State Secret: Thousands Secretly Sterilized

[Kefka]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Health/story?id=708780


From the early 1900s to the 1970s, some 65,000 men and women were sterilized in this country, many without their knowledge, as part of a government eugenics program to keep so-called undesirables from reproducing.

"The procedures that were done here were done to poor folks," said Steven Selden, professor at the University of Maryland. "They were thought to be poor because they had bad genes or bad inheritance, if you will. And so they would be the focus of the sterilization."

[Parker]

Well, how did she find out she was sterilized? And how the HELL did they come up with a set of numbers for how many people the government sterilized? Did they tie her tubes? chemical? Or did she just become barren, and decided to get her 15 minutes of fame and blame it on the government and all of their crooked Conspiracies?

Bad mood today, sorry.

[Gan]

OH MY GOD ANOTHER CONSPIRACY STORY.


:deadhorse:

:chair:

:banghead:

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Parker
Well, how did she find out she was sterilized? And how the HELL did they come up with a set of numbers for how many people the government sterilized? Did they tie her tubes? chemical? Or did she just become barren, and decided to get her 15 minutes of fame and blame it on the government and all of their crooked Conspiracies?

Bad mood today, sorry.

Did you read the article that the link led to?

It explains much of what you asked there. She was sterilised after she gave birth following a rape. They didnt come up with the numbers, like most things there would have been records kept for a number of reasons (not least costs) that would very clearly indicate how many people they had sterilised.
Governments just love to keep records...go read about the records the Nazis kept.
Your last comment doesnt deserve a response...whether you are in a bad mood or not.

[Leetahkin]

Without reading the link, I think there are some people that SHOULD be sterilized, with or without their consent. One main example I have is the females who are drug addicts with no income who can't keep their legs crossed. Or, I read once, where a guy had almost a dozen children, couldn't support any, and said it was his right to have more.

[Parker]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Parker
Well, how did she find out she was sterilized? And how the HELL did they come up with a set of numbers for how many people the government sterilized? Did they tie her tubes? chemical? Or did she just become barren, and decided to get her 15 minutes of fame and blame it on the government and all of their crooked Conspiracies?

Bad mood today, sorry.

Did you read the article that the link led to?

It explains much of what you asked there. She was sterilised after she gave birth following a rape. They didnt come up with the numbers, like most things there would have been records kept for a number of reasons (not least costs) that would very clearly indicate how many people they had sterilised.
Governments just love to keep records...go read about the records the Nazis kept.
Your last comment doesnt deserve a response...whether you are in a bad mood or not.

I read the article, quickly, andhave gone back now to look again.

She was raped at...13, had her child at 14.
I don't pretend to be incredibly knowledgeable about the workngs and quirks of the human body, but I know there are people who have had one child, and were unable to have anymore.

It never says that the government admitted to these sterilizations, and gives no concrete evidence supporting their claims. This woman dramatizes the entire thing, IMO, by saying "My heart still bleeds, and it will forever bleed, because of what had happened to me,"
Poetic, yes, even accurate, perhaps, but to me, it just screams "I want attention"
if there are 65,000 people who have been sterilized, why are we only hearing about it now? People sterilized in the 60's and 70's are probably somewere between 45-65 by now, I'd imagine...If they wanted to have children, they owuld have tried, and found it lacking. Why is it that we only hear of these reports 30 and 40 years later? Someone show me a government document about this claim, and I'll believe it, till then, I still hold the claim that it's a buncha baloney.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Nobody Cares
Without reading the link, I think there are some people that SHOULD be sterilized, with or without their consent. One main example I have is the females who are drug addicts with no income who can't keep their legs crossed. Or, I read once, where a guy had almost a dozen children, couldn't support any, and said it was his right to have more.

I could think of a number of people that I would like to see forcibly sterilised, but the problem with that is who decides? And the process in that decision making is susceptible to errors and miscarriages of justice that are phenomenal, making the whole existance of such a scheme problematic beyond effectiveness.

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by Ganalon
OH MY GOD ANOTHER CONSPIRACY STORY.


:deadhorse:

:chair:

:banghead:

The Real-id story wasn't a conspiracy story it is actually real. Just some people had a little more outlandish view of it than I.

But nice of you to come bash his thread and contribute nothing.

[Parker]

Originally posted by Nobody Cares
Without reading the link, I think there are some people that SHOULD be sterilized, with or without their consent. One main example I have is the females who are drug addicts with no income who can't keep their legs crossed. Or, I read once, where a guy had almost a dozen children, couldn't support any, and said it was his right to have more.

In both cases, I agree, I want to add people who are HIV positive to that list..if you've contracted HIV, there is no way in hell you should be allowed to have a child...it's just too horrible a thing to do to a child.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Parker

I read the article, quickly, andhave gone back now to look again.

She was raped at...13, had her child at 14.
I don't pretend to be incredibly knowledgeable about the workngs and quirks of the human body, but I know there are people who have had one child, and were unable to have anymore.

It never says that the government admitted to these sterilizations, and gives no concrete evidence supporting their claims. This woman dramatizes the entire thing, IMO, by saying "My heart still bleeds, and it will forever bleed, because of what had happened to me,"
Poetic, yes, even accurate, perhaps, but to me, it just screams "I want attention"
if there are 65,000 people who have been sterilized, why are we only hearing about it now? People sterilized in the 60's and 70's are probably somewere between 45-65 by now, I'd imagine...If they wanted to have children, they owuld have tried, and found it lacking. Why is it that we only hear of these reports 30 and 40 years later? Someone show me a government document about this claim, and I'll believe it, till then, I still hold the claim that it's a buncha baloney.

Must be lovely living in that ivory tower.
Things like this wont get released until much later because the policitians at the time WONT LET PEOPLE KNOW. Strange that, huh?

Give it 30 or 40 years and people will be finding out about how George Bush lied...and other such revelations...once the silly old bastard is put out to pasture, the truth will out.

Seriously, if you are of the view that your country can do no wrong, then I pity you.

I have known about this issue having existed in the US for a while now. Maybe you should start reading and listening a bit more and take your head out of the sand. Maybe then you will see what life is like for some.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Xyelin

Originally posted by Ganalon
OH MY GOD ANOTHER CONSPIRACY STORY.


:deadhorse:

:chair:

:banghead:

The Real-id story wasn't a conspiracy story it is actually real. Just some people had a little more outlandish view of it than I.

But nice of you to come bash his thread and contribute nothing.

You're welcome. It is after all what I"m known for..........................................

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Parker

Originally posted by Nobody Cares
Without reading the link, I think there are some people that SHOULD be sterilized, with or without their consent. One main example I have is the females who are drug addicts with no income who can't keep their legs crossed. Or, I read once, where a guy had almost a dozen children, couldn't support any, and said it was his right to have more.

In both cases, I agree, I want to add people who are HIV positive to that list..if you've contracted HIV, there is no way in hell you should be allowed to have a child...it's just too horrible a thing to do to a child.

You are seriously stupid. Please go away.

[Parker]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Parker

I read the article, quickly, andhave gone back now to look again.

She was raped at...13, had her child at 14.
I don't pretend to be incredibly knowledgeable about the workngs and quirks of the human body, but I know there are people who have had one child, and were unable to have anymore.

It never says that the government admitted to these sterilizations, and gives no concrete evidence supporting their claims. This woman dramatizes the entire thing, IMO, by saying "My heart still bleeds, and it will forever bleed, because of what had happened to me,"
Poetic, yes, even accurate, perhaps, but to me, it just screams "I want attention"
if there are 65,000 people who have been sterilized, why are we only hearing about it now? People sterilized in the 60's and 70's are probably somewere between 45-65 by now, I'd imagine...If they wanted to have children, they owuld have tried, and found it lacking. Why is it that we only hear of these reports 30 and 40 years later? Someone show me a government document about this claim, and I'll believe it, till then, I still hold the claim that it's a buncha baloney.

Must be lovely living in that ivory tower.
Things like this wont get released until much later because the policitians at the time WONT LET PEOPLE KNOW. Strange that, huh?

Give it 30 or 40 years and people will be finding out about how George Bush lied...and other such revelations...once the silly old bastard is put out to pasture, the truth will out.

Seriously, if you are of the view that your country can do no wrong, then I pity you.

I have known about this issue having existed in the US for a while now. Maybe you should start reading and listening a bit more and take your head out of the sand. Maybe then you will see what life is like for some.

Well, I appreciate the advice, surely.

However, I'm more a cynic when it comes to my country; I know the country does plenty wrong, actually, I hate a lot of things the country does. However, unfounded, and un-evidenced claims like this drive me nuts..Again, I'll stay on my "Ivory Tower" until someone can prove it to me. I'm surprised that you think I carry such notions, by my statements. I merely said that I don't believe it, because to me, it sounds really rickety, as far as stories go.

