had he/she never been born so that there wouldn't have been any suffering...

But then again there are just innumerable variables- what if a cure is found in their lifetime, what if the virus remains dormant and they can lead a normal life, etc, etc...



Sorry but if you think no even with 8% I just think you are missing out on alot beatiful in life.. Having your own child to love is indescribable, I don't even know it yet but I can somewhat imagine.. Compassion, empathy ftw..

The he loves her also refers to the.. He would have sex with her without a condom if the artificial fertilization wouldn't work

[western ninja]

well I do consider 92 to be a bigger no. than 8 so no it seems ok