On Oprah, a woman was on that had gotten HIV from her husband who had slept with men and she sued him and won a judgement in the millions. Though she has not collected on any of it.

That was her story on the show. It was something when Oprah mentioned how Magic Johnson has lived with the disease, keeping it from progressing. This woman got up in arms (with every right) that she lives on public assistance and that the average person living with HIV does not have at her disposal as Johnson does.

Where I raised my eyebrows is when she detailed that in the 10 years since her diagnosis, she has gone on and now has a new man, with whom she is pregnant. They are pregnant via the traditional way of conceiving a child.

I don't know the statistics, but they must not be too favorable, as this woman only said that with certain meds, the chances of the child being born HIV is lowered. I would think that if odds were in favor of the child's health she would have touted percentages.

So, here was a woman who was detailing this law suit she won because he hubby was on the down low and infected her and she sued his ass for millions and won, because her life was so drastically changed....YET she conceived a child who has good chance to be infected upon day one. I think that is ridiculous.

Here is a woman who recognizes that a person on public assistance does not have the ideal situation to keep HIV from progressing, and she felt her fate so ill from contracting the disease that she paid lawyers a lot of money to sue the person who sealed her fate in the disease. YET, she is having a child, who may or may not have to live with HIV from birth?

I think it is selfish for any HIV woman to naturally conceive a child.

Thoughts?

Incredibly selfish. What kind of health care could she possibly have? HIV is becoming 'manageable,' but it takes a helluva a lot of drugs (insurance, money) to ward off it progressing to AIDS, and even then the life expectancy is somewhere around twenty one years. So by the time her kid is a teenager, there is a chance that her body will start becoming resistant to her medication and her health may start to falter. If she is on assistance, I don't know how she plans on taking care of her specials needs, and a child (who even if born HIV- will still need anti-viral drugs for 'X' amount of time.) This might sound callous, but I don't think anyone on public assistance should be bringing a child into the world under those circumstances. Her situation magnifies that times three.

Once her child is born, social services needs to eye her like a hawk.

Chris, it is refreshing to read your reply. I really wasn't sure what the response would be. But I 100% agree with you.

This broad sound as crazy as Octomon.

Chris wrote:

What kind of health care could she possibly have?

Medicaid

Yeah, Marc, Medicad, but wouldn't that parent/child coverage be better used with an HIV parent and a child already in the system and not a newborn into the disease, which is a possibility with any HIV positive woman birthing a baby?