[Leetahkin]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Parker

Originally posted by Nobody Cares
Without reading the link, I think there are some people that SHOULD be sterilized, with or without their consent. One main example I have is the females who are drug addicts with no income who can't keep their legs crossed. Or, I read once, where a guy had almost a dozen children, couldn't support any, and said it was his right to have more.

In both cases, I agree, I want to add people who are HIV positive to that list..if you've contracted HIV, there is no way in hell you should be allowed to have a child...it's just too horrible a thing to do to a child.

You are seriously stupid. Please go away.

Why don't you elaborate instead of responding so childishly.

[Gan]

No country is perfect, no government is perfect. All politicians lie.

What is suprising or hard to understand about that. That does not make the US government worse than any of the other governments that exist in the civilized world.

"Even though the practice ended more than 30 years ago, some say the time has come to make amends. North Carolina was one of the first states out of 33 that once practiced sterilization to offer an apology. State Rep. Larry Womble is crafting a bill to provide financial reparations."

Is it wrong? Yes by today's standards. Was it wrong then? Yes, by today's standards. Since this practice ended about the time I was born I really could not make a judgement as to the mindset of those who were doing it back then. Even if they thought they were doing the right thing back then it still is wrong, by today's standards. (The road to hell is paved with good intentions.)

At least the US not like China where they have stricter rules regarding reproduction and raising children.

But yes, my initial reaction was accurate regarding to it being a conspiracy theory topic (we need a folder on the PC for political conspiracies). Already I see Bush's name in this thread so lets swamp on with the conspiracies! w00t!

[Parker]

I feel like a complete tool. There's a full two paragraphs in there I missed, which actually give evidence to the claim...Errr, I'd appreciate it if everyone just ignores my lack of observation, and goes about their daily lives.

My opinion's changed now, and what the government did, while, perhaps, well-intentioned, was abominable by today's standards.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Parker

Well, I appreciate the advice, surely.

However, I'm more a cynic when it comes to my country; I know the country does plenty wrong, actually, I hate a lot of things the country does. However, unfounded, and un-evidenced claims like this drive me nuts..Again, I'll stay on my "Ivory Tower" until someone can prove it to me. I'm surprised that you think I carry such notions, by my statements. I merely said that I don't believe it, because to me, it sounds really rickety, as far as stories go.

http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/sg/SG12.html

Interesting paper about eugenics...have a read.


I feel like a complete tool. There's a full two paragraphs in there I missed, which actually give evidence to the claim...Errr, I'd appreciate it if everyone just ignores my lack of observation, and goes about their daily lives.

My opinion's changed now, and what the government did, while, perhaps, well-intentioned, was abominable by today's standards.

Your opinion changed on the basis of two paragraphs you failed to read first time around?

No government documents?

No indisputable evidence?

:rolleyes:

[Parker]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Parker

Originally posted by Nobody Cares
Without reading the link, I think there are some people that SHOULD be sterilized, with or without their consent. One main example I have is the females who are drug addicts with no income who can't keep their legs crossed. Or, I read once, where a guy had almost a dozen children, couldn't support any, and said it was his right to have more.

In both cases, I agree, I want to add people who are HIV positive to that list..if you've contracted HIV, there is no way in hell you should be allowed to have a child...it's just too horrible a thing to do to a child.

You are seriously stupid. Please go away.

You've really got it out for me, don't you?

If you don't like me, that's fine, but I'm not going to go anywhere.

You've come out several times now and tried to start an argument with me, and I've never once targeted you. Why do you persist?

[Parker]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Parker

Well, I appreciate the advice, surely.

However, I'm more a cynic when it comes to my country; I know the country does plenty wrong, actually, I hate a lot of things the country does. However, unfounded, and un-evidenced claims like this drive me nuts..Again, I'll stay on my "Ivory Tower" until someone can prove it to me. I'm surprised that you think I carry such notions, by my statements. I merely said that I don't believe it, because to me, it sounds really rickety, as far as stories go.

http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/sg/SG12.html

Interesting paper about eugenics...have a read.


I feel like a complete tool. There's a full two paragraphs in there I missed, which actually give evidence to the claim...Errr, I'd appreciate it if everyone just ignores my lack of observation, and goes about their daily lives.

My opinion's changed now, and what the government did, while, perhaps, well-intentioned, was abominable by today's standards.

Your opinion changed on the basis of two paragraphs you failed to read first time around?

No government documents?

No indisputable evidence?

:rolleyes:

:) Well, I was proven wrong by the admittance of a representative of North Carolina for what they did, and the representative's drawing up a bill for reparations for the entire thing. I can admit when I'm wrong, and in this case, I was.

Not sure where the paper on Eugenics comes in, I understand the concept, and I didn't think that was the issue here.

[Edited on 5-16-2005 by Parker]

[CrystalTears]

WTF is stupid about not wanting people with positive HIV to breed? It would be irresponsible to reproduce knowing you have AIDS. THEY are the stupid ones, IMHO.

Nien, you really need to stop trolling people and just debate rather than insult all the time. It's starting to get old.

[Parker]

Nien, you really need to stop trolling people and just debate rather than insult all the time. It's starting to get old.


I think she was speaking of me in general, not my statement.

Which is rather annoying, but can and will be ignored.

[Edited on 5-16-2005 by Parker]

[GSLeloo]

Eugenics. We studied this in Holocaust studies. I think they did retarded people, criminals, alcoholics. They also said the Nazi's designed their T-4 program based on the American Eugenics movement.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Parker


Nien, you really need to stop trolling people and just debate rather than insult all the time. It's starting to get old.


I think he was speaking of me in general, not my statement.

Which is rather annoying, but can and will be ignored.

It makes her feel better if she can step on someone in an attempt to elevate her self worth. Those of us who have been here a while are used to it. Perhaps the WOW server is down and she's just needing an outlet for her frustration.

[Edited on 5-16-2005 by Ganalon]

[Parker]

Nien's a she? my apologies, I had thought differently...sorry.

will edit the posts above to correct it :grin:

I understand Eugenics pretty well, in a town near where I live there's an old Mental institution that used to practice it consistently, was shut down at one point and has never been torn down, cleaned up, or boarded up...they left it standing, with all tools/equipment/clothing/etc. still lying around. It's now a popular place for kids to go and scare themselves silly.

The idea of it is not all that foreign to me, I just had never heard of it being practiced by the Government before, and was skeptical to believe it.

[peam]

Well, 65,000 is a start.

Originally posted by Parker

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Parker

Originally posted by Nobody Cares
Without reading the link, I think there are some people that SHOULD be sterilized, with or without their consent. One main example I have is the females who are drug addicts with no income who can't keep their legs crossed. Or, I read once, where a guy had almost a dozen children, couldn't support any, and said it was his right to have more.

In both cases, I agree, I want to add people who are HIV positive to that list..if you've contracted HIV, there is no way in hell you should be allowed to have a child...it's just too horrible a thing to do to a child.

You are seriously stupid. Please go away.

You've really got it out for me, don't you?

If you don't like me, that's fine, but I'm not going to go anywhere.

You've come out several times now and tried to start an argument with me, and I've never once targeted you. Why do you persist?

Shes just a little brittish cunt, ignore her.

[Parker]

:lol2:

[CrystalTears]

Okay so this happened over 30 years ago. Chances are you're too old to reproduce anyway. In what way do they want to get compensated?

[Parker]

Time lost, emotional/physical damages, maybe something to do with adoption, if that's the way the sterilized person went...

[Gan]

Pain/suffering/what could have been.

Triple damages of course because its the American way.

I dont think the reparations will happen though because of the precedence it will set for every other wrong that was perceived or actually happened to everyone in America since the signing of the Declaration of Independance.

[Parker]

I think it may pass on a state level, but certainly not a federal one.

[Gan]

Actually...

I pulled up an interesting point that will probably negate any civil suit alltogether. Its called Soverign Immunity. (See page 27 of the attached 42 page pdf for a brief explanation)

"A subsidary, but nonetheless important, issue is the sovereign immunity doctrine's preclusion of suits against states unless the state consents to suit or Congress expressly abrogates immunity. Recently, the government has used the soverign immunity doctrine to defend against slavery reparation claims."

The link below is a very interesting paper involving the issue of reparations and past reparation actions.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/v.38_2/ogletree.pdf


Edited to add: HB 591 of the Florida Legislature (Rosewood reparations) failed to pass as well. The intention is there but lawmakers are reticent to set precedence I'm thinking.


More info on Sovereign Immunity
http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/usdc/bnkrptcy/briefs/bnk21.htm



[Edited on 5-16-2005 by Ganalon]

[Parker]

Hmmm...that gives me the feeling that these people aren't going to get anything at all.

[DeV]

Government recognition at least... would be something. North Carolina has taken this step. I'm against reparations though.

