Should people with Aids/HIV be allowed to have children?

[Shakari]

I think you're a bit far behind the times. The chance is incredibly low. Even if it happens, drugs early enough can stop the infection from taking hold (we employ the same technique, called PEP, for people exposed by accident) and the child isn't doomed to a "short life". Finally, taking your regular drugs and maintaining a healthy immune system has a serious effect on your ability to pass on the disease. I'm undetectable, which lowers my chance to give someone HIV by nearly 96% (http://www.natap.org/2013/HIVwomen/HIVwomen_01.htm (I'm not a woman but the basics apply)) and my treatment helps to make it even harder.

Please don't spout out something like this without education in the topic, or you just spread alarming misinformation.

I see no reason why a woman who has been taking her medications shouldn't be allowed to have a child.

I can't help but notice the limitations of that study namely:

The researchers noted that their analysis has several limitations. It did not (1) include same-sex couples, (2) discriminate between vaginal and anal sex, (3) establish how often couples had sex, (4) establish the direction of HIV transmission, (4) establish the exact viral load at the time of transmission, (5) account for sexually transmitted infections, or (6) determine the extent of condom use.

does not include, same sex, frequency of, type of sex seems rather important limitations especially as any one of them could dramatically effect any results, I just wonder how relevant such findings are without including more data to include these limitation or you end up with a very narrow result.

[stabetha]

should they be "allowed to"? yes. should they chose to? in most cases, no.

unless they can guarantee that if they do pass it along to the child, it will be taken care for the rest of it's life, it's extremely selfish.

[Catta]

Absolutely not, unless there is a guarantee it won't be spread to the child to be.

How about people with genetic disease. How about people with chromosomal errors?

[Masark]

How about people with genetic disease. How about people with chromosomal errors?

How about absolutely normal people? About 3% of infants born will have birth defects, many serious.

[sykke]

There are always risks when dealing with HIV/AIDS. However, I think that people who have HIV/AIDS can be "allowed" to have children. Modern medicine is very good at dealing these sort of things. Though 'allow' is not a good way to put it. Who are we to tell who is and who isn't allowed to have children. How would you even enforce such a thing, sterilization?

[Sainur]

The same thing can be said about hundreds of conditions.
Colorblindness doesn't help anyone, should I not be allowed to have kids?

Ah yes. Because colorblindness spreads. And colorblindness is the same as Aids or HIV.

[ifrah]

The amount of people who are so fanatically against this make me feel disappointed, but also don't surprise me at all. For those class A champs a question: what else would qualify as a denial for children in your books? Just for starters think about elevated risk of getting heritable diseases (cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, Alzheimer etc. the list goes on and on, and a damn lot of people carry such genes.)? What would you consider elevated enough? Just below what your premium genes are would probably be the answer.
Medicine can help the risk of the child even getting HIV so damn low that if some ignorant morons in all their seriousness would see it as a good idea to deny HIV-positive people from having children, it would be far more beneficial to sterilize them for starters.

[Dendrek]

Are they not to blame? As i said, we knew about the unknown virus. We did not know what it was, but we were able to contain it in blood. It was localized to gay population and still largely is. Thats why it was called the gay disease. Straight people could not have had it yet. There had to be bridge between the gay and straight population. The bridge is the bisexuals. Now explain to me, where you see the flaw of my argument?
I never said to gas them. We did not even gas the Japanese (at that Japanese were considered subhuman). We were above that. But rounding them up and checking them and releasing them if were not carriers, would have been a great idea. To protect the majority of the people.

There's certainly nothing wrong about rounding all people of a specific group up and putting them into camps. It's not like it's a human rights violation. Just to be safe, though, we need to have homosexuals wear easily-identifiable arm bands, separate them from the general population into their own little ghetto-like areas, and when the time comes find fast and humane ways to kill them off. I hear gas is pretty effective.

Goodwin's Law +1.

(I'm afraid I'll get infracted for this post, so let me clarify that I'm being sarcastic for emphasis. Please don't ban me...)

[Theodon]

I'd be more inclined to sterilize repeat offenders that are teenagers with the same kind of parents; those kinds that are usually violent to everyone and treat people they live near like shit and make everyone elses lives generally more difficult to live. At least you can manage HIV with medication, but scummy parents making scummier kids isn't something you can control through medication. People like that also have a much more harmful impact on society in general too.

[rickyponting373]

HIV does not pass from mother to child with the right aids cure therapeutic medication. I suppose provided the mother gets the proper pill to forestall spreading it then I truly don't see the issue.