Torturing kids to "reduce the stigma of HIV"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/worlds-first-hiv-positive-sperm-233111757.html

The world has hit a new low with the intro of a HIV sperm back so you can now pass it on.
The commenters ripped into it and no wonder

According to the article, the donors are all on medication and have an undetectable viral load so they won't be passing it on. I think it's a stupid gimmick, the world doesn't really need to know "You can have HIV and still have kids" (because I bet some people will forget the other part of that "as long as you are taking lots of life-saving medicine and have no detectable viral load" and think this means that because there is medicine it's no big deal, plus the world needs more people like it needs to be hit by an asteroid). However, it doesn't seem like either the sproggen or the womben are at risk of getting HIV so it's more ethical than people reproducing with unmitigated hereditary conditions.

HIV seems to be at about the right level of stigma now. That is, nobody is treating people who have it like lepers, as in the 80s, probably in part because it no longer has to be fatal so long as you have access to medicine, but at the same time there's a healthy amount of respect for the fact that it is currently an incurable disease that absolutely will diminish your quality of life.

so, wonder how many will end up with an infection and go bleating to media about 'poor widdle mawm with hiv

two cents ¢¢

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong

Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.

The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.

People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke

Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.

And I wonder how many people will be jumping at the chance to breed using sperm from diseased men. You can probably go get free HIV-positive sperm from someone shooting up behind a dumpster.

I think reducing the stigma of HIV is a wonderful idea, but this isn't the way to do it. Even if it can't be transmitted to the mother or fetus, who would want it? When women pay for sperm, they get mighty picky - they want donors with a clean bill of health, high intelligence, a ton of accomplishments, good looks, the whole nine yards. Using sperm from a donor with the high five is like choosing to drink tap water over purified water. Sure, it's essentially the same thing and everything will probably be fine, but you know people will prefer one to the other.

I wonder if they'll make the HIV-positive donor sperm "discount" sperm, for the women who want to be artificially inseminated, but can't afford the sperm from healthy donors.