[Parker]

I think the amount of money required, and demanded, by the people involved would be astronomical. I fthere were smart, and asked for reasonable numbers, they'd get it. because they're likely to ask for something unbelievable, I think they'll get nothing.

DeV, why are you against reparations?

[Miss X]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Parker

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Parker

Originally posted by Nobody Cares
Without reading the link, I think there are some people that SHOULD be sterilized, with or without their consent. One main example I have is the females who are drug addicts with no income who can't keep their legs crossed. Or, I read once, where a guy had almost a dozen children, couldn't support any, and said it was his right to have more.

In both cases, I agree, I want to add people who are HIV positive to that list..if you've contracted HIV, there is no way in hell you should be allowed to have a child...it's just too horrible a thing to do to a child.

You are seriously stupid. Please go away.

You've really got it out for me, don't you?

If you don't like me, that's fine, but I'm not going to go anywhere.

You've come out several times now and tried to start an argument with me, and I've never once targeted you. Why do you persist?

Shes just a little brittish cunt, ignore her.

It might have been wise to learn how to spell the name of our country before you try to use it as part of a pathetic insult.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Parker
You've really got it out for me, don't you?

If you don't like me, that's fine, but I'm not going to go anywhere.

You've come out several times now and tried to start an argument with me, and I've never once targeted you. Why do you persist?

Boo fucking hoo...poor little me.
For the record: I dont know you. I never will. I have ZERO opinion of you. I never will.

Your posts, on the other hand are very different. Most of your posts I read and dont respond to. On the occasions I have, I have felt that it would be good to show a different point of view.

If you had posted your first post without the statement at the end, it would have got a very different response from me. I just found that last statement to be incredibly fucking offensive and when, later on in the thread you claim to "understand Eugenics pretty well," it seems to be an incredibly shitty thing to say about someone who was raped at 13 and sterilised after the birth of the child on the say so of social workers against her will and without her knowledge. Maybe that's just be being a little British cunt :shrug:

Seriously though...read back through your own posts and look how you have changed 180 degrees through the course of this one page.

You started off by saying "65000??? NO WAY!!!!!11111"

You are now saying "well of course I understand that happens"

Plus, if you post something on a message board, expect it to get ripped to shit and stop fucking whinging about people targetting you or disagreeing with you. It happens. Get on with it.


Originally posted by Crystal Tears
Nien, you really need to stop trolling people and just debate rather than insult all the time. It's starting to get old.

Had anyone else made the comment about the HIV status of parents, I would have taken the time to answer more fully.
I think I can safely say that there are others more guilty of trolling in this thread than me... :whistle:

After his previous posts of "OMFG ATTENTION WHORE!!!111111" you think that any level of debate would have been listened to by him?


WTF is stupid about not wanting people with positive HIV to breed? It would be irresponsible to reproduce knowing you have AIDS. THEY are the stupid ones, IMHO.

Firstly, HIV != AIDS. Basic stuff. Taught in schools in the UK, but the two things are distinctly different.

Secondly, HIV+ parents doesnt necessarily equate to HIV+ child. I know of HIV+ parents whose children dont have the disease. They are able to provide wholesome fulfilling and rewarding lives for their children, in spite of their infection.

Thirdly, not everyone with HIV is an IV-drug-using-homosexual-prostitute who doesnt use safe sex/clean needles.

People have contracted HIV for a number of reasons, many times without being their fault. You want to further penalise them for contracting an illness? What else are you going to do? Sterilise anyone who has genetic cancers?

The care for people with HIV is way way better than it was years ago and is likely to improve in the future, so lets not be damning all those with the virus just yet, hey?

Edited for spelling

[Edited on 16-5-05 by Nieninque]

[Parker]

Perhaps I'm the most tangent-oriented person around, but let's keep it on topic! :) This is just going to turn into a flame-war.

[Miss X]

Originally posted by Parker
Perhaps I'm the most tangent-oriented person around, but let's keep it on topic! :) This is just going to turn into a flame-war.

No it isnt! Not if I have anything to do with it anyway. There is nothing wrong with healthy debate though, as long as we aren't resorting to name calling because we lack the basic intelligence required to formulate a valid argument.

[Nieninque]

Fuck :sniffle:

[Showal]

<<I understand Eugenics pretty well, in a town near where I live there's an old Mental institution that used to practice it consistently, was shut down at one point and has never been torn down, cleaned up, or boarded up...they left it standing, with all tools/equipment/clothing/etc. still lying around. It's now a popular place for kids to go and scare themselves silly. >>

Off topic ... but where is this, Parker? Sounds like my hometown.

[Parker]

You are seriously stupid. Please go away.


Way to "Show a different point of view", very mature.



"OMFG ATTENTION WHORE!!!111111"


If I ever said something like this, I'd shoot myself. Stop trying to paint me as a fool here, for stating my opinion. I've admitted I was wrong, and I certainly was, so there's no need to continue.



Secondly, HIV+ parents doesnt necessarily equate to HIV+ child. I know of HIV+ parents whose children dont have the disease. They are able to provide wholesome fulfilling and rewarding lives for their children, in spite of their infection.


I'm sure this is true, but not common. My opinion on the subject stands because you can't be allowing people to reproduce when there's a VERY good chance that the children will contract the disease. If you want to argue that point, I'll go out and find some documentation, but I don't think it's really arguable.



People have contracted HIV for a number of reasons, many times without being their fault. You want to further penalise them for contracting an illness? What else are you going to do? Sterilise anyone who has genetic cancers?


People who get HIV should no reproduce, Period. I understand it wasn't their fault, and that they had no way to avoid it. They're going to die slow, painful, and irreversible deaths. Would you do the same thing to their children, who also have no choice, and no way to avoid it?



[quote]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parker
DeV, why are you against reparations? For the obvious reasons... I'm also against slavery reparations for that matter. As stated, I am definitely for recognition that this horrible thing did occur and a public apology to those affected.

Resent will inevitably be fostered and what they did is abhorrent, however, we are now living in a generation/administration which had no involvement in these acts. I just don't view reparations as a way to repair injustice but instead they punish those who hold no blame. It's definintely arguable if this is something she can actually lay claim to.

[Parker]

Originally posted by Showal
<<I understand Eugenics pretty well, in a town near where I live there's an old Mental institution that used to practice it consistently, was shut down at one point and has never been torn down, cleaned up, or boarded up...they left it standing, with all tools/equipment/clothing/etc. still lying around. It's now a popular place for kids to go and scare themselves silly. >>

Off topic ... but where is this, Parker? Sounds like my hometown.

Well, the place is called Paul Dever Mental Institution, or some such. It's in Taunton MA.

[Parker]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Parker
DeV, why are you against reparations? For the obvious reasons... I'm also against slavery reparations for that matter. As stated, I am definitely for recognition that this horrible thing did occur and a public apology to those affected.

Resent will inevitably be fostered and what they did is abhorrent, however, we are now living in a generation/administration which had no involvement in these acts. I just don't view reparations as a way to repair injustice but instead they punish those who hold no blame. It's definintely arguable if this is something she can actually lay claim to.

So you think that if she can prove that it happened to her, that she should receive reparations?

[Miss X]

The whole story just reeks of sadness from my point of view. I find it so hard to comprehend that we as humans could do such an awful thing to so many people. I still find it difficult to understand why some people feel they have a god given right to make decisions that will effect an individuals life so profoundly.

I completely agree with Nien regarding the HIV stuff too. From a personal perspective, if I was HIV + I would not have children, however, I am sure there are HIV + parents doing amazing jobs at raising their children, who would not automatically be HIV +.


If we are going to start dictating who can and can't have children, it would soon get out of hand. Are we going to stop people with genetic disorders from having children? How can we possibly know that never existing is better than existing with some problems? I don't think we can.

[Showal]

Reparations make me a little uneasy too ... probably because of the fact that, as mentioned, they'll probably ask for something ridiculous and we'll hear about how it wasnt given forever. Slavery was wrong ... but if the government were to give 40 acres and a mule to EVERY black person in the US now? That amount of land would be hard to come by. Black people would be coming in from all over the world laying claim to that. Who'd blame them? If someone offered all white people in mexico 40 acres and a mule, I'd probably go down there and "get my dues".

[Parker]

I agree completely, X, but with HIV, the chance of a HIV+ parent NOT having an HIV+ child is...well, miniscule.

I would take a shot at 25/1, and probably be conservative. That means that you could have saved 25 young lives who died a terrible death, so that the one set of parents who got lucky could have their child...

ADOPT.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Parker



"OMFG ATTENTION WHORE!!!111111"


If I ever said something like this, I'd shoot myself.


Or did she just become barren, and decided to get her 15 minutes of fame and blame it on the government and all of their crooked Conspiracies?


This woman dramatizes the entire thing


to me, it just screams "I want attention"

Now, about that shooting...?




Secondly, HIV+ parents doesnt necessarily equate to HIV+ child. I know of HIV+ parents whose children dont have the disease. They are able to provide wholesome fulfilling and rewarding lives for their children, in spite of their infection.


I'm sure this is true, but not common. My opinion on the subject stands because you can't be allowing people to reproduce when there's a VERY good chance that the children will contract the disease. If you want to argue that point, I'll go out and find some documentation, but I don't think it's really arguable.

I call you on that. I know children of HIV+ parents who dont have the disease. You provide me with some evidence that gives an idea about the numbers.




People have contracted HIV for a number of reasons, many times without being their fault. You want to further penalise them for contracting an illness? What else are you going to do? Sterilise anyone who has genetic cancers?


People who get HIV should no reproduce, Period. I understand it wasn't their fault, and that they had no way to avoid it. They're going to die slow, painful, and irreversible deaths. Would you do the same thing to their children, who also have no choice, and no way to avoid it?


You dont really know much about HIV, do you?

Edited for formatting

[Edited on 16-5-05 by Nieninque]

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Showal
Reparations make me a little uneasy too ... probably because of the fact that, as mentioned, they'll probably ask for something ridiculous and we'll hear about how it wasnt given forever. Slavery was wrong ... but if the government were to give 40 acres and a mule to EVERY black person in the US now? That amount of land would be hard to come by. Black people would be coming in from all over the world laying claim to that. Who'd blame them? If someone offered all white people in mexico 40 acres and a mule, I'd probably go down there and "get my dues".

The difference is thaty it happened to them directly...not to their ancestors

[Parker]

Now, about that shooting...?

your quote was "OMFG ATTENTION WHORE!!!111111"
if I ever typed words that looked that FOOLISH, Nien, I would shoot myself.



I call you on that. I know children of HIV+ parents who dont have the disease. You provide me with some evidence that gives an idea about the numbers.


Out of respect for the debate, I will, at the moment, I'm about to run out at 1:00, but i'll be back around 4:00 or so, and try to do a little research then.



You dont really know much about HIV, do you?


I know the basics, I think, and they seem to be enough.

HIV by itself just subdues the human immune system, which causes AIDS. AIDS is a syndrome in which people will fall ill much more often, and those illnesses will be far more severe due to the body's lack of defenses.

It's incurable, at this time.

The best we can hope for is to spend INCREDIBLE amounts of money on chemical concoctions which slow the process.

most people don't have the money.

Now, explain to me again why we should risk the high chance of giving this disease to children?

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Parker

They're going to die slow, painful, and irreversible deaths.

That part I wont dispute :lol:

[CrystalTears]

HIV+ with or without AIDS is still risky to be reproducing and allowing it to carry on to the child. It's simple courtesy and common sense. I just consider it plain selfishness to have children when you are HIV+, regardless of the reason you got it. I DO realize that it's not contracted in the same way all the time, but the outcome is the same. HIV is the last thing you want to share with family.

If you want to disagree, fine, but what he is saying doesn't make him stupid, just sharing a difference in opinion. Don't like his opinions, don't read them, to save the rest of us of needing to read your insults all the time. Of course we could ignore your posts, I suppose.

As for the topic at hand, I think reparations outside of apologies would just be a messy ordeal. I feel bad for these people, but after such a huge lapse of time, the people you want to point fingers are probably not going to be able to do a damned thing. And people will ask for stupid amounts of money, whether they wanted to have children or not. It would just seem uncontrollable to me.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Parker

Now, about that shooting...?

your quote was "OMFG ATTENTION WHORE!!!111111"
if I ever typed words that looked that FOOLISH, Nien, I would shoot myself.

It wasnt a quote, foolish child.
It was a sardonic representation of the messages you were presenting early on in the thread before you read that remarkable two paragraph section that provided enough proof to make you back down straight away.




I call you on that. I know children of HIV+ parents who dont have the disease. You provide me with some evidence that gives an idea about the numbers.


Out of respect for the debate, I will, at the moment, I'm about to run out at 1:00, but i'll be back around 4:00 or so, and try to do a little research then.



You dont really know much about HIV, do you?


I know the basics, I think, and they seem to be enough.

HIV by itself just subdues the human immune system, which causes AIDS. AIDS is a syndrome in which people will fall ill much more often, and those illnesses will be far more severe due to the body's lack of defenses.

It's incurable, at this time.

The best we can hope for is to spend INCREDIBLE amounts of money on chemical concoctions which slow the process.

most people don't have the money.

Now, explain to me again why we should risk the high chance of giving this disease to children?

Ah, see this is the culture thing...In the UK, us Brittish cunts have a national health service, so people like haemopilliacs (sp?), partners who contracted viruses from the partners they didnt know were unfaithful/drug users etc and the otherwise unlucky people that happen to contract HIV get healthcare for free. In the UK, we believe everyone should live, not just the rich.

Seriously, if you think everyone who has HIV will die a slow painful [and irreversible] death, then you need to look at the actual deaths of people with AIDS. You also need to understand that some people with HIV never progress to AIDS. You might also want to reflect, that sometimes, people WITHOUT HIV also die slow painful and irreversible deaths.

Your POV on this is no different from the people who want(ed) to sterilise people with Downs Syndrome or learning difficulties. You have some sort of moralistic point of view and wish to impose some sort of overly punitive measure to correct a situation you feel exists, trampling on other peoples civil and human rights in the process UNNECESSARILY.

[ElanthianSiren]

I think government should have to pay for them to adopt a child of their choice and raise that child (if they so chose) by a regional cost (local consideration) level.

I think that would eliminate a lot of people taking monetary reparations whose real interests really weren't "damaged" by steralization.


-Melissa

[Vitruvian]

Good! I hate the poor!

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Ah, see this is the culture thing...In the UK, us Brittish cunts have a national health service, so people like haemopilliacs (sp?), partners who contracted viruses from the partners they didnt know were unfaithful/drug users etc and the otherwise unlucky people that happen to contract HIV get healthcare for free. In the UK, we believe everyone should live, not just the rich.

Hey maybe we'll use the fed ID act to confirm US citizenship and have an equally decent healthcare system; there's a reason to support it. Feel free to flame.

-Melissa

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Your POV on this is no different from the people who want(ed) to sterilise people with Downs Syndrome or learning difficulties. You have some sort of moralistic point of view and wish to impose some sort of overly punitive measure to correct a situation you feel exists, trampling on other peoples civil and human rights in the process UNNECESSARILY.

Wow, thanks. Considering I shared his point on view on not liking the idea of people who are HIV+ reproducing, I guess I'm just another callous, selfish person who wants to sterlize people. Whatthefuckever.

I don't believe in sterlizing anyone, but I just WISH people cared just a little bit more about the quality of life than their their own precious little lives. If they want a child, they can adopt one of a thousand children who aren't HIV+ instead of bringing another one into this world. Just because they don't have AIDS doesn't mean that it wouldn't come to fruition down the line. Why encourage the risk?

That is all. This is already way off topic as it is.

[Edited on 5/16/2005 by CrystalTears]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Showal
Reparations make me a little uneasy too ... probably because of the fact that, as mentioned, they'll probably ask for something ridiculous and we'll hear about how it wasnt given forever. Slavery was wrong ... but if the government were to give 40 acres and a mule to EVERY black person in the US now? That amount of land would be hard to come by. Black people would be coming in from all over the world laying claim to that. Who'd blame them? If someone offered all white people in mexico 40 acres and a mule, I'd probably go down there and "get my dues".

The difference is thaty it happened to them directly...not to their ancestors Both good points.

I just don't see a need for reparations because in my mind for every one government *secret* we become aware of there are at least 5 others out there that we don't know about yet. There's always something. In any case, I agree with Showal on the issue.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Nieninque
In the UK, we believe everyone should live, not just the rich.

I beg to differ. Nice shot at the US and other capitalist societies but you're shallow in your knowledge of how hospitals work especially in comparison between the UK(socialist medicine programs) and the US(capitalist medicine programs).

You see, I make my living as a consultant for hospitals in the US and in Canada. I specialize in patient throughput (patient flow) and how patients move throughout hospitals. After a recent visit to Canada (which mirrors the UK) in healthcare programs I was dismayed at how the main priority in government sponsored healthcare facilities (hospitals) is not treatment of everything but just treatment for anything major enough to require hospital stay. Everything else did not make it past the doors of the ED (Emergency Department) and into the hospital. Most patients who needed follow up treatment were sent home and scheduled for x-ray, therapy, and further drug therapy at a later date thus delaying the healing process even further. Furthermore the ED wait times in the hospitals in Canada that I surveyed were almost 5x higher than those of the most busiest and most disorganzied facilities in America, that I have surveyed.

I plan on flying overseas within the year to the UK to survey several facilities there for my company and will love to further elaborate on this comparison upon my return.

However, for now I"m calling you on your comparison as included in your argument above... its inflamitory and inaccurate, not to mention insulting. Perhaps Parker isnt the only one who should do some research on the topic instead of pulling stuff out of your ass Nien.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Wow, thanks. Considering I shared his point on view on not liking the idea of people who are HIV+ reproducing, I guess I'm just another callous, selfish person who wants to sterlize people. Whatthefuckever.

I don't believe in sterlizing anyone, but I just WISH people cared just a little bit more about the quality of life than their their own precious little lives. If they want a child, they can adopt one of a thousand children who aren't HIV+ instead of bringing another one into this world. Just because they don't have AIDS doesn't mean that it wouldn't come to fruition down the line. Why encourage the risk?

That is all. This is already way off topic as it is.

[Edited on 5/16/2005 by CrystalTears]

It's not off topic at all. It's discussing the compulsory sterilisation of of society's "undesirables"

I wouldnt disagree with you about not especially wanting to run the risk of passing HIV to your child, if you are HIV+ yourself. However, you are talking of removing someone's reproductive rights against their will.

I would advocate for adoption even where people are able to reproduce for themselves, because I believe - as do many - that there are too many children that need permanent homes that are in the care system.

That though, is a different issue...and I have to say, your argument about adoption falls flat too, as on one hand you are saying they shouldnt have children as they may progress to AIDS, on the other hand you say they shouldnt have children they should adopt...as if it's OK if a parent of adopted children progresses onto AIDS but not a biological child.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Nieninque
That though, is a different issue...and I have to say, your argument about adoption falls flat too, as on one hand you are saying they shouldnt have children as they may progress to AIDS, on the other hand you say they shouldnt have children they should adopt...as if it's OK if a parent of adopted children progresses onto AIDS but not a biological child.

Because I'm saying that they shouldn't bring ANOTHER HIV+ person into this world. I'm sympathetic towards people who are HIV+ against their will, but that doesn't mean that we should pity them and allow them to bring more infected people into this world, I just believe in that, sorry. It's awful that they would get sick while caring for the adopted child, but at least they'll leave behind a child that will live with more of a chance than they did.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Nieninque
In the UK, we believe everyone should live, not just the rich.

I beg to differ. Nice shot at the US and other capitalist societies but you're shallow in your knowledge of how hospitals work especially in comparison between the UK(socialist medicine programs) and the US(capitalist medicine programs).blah blah blah I am a medical knowitall...blah blah blah


Originally posted by someone with an imposter
It's incurable, at this time.

The best we can hope for is to spend INCREDIBLE amounts of money on chemical concoctions which slow the process.

most people don't have the money.

So, Dear Ganalon, when you do the research on the UK health service, research the meaning of sarcasm.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Because I'm saying that they shouldn't bring ANOTHER HIV+ person into this world. I'm sympathetic towards people who are HIV+ against their will, but that doesn't mean that we should pity them and allow them to bring more infected people into this world, I just believe in that, sorry. It's awful that they would get sick while caring for the adopted child, but at least they'll leave behind a child that will live with more of a chance than they did.

And what I am saying is that there are people who are HIV+ who are able to reproduce in ways which minimise the risk of HIV to their child.
You want to remove the ability of these people from doing so on the basis that some people wont be responsible? Thats the part that I have the problem with. It's the compulsory part.
How about we apply it to all people, given that some people without HIV wont be responsible parents, and we dont want to run the risk...?

Edited to add:
I know of a 13 year old boy who thinks he is gay and met a man through an internet chatroom. He told the man he was 16 and the man told him he was 17 (turned out he was 30ish). He met up with this man and went to his house and agreed to have sex with him. The man used a condom, but it later came to light that he was HIV+.

Now, in the very small chance that this young lad, as foolish as he was, contracted HIV, should he be compulsorily sterilised?

I just find that incredibly saddening that at the age of 13, his reproductive rights are being removed. There are millions of equally saddening circumstances that would apply in the same way.

[Edited on 16-5-05 by Nieninque]

[Gan]

"So, Dear Ganalon, when you do the research on the UK health service, research the meaning of sarcasm. "

Only if you match it with a paper on sharing or discussing opinions on a public bulliten board without resulting to directing childish insults at someone you disagree with.

It must be really painful to think you are so witty and yet to fail miserably when you try so hard at it.

It was nice when you did not post here for a while, I wish you would continue that practice.

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Nieninque
That though, is a different issue...and I have to say, your argument about adoption falls flat too, as on one hand you are saying they shouldnt have children as they may progress to AIDS, on the other hand you say they shouldnt have children they should adopt...as if it's OK if a parent of adopted children progresses onto AIDS but not a biological child.

Because I'm saying that they shouldn't bring ANOTHER HIV+ person into this world. I'm sympathetic towards people who are HIV+ against their will, but that doesn't mean that we should pity them and allow them to bring more infected people into this world, I just believe in that, sorry. It's awful that they would get sick while caring for the adopted child, but at least they'll leave behind a child that will live with more of a chance than they did. A mother's risk of transmitting the virus to her baby is at most 1 percent with good medical care, and about 25 percent without any treatment. Which is 1% and 25% too many, but with increased access to good healthcare and maintaining the proper treatments, a HIV infected woman can have a normal healthy baby.

[ElanthianSiren]

I agree with Dev (oh my, there's a shock). Herpes, if you have a child in your initial outbreak, is VERY devestating to a child and very contageous. It can get into their eyes and completely destroy them as well as cause mental retardation and disturbance.

I wish there was a way that we could guarantee that everyone who has a child would decide before fertilization to have a child. I wish there was a way that we could guarantee they would be tested for STDs along with their partner beforehand as well and that they would remain monogamous throughout the pregnancy. ... or choose not to have a child at all. Sadly, I don't think that happens as much as I wish it did.

That leaves us with the forced reliance on stellar medical care and medical maintenance for everyone.

-Melissa

[Showal]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Showal
Reparations make me a little uneasy too ... probably because of the fact that, as mentioned, they'll probably ask for something ridiculous and we'll hear about how it wasnt given forever. Slavery was wrong ... but if the government were to give 40 acres and a mule to EVERY black person in the US now? That amount of land would be hard to come by. Black people would be coming in from all over the world laying claim to that. Who'd blame them? If someone offered all white people in mexico 40 acres and a mule, I'd probably go down there and "get my dues".

The difference is thaty it happened to them directly...not to their ancestors

I guess you misunderstood my post. I was not saying anything as to who was "more" entitled to reparations. I wasn't saying anything about the validity of their claims. My point was: "they'll probably ask for something ridiculous and we'll hear about how it wasnt given forever." That's why I am uneasy about reparations. Reparations get messy and confusing ... I imagine, this is my personal (meaning not researched) opinion, they could be something easy to take advantage of.

[Nieninque]

I just think that if someone tramples over my quality of life, I should be entitled to recompense.

If someone broke into someone's house at night while they were sleeping, anaesthetised them, sterilised them and left (far fetched, I know), do you think they should have to pay recompense if they were caught?

If so, what makes it any different if it is the State that does that?

[Showal]

Once again, I never questioned the validity of them deserving reparations.

Yes, we all deserve justice.

If that same person broke into 65,000 houses and did the same thing, they'd all want and deserve justice. Could one man or a group of people be able to give it? It's much harder to organize, agree upon, and decide when it's on a larger scale.

So yes, justice is good. Reparations are a good idea.

Who's to say monetary compensation's necessarily the best anyways? We're so quick to jump to getting money when someone messes up. Other places have gone through worse things (I say worse but I know you can't compare it) ... such as apartheid ... and they have gotten by happily -offenders and victims- with a sincere apology. So yes, justice is good. Reparations, once again, are a good IDEA.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by DeV

A mother's risk of transmitting the virus to her baby is at most 1 percent with good medical care, and about 25 percent without any treatment. Which is 1% and 25% too many, but with increased access to good healthcare and maintaining the proper treatments, a HIV infected woman can have a normal healthy baby.

I was happily surprised to see the ability to bring the odds so low was already existing.

What they also said about taking the drugs needed to minimize the risks of passing HIV was to not take it during the first trimester to help minimize the risk of birth defects and instead to take it in a "short course" tretment near to and during labor and delivery.

Of course there are problems with that as well. By not taking the HIV meds during the first three months of pregnancy the mother risks a worsening of her own health and the short course tends to increase resistance to HIv medications thereby possibly decreasing its potency if needed later on by the mother OR the child.

It's just a hard hard decision to make and while I am not suggesting that women who become pregnant unintentionally have abortions, I know that I could never justify making a conscious decision to have a baby under those conditions knowing all the risks involved.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Showal
Once again, I never questioned the validity of them deserving reparations.

Yes, we all deserve justice.

If that same person broke into 65,000 houses and did the same thing, they'd all want and deserve justice. Could one man or a group of people be able to give it? It's much harder to organize, agree upon, and decide when it's on a larger scale.

Which is why the Courts are there.
Witht he 65000 people, we arent talking about one person paying it...we are talking about the State. The state can and should own up to its responsibilities.


So yes, justice is good. Reparations are a good idea.

Who's to say monetary compensation's necessarily the best anyways? We're so quick to jump to getting money when someone messes up.

That's capitalism for you ;)

[Showal]

<<Which is why the Courts are there.
Witht he 65000 people, we arent talking about one person paying it...we are talking about the State. The state can and should own up to its responsibilities.>>

Yes, the state can ... but the state also uses OUR money to do so. Which goes back to what was said earlier, we're not the ones responsible so why should we be held accountable? I do understand ... this IS a sad story and I genuinely feel bad for the people involved.

<<That's capitalism for you>>

Someone could probably back this up or refute this ... but I believe South Africa is a capitalist economy. Anyways, just because it's common doesn't mean it's necessarily the best solution.

[Parker]

Originally posted by DeV

A mother's risk of transmitting the virus to her baby is at most 1 percent with good medical care, and about 25 percent without any treatment. Which is 1% and 25% too many, but with increased access to good healthcare and maintaining the proper treatments, a HIV infected woman can have a normal healthy baby.


I have to disagree, at the moment. I just left from speaking with a physician, where I had a yearly checkup, and he said that the number of children who contract HIV from their mother can be lowered to about 30%, and it's higher, considering the mother nor the baby is treated. I may have misunderstood, so I'm going to go and do some research, but that's what I understand at the moment.



It wasnt a quote, foolish child.


This gem of a sentence was in reference to something near the top of the page, and I've been gone a couple hours and unable to keep up.

Nien, honestly, if you put something on these boards, and I quote it from you, wouldn't it be considered a quote, foolish old hag?

[Edited on 5-16-2005 by Parker]

[Keller]

Eugenics is not gene therapy.

We've refined the science, but the fundamental idea is still the same.

And most of those 65,000 took place in California, if I remember correctly.

[Gan]

Parker,

Nien thinks its funny to abridge and alter quotes from other people. She has with yours and mine in this thread. I find it childish and annoying to say the least.


Furthermore South Africa is a Republic. Therefore capitalistic.
(Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.)

Source:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sf.html#Govt
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sf.html#Econ

[Parker]

I seem to have missed South Africa's relevance to the debate :)

[Showal]

South Africa is where apartheid took place. Nein said "that's capitalism for you" when I brought up a capitalist country using non-monetary methods of paying back the wrong doings of apartheid.

[Parker]

I get it now, was a little slow ;)

That's a possibility...if the government wants to pay them back, perhaps a break on taxes.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Furthermore South Africa is a Republic. Therefore capitalistic.Just like that Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the People's Republic of China, right? :)

Peoples' rights do not extend to hurting others. (My right to swing my fist doesn't extend to your nose.) Therefore, the claim that anyone's rights are being "trampled" is pointlessly inflammatory. A much better strategy would be to provide some sort of medical document that gives numbers closer to DeV's than Parker's.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parker
I have to disagree, at the moment. I just left from speaking with a physician, where I had a yearly checkup, and he said that the number of children who contract HIV from their mother can be lowered to about 30%, and it's higher, considering the mother nor the baby is treated. I may have misunderstood, so I'm going to go and do some research, but that's what I understand at the moment.His numbers are at odds with the Center for Disease control as well as most pamplets, books, and recent journals I've read concerning the epidemic and it's rates/ways of transmission. It’s also important to know that children born to HIV-positive women usually test positive for HIV antibodies at birth, regardless of whether they are infected or not. It takes around 18 months to know for sure since antibodies can live in an uninfected infant for that long.

Also, women of color, specifically black and Hispanics are disproportionately affected the by HIV epidemic. Their options of medical care, scratch that, just receiving GOOD (non biased) medical care/treatment, including up to date medicines to combat the infection is very poor and in some cases non-existent. (that 25% figure of those who do not seek any kind of care, including pre-natal)

There are many ways the disease can be transmitted, but at birth, I’ve seen the percentages range from 1% to 2% at the most, 4% for women who receive AZT or a combination of antiretroviral therapies, which equates to receiving *good care/treatment*. Breast-feeding also has it’s own risks for transmission standing at around 10%-15%.

I’d recommend the Center for Disease Control website for additional research. Also note that these figures are not fully represenative but are based off the reported cases of HIV infection. Only around 30 states (I think) are required to report those numbers and we'd be foolish to think that all women report their illness even when they become pregnant. Some don't even know until it's too late.

[Parker]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Parker
I have to disagree, at the moment. I just left from speaking with a physician, where I had a yearly checkup, and he said that the number of children who contract HIV from their mother can be lowered to about 30%, and it's higher, considering the mother nor the baby is treated. I may have misunderstood, so I'm going to go and do some research, but that's what I understand at the moment.His numbers are at odds with the Center for Disease control as well as most pamplets, books, and recent journals I've read concerning the epidemic and it's rates/ways of transmission. It’s also important to know that children born to HIV-positive women usually test positive for HIV antibodies at birth, regardless of whether they are infected or not. It takes around 18 months to know for sure since antibodies can live in an uninfected infant for that long.

Also, women of color, specifically black and Hispanics are disproportionately affected the by HIV epidemic. Their options of medical care, scratch that, just receiving GOOD (non biased) medical care/treatment, including up to date medicines to combat the infection is very poor and in some cases non-existent. (that 25% figure of those who do not seek any kind of care, including pre-natal)

There are many ways the disease can be transmitted, but at birth, I’ve seen the percentages range from 1% to 2% at the most, 4% for women who receive AZT or a combination of antiretroviral therapies, which equates to receiving *good care/treatment*. Breast-feeding also has it’s own risks for transmission standing at around 10%-15%.

I’d recommend the Center for Disease Control website for additional research. Also note that these figures are not fully represenative but are based off the reported cases of HIV infection. Only around 30 states (I think) are required to report those numbers and we'd be foolish to think that all women report their illness even when they become pregnant. Some don't even know until it's too late.


You're right, DeV, I assume I misunderstood, and he was probably telling me that without treatment it's a 30% risk and I was getting it wrong.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Parker,

Nien thinks its funny to abridge and alter quotes from other people. She has with yours and mine in this thread. I find it childish and annoying to say the least.

Awww bless, poor laddy.
In terms of altering any of your quotes, please provide some evidence? Otherwise, take your pompous attitude and shove it right up your arse. You are becoming excedingly boring.


Originally posted by not-LordRanad

This gem of a sentence was in reference to something near the top of the page, and I've been gone a couple hours and unable to keep up.

Reading is fun.
You said: "your quote was "OMFG ATTENTION WHORE!!!111111" "

when it is blatantly obvious to anyone reading (except Ganalon - because he just doesnt get it) that that wasnt a quote, moreso a sarcastic paraphrasing of the sentiments in your first three posts. Dont take everything so literally.

Also, if you really dont like people being mean to you, it's probably not such a wise move to post lol2 smilies when impotent wankers like dave post things like "she is a brittish cunt". Makes it harder for you to take the moral high ground, you see...

[Parker]

I've not taken the high ground at all, Nien. I know I'm not perfect, and never wish to be. Now, while his comment was crude enough to be funny, I don't necessarily agree.

And yes, it WAS a quote, because I quoted it from you!

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Parker

You're right, DeV, I assume I misunderstood, and he was probably telling me that without treatment it's a 30% risk and I was getting it wrong.

So, now we have established a 4% MAXIMUM risk of babies contracting HIV from mothers, provided they are on particular courses of treatments and in most cases the risk is close to zero, do you still advocate compulsory sterilisation of people with HIV?

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Parker
I've not taken the high ground at all, Nien. I know I'm not perfect, and never wish to be. Now, while his comment was crude enough to be funny, I don't necessarily agree.

And yes, it WAS a quote, because I quoted it from you!

That makes it YOUR quote...not mine. You quoted me. I didnt quote you.

And if you think calling someone a cunt is funny, you are a bigger dink than I took you for

Originally posted by Nieninque

Ah, see this is the culture thing...In the UK, us Brittish cunts have a national health service

You're the only British cunt I know. Aside from you I tend to like the limeys. Let us not get into the flawed health care system you have over there. I wont mention that anyone with the means to uses the private system instead of the public.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Nieninque

Ah, see this is the culture thing...In the UK, us Brittish cunts have a national health service

You're the only British cunt I know.

You dont know your arse from your elbow Dave, so lets not pretend that you know someone you have never met ;)


Aside from you I tend to like the limeys. Let us not get into the flawed health care system you have over there. I wont mention that anyone with the means to uses the private system instead of the public.

See, there you go spouting off about things you dont know about...it just makes you look like a bigger moron than you are. No mean feat, I know...but dont put yourself in the firing line so much .

So you telling me that there are not two healthcare systems in your country?

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by Dave]

[Parker]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Parker
I've not taken the high ground at all, Nien. I know I'm not perfect, and never wish to be. Now, while his comment was crude enough to be funny, I don't necessarily agree.

And yes, it WAS a quote, because I quoted it from you!

That makes it YOUR quote...not mine. You quoted me. I didnt quote you.

And if you think calling someone a cunt is funny, you are a bigger dink than I took you for

No no, I don't find it funny at all.

The crude wordage he used on a board where it's usually frowned upong just brought a chuckle from me, that's all...I didn't exactly expect "She's a brittish cunt" in the middle of a civil (if spirited) debate.

She is the only person on the boards I reserve the word for.

[Back]

Only problem is, shes the least likely to be offended by it.

Makes me feel fuzzy inside, in the end thats all that really matters

[Gan]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Awww bless, poor laddy.
In terms of altering any of your quotes, please provide some evidence? Otherwise, take your pompous attitude and shove it right up your arse. You are becoming excedingly boring.


EXAMPLE 1:

Originally posted by Nieninque
After his previous posts of "OMFG ATTENTION WHORE!!!111111" you think that any level of debate would have been listened to by him?

WHEN PARKER ACTUALLY SAID:

Originally posted by Parker
... Or did she just become barren, and decided to get her 15 minutes of fame and blame it on the government and all of their crooked Conspiracies? ...

SECOND EXAMPLE:

Originally posted by Nieninque
[quote]Originally posted by Ganalon
I beg to differ. Nice shot at the US and other capitalist societies but you're shallow in your knowledge of how hospitals work especially in comparison between the UK(socialist medicine programs) and the US(capitalist medicine programs).blah blah blah I am a medical knowitall...blah blah blah

WHEN I ACTUALLY SAID:

Originally posted by Ganalon
I beg to differ. Nice shot at the US and other capitalist societies but you're shallow in your knowledge of how hospitals work especially in comparison between the UK(socialist medicine programs) and the US(capitalist medicine programs).

You see, I make my living as a consultant for hospitals in the US and in Canada. I specialize in patient throughput (patient flow) and how patients move throughout hospitals. After a recent visit to Canada (which mirrors the UK) in healthcare programs I was dismayed at how the main priority in government sponsored healthcare facilities (hospitals) is not treatment of everything but just treatment for anything major enough to require hospital stay. Everything else did not make it past the doors of the ED (Emergency Department) and into the hospital. Most patients who needed follow up treatment were sent home and scheduled for x-ray, therapy, and further drug therapy at a later date thus delaying the healing process even further. Furthermore the ED wait times in the hospitals in Canada that I surveyed were almost 5x higher than those of the most busiest and most disorganzied facilities in America, that I have surveyed.

I plan on flying overseas within the year to the UK to survey several facilities there for my company and will love to further elaborate on this comparison upon my return.

However, for now I"m calling you on your comparison as included in your argument above... its inflamitory and inaccurate, not to mention insulting. Perhaps Parker isnt the only one who should do some research on the topic instead of pulling stuff out of your ass Nien.

In summary: You've added, embelished, and misrepresented quotes from people in a sordid effort to be witty. I truly must say Nien, THAT YOU'RE A FUCKING IDIOT.

Furthermore I'm glad that you've quit GS (so I dont have to listen to your drivel on PSINET) and I wish for gods sake that you would find another board to troll. Your parasitic targeting of people that have a difference of opinion to you're twisted views borders on the same idiocy of Xcalibur and his innocuous babbelings not to mention is on the same maturity level as Warclaidhm. When you learn how to debate and have discourse with grownups covering grownup material then feel free to post, otherwise go troll on Klaive's boards where people will actually think you know what the fuck you talk about. Until then please STFU.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Dave
She is the only person on the boards I reserve the word for.

Actually, Dave, You throw it around all over the place...not always at people on the boards, but you are quite liberal with your branding of people as a cunt...as much as I may feel special getting such exclusive attention from the likes of you, it just isnt true. As such, it shows that you either (a) are stupid, or (b) are a liar, or (c) both.




snutts your a cunt go cry in the corner


http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=2697




Somebody needs to get that cunt out of her senate seat.


http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=10987




That cunt amberain is a Grade a psycho.


http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=6907&page=2




People like John Kerry and the cunt Fonda are the reason people looked at our troops that way back then, more lies.


http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=12448&page=2

[HarmNone]

Let's get back on topic.

I said, let's get back on topic. I've deleted two off-topic posts AFTER I asked. Any further off topic posts will also be removed.

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by HarmNone]

[Nieninque]

Parker, I repeat: So, now we have established a 4% MAXIMUM risk of babies contracting HIV from mothers, provided they are on particular courses of treatments and in most cases the risk is close to zero, do you still advocate compulsory sterilisation of people with HIV?

[Brattt8525]

• A baby born to a woman who has HIV has a 1 in 7 chance of being HIV-positive

Also in the article it states that if the child is taken by C-section it has a lesser chance of contracting it.

Most of the contributing factors though depend on the mother being treated, how well she happens to be and whether or not she does what she needs to to protect the baby. We all know not everyone who has HIV is taking the right steps with it. Hell look at the people who are having unprotected sex knowing they are infected.

My thoughts would be if youhave HIV don't have children the risk to the unborn child is not worth it. The issue of playing God and making it impossible for them to concieve is something I don't think any human has a right to decide except the person in question.

[Parker]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Parker, I repeat: So, now we have established a 4% MAXIMUM risk of babies contracting HIV from mothers, provided they are on particular courses of treatments and in most cases the risk is close to zero, do you still advocate compulsory sterilisation of people with HIV?

I've learned quite a bit, and no, I couldn't advocate that as a general rule. There are some special cases I would definitely suggest it, but no, not as the norm.



• A baby born to a woman who has HIV has a 1 in 7 chance of being HIV-positive


Didn't we just refute this fact? And where's the statement coming from?

HN, Sorry, I think I might have posted that literally seconds after you.

Edited to add questions.

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by Parker]

[Gan]

I Agree with Bratt in that I dont think it's right that parent(s) that are HIV infected should try to have children naturally; rather than adopt. We covered the same concept in the "kissing cousins" thread but on a parallel course in which it wasnt the odds of the child being born with HIV but the odds of a child being born with birth defects. Odds are still odds and thats just something you shouldnt play with.

Where the sticky comes into play is who should be the one to determine who can have children and who should not (who should legislate it)? Does the state (government) have a right to step in and try to protect the interest of any children that might be produced under such circumstances? Should the parents, who played the odds and lost, be held accountable for their actions if they knew what could happen and did it anyways? What happens to the child if the parents are punished?

Hard questions indeed. Ones that I dont have an immediate answer for because there is no simple answer. Its a shame that people can not be responsible enough to understand what could happen and take measures of their own accord to prevent it. Just the same scenario where people can not tell people they cant have/produce children; but should the state have that right if the people do not?

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by Ganalon]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Where the sticky comes into play is who should be the one to determine who can have children and who should not (who should legislate it)? Does the state (government) have a right to step in and try to protect the interest of any children that might be produced under such circumstances? Should the parents, who played the odds and lost, be held accountable for their actions if they knew what could happen and did it anyways? What happens to the child if the parents are punished?
Personally, I don't see it as the government's responsibility to step in and decide who can and cannot have a baby unless the individual is a ward of the state or in state or federal custody. That includes criminals and those who've been placed in state run mental hospitals. And even then, how would they prevent a 14 year old foster girl infected with HIV from conceiving a child? Sterilization? Hell, they did it to people who weren't even infected with the disease, and that is now being called an abomination.

If there is any type of change it will be minor is my guess. Unfortunately, if access to healthcare was 100 times better and education about HIV/AIDS was 100 times more readily available, as well as important steps taken to combat HIV directly in the communities effected the most, I can see forward progress being made. Parents will continue to juggle with making these difficult decisions. I don't know one good reason that would justify the need to have a child knowing you are infected with HIV. However, there will always be instances when women have no idea they've been infected and find out when it's too late.

[Brattt8525]

• A baby born to a woman who has HIV has a 1 in 7 chance of being HIV-positive


Didn't we just refute this fact? And where's the statement coming from?

From Women with Aids - Basic facts.

Having good prenatal care is obviously very important for the health of the baby and also for the mother-to-be. This is especially true if the mother has an infection with HIV, the AIDS virus. If an infected woman is carrying a child, there is a chance that the baby can be infected also. This happens during the time that the baby is being born. The baby’s naturally wet skin in the eyes, nose and mouth gets exposed to infected blood from the mother. Without treatment, the baby has about a 35 percent chance of getting AIDS if the mother is infected with the AIDS virus.

If the mother takes a virus-reducing medicine, then the amount of virus in her blood will be reduced. When this happens, there is less chance that the baby will be infected. The chance can be as low as 8 percent. This is much better odds for the baby. The mother-to-be should start getting the medication at least three months before the baby is due. If a mother-to-be suspects that she may have been exposed to AIDS, she should talk to her doctor about it. For her own sake, as well as for the baby.

I don't know about anyone other then myself but to me having the chance of between 8-35% is incredible. A 1% chance is too much let alone these numbers.

[Brattt8525]

>Personally, I don't see it as the government's responsibility to step in and decide who can and cannot have a baby unless the individual is a ward of the state or in state or federal custody.<

I think if the infected people are or the resulting children are/would be getting medical assistance from anything other then their own insurance it sure would be their business.

Maybe I am too close minded when it comes to someone risking passing HIV on to a child, the thought of me being the cause of hurting my child is unbearable.

[Warriorbird]

And would be to most any right-thinking person. But what if you'd been childless?

Where's the "culture of life" then? Do people not have a right to attempt to reproduce? The irony is eugenics nonsense is often favored by people who are theoretically "pro-life."

[Nieninque]

The difference is between advising people with HIV that it is unwise/risky to have children, and compulsorily sterilising them.

No-one is advocating risking children born with HIV.

[Nieninque]

On those statistics:

World Health Organisation - "In the absence of any intervention an estimated 15-30 % of mothers with HIV infection will transmit the infection during pregnancy and delivery, and 10-20 % through breast milk."

United Nations - "In 2003, an estimated 700 000 children were newly infected with HIV, about
90% of these infections occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (1). In contrast, new
HIV infections in children are becoming increasingly rare in many parts of
the world. In 2003, less than 1000 children were estimated to have become
infected with HIV in North America and western Europe and less than 100 in
Australia and New Zealand (1). Most HIV-infected children acquire the infection
through mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV, which can occur during
pregnancy, labour and delivery, or during breastfeeding. In the absence of
any intervention, the risk of MTCT of HIV is 15–30% in non-breastfeeding
populations; breastfeeding by an infected mother increases the risk by 5–20%
to a total of 20–45% (2).
The risk of MTCT can be reduced to below 2% by interventions that include
antiretroviral (ARV) prophylaxis given to women during pregnancy and labour
and to the infant in the fi rst weeks of life, obstetrical interventions including
elective caesarean delivery (prior to the onset of labour and membrane rupture)
and completely avoiding breastfeeding (3–5)."

[DeV]

Originally posted by Brattt8525
Maybe I am too close minded when it comes to someone risking passing HIV on to a child, the thought of me being the cause of hurting my child is unbearable. Possibly. Except, this is nothing new. Yes, the numbers are incredible but women who are infected with HIV reproduce daily and what is equally incredible is that the government hasn't done more to combat this illness directly.

The government intervention you speak of is laughable at best; if only it were that black and white.

HIV-positive women should have complete choice in making decisions regarding pregnancy and child birth. There should be no forcible abortion or even sterilization based on their HIV status. Counseling should be given to the pregnant women for help in deciding whether to go ahead with or terminate the pregnancy.

How about the government step in with some increased funding for high quality care and treatment of the disease. HIV prevention needs to be a focus in schools, and communities where HIV is most prevalent. More effective treatments available to everyone and not just those with the means(I'm not advocating government handouts but I am advocating those with an infectious disease without the means to the best care need it anyway, to keep others safe from infection), and better prevention tools need to be in place.

Until I see that happening I don't condone government intervention just because the woman or man for that matter has contracted HIV and may or may not conceive. This is not China.

Unless the individual is maliciously spreading the disease which then becomes grounds for criminal prosecution.

Also, I'm not sure where you obtained your figures but mine come directly from the CDC(Centers for Disease Control), with the most up to date stats and figures concerning the spread of HIV.

Edited for clarity.

[Edited on 5-18-2005 by DeV]

[Brattt8525]

From Women with Aids - Basic facts. I googled it and this was the first or second article on the question of what percentage blah blah blah.

<Unless the individual is maliciously spreading the disease which then becomes grounds for criminal prosecution. <

Seems malicious enough to me to concieve a child knowing you have HIV. Now thats just my opinion, and like anything else we all have them.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Brattt8525
Seems malicious enough to me to concieve a child knowing you have HIV. The same could be said for the poor(urban and country), drug addicted, criminally insane, psychotic, clinically depressed or any other mental illness you'd like to name, gay people, single mothers, single fathers, those who have cancer, or any other chronic or acute illness, etc.
Now thats just my opinion, and like anything else we all have them. I respect your opinion, just don't agree with the government needing to step in and prevent someone from having a child because they have an illness. I feel it's a personal, moral/ethical decision.

We only disagree on one of the issues as it stands.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Nieninque
No-one is advocating risking children born with HIV. I would say you are, because (like Brat) I find 1% way too big of a risk if we're talking about giving babies HIV.
Originally posted by DeV
The same could be said for the poor(urban and country), drug addicted, criminally insane, psychotic, clinically depressed or any other mental illness you'd like to name, gay people, single mothers, single fathers, those who have cancer, or any other chronic or acute illness, etc.The difference is that in every one of those situations, the child can (and children do) move on from that situation if he or she so chooses (and has a bit of luck/skill). There's no way to get out of HIV, ever. The one case that comes close is drug addiction, because I'm reasonably sure drugs can be and are passed on to the baby in the womb, but that only occurs if the mother actively takes drugs during the pregnancy. The mother can't stop being HIV positive.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
The mother can't stop being HIV positive. Oh really. Hmmmm, how do I word this so that it makes sense, no shit Sherlock.

I agree that it is a poor choice to conceive a child when you are inflicted with an illness.

What I do not agree with is forced sterilization or government regulation of any kind in regards to HIV and pregnancy.

What's next, people born with deformities not permitted to have children, retards, parapalegics, dwarfs... They can't stop being that way, obviously.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DeV
What's next, people born with deformities not permitted to have children, retards, parapalegics, dwarfs... They can't stop being that way, obviously. If you could provide some kind of scientific research that those illnesses were communicable to offpsring and as debilitating as AIDS, sure.

This is the same problem I see in certain other debates, debates I won't bring up for fear of being off-topic. Protecting babies is very, very important. Taking peoples' rights away is bad, but not as bad as letting babies come to harm. That's why there are things like Child Protective Services, or whatever they're called.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by DeV
What's next, people born with deformities not permitted to have children, retards, parapalegics, dwarfs... They can't stop being that way, obviously.

If you could provide some kind of scientific research that those illnesses were communicable to offpsring and as debilitating as AIDS, sure.


Huntington's Chorea (http://www.neuro.nwu.edu/meded/MOVEMENT/Huntington.html)

If the parent has the gene, the odds of a child getting the disease is a lot greater than that of AIDS being passed to a baby from the mother. So, should the government make it illegal for anyone with that gene from having children?

Raven

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
That's why there are things like Child Protective Services, or whatever they're called. And they don't take people's children away just because the person is infected with HIV. Newsflash for ya. Not gonna happen.

[Latrinsorm]

I won't pretend to know what half of those medical words in the link meant, but it sounds like more of a sure thing than AIDS coming from HIV, so yes.

edit:
Originally posted by DeV
And they don't take people's children away just because the person is infected with HIV. Newsflash for ya. Not gonna happen. Why would they? It's too late by then. Unless we're talking baby kids, in which case they ought to be kept away until breast-feeding is out of the question, if the articles posted so far have any merit.

I don't understand why folks are so against this. If people are deemed unfit to live in normal society, we lock them up. This is a gross infringement upon liberty, and is not even based upon a sure process. It's not that the parents have necessarily done something wrong, but how can we possibly trust them when the costs of failure are so terrible?

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I won't pretend to know what half of those medical words in the link meant, but it sounds like more of a sure thing than AIDS coming from HIV, so yes.

Sorry. Here (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/huntington/huntington.htm)'s a site with less medicalese so it's more clear. And yes, it's much more a sure thing: 50-50 of inheriting the gene and if they do, 100% of developing the disease which means a severely debilitating death sentence that can't be avoided.

Personally, I think anyone with the gene and knows it who then has children is a selfish bastard but making it illegal? If you're going to start such a program, AIDS is lower on the list for death sentences and suffering than quite a few other things.

Raven

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Why would they? It's too late by then. Exactly.

Would make is sort of tough for the government to make it illegal or even attempt a regulation. Witch hunt anyone?

[Latrinsorm]

I would put good money down that most if not the grand majority of policing is done after the fact. I don't know how a witch hunt is at all applicable here.

[Warriorbird]

Eugenics... witch hunt! Never happen!

[DeV]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Eugenics... witch hunt! Never happen! lol.. That's what I'm talking about.