HIV +

Accepting liberal cutlure , can increase a chance of premarital sex hence there is a higher probability of acquiring HIV and other sexual diseases.

Question is , should there be a law for medical certification before marriage to protect a person who doesn't have it?

unfortunately , HIV so far doesn't fall under treatable diseases. It doens't indicate that the person is definitely immoral . many of them are innocent victims however unfortunately due to current medical situation chances of transmission of HIV to baby born to HIV infected parents are much higher than general population .. In such situation , should HIV infected people be allowed to procreate . At one point it seems like their right just like all other human beings , however what about a child's right ? besides getting a killer disease all other social difficuties which a child could face in such situation which could be avoided by simply preventing its birth , especially if both parents are affected and likely be died while a child still in need of a parent.

Originally posted by: Morning_Dew

Question is , should there be a law for medical certification before marriage to protect a person who doesn't have it?

Yes, Its good for all.......😊

[quote]The survey, conducted by manoramaonline/yuva, saw 22,578 people taking part. Of this, 20,546 people said an HIV certificate was a must before marriage. Just 2,032 said that such a certificate was not a necessity. The survey results have just been published.

According to the Kerala State AIDS Control Society, the state has over 70,000 HIV positive cases.

HIV and marriage are two dimensions, maintains S.K. Hari, team leader of the Hindustan Latex Family Planning Promotion Trust, a project support unit of the AIDS control society.

"Being HIV positive does not mean that one is not eligible for marriage. And being HIV negative prior to marriage does not necessarily mean that it will be negative for the rest of life," Hari told IANS.

State Health Minister P.K. Sreemathy said that this was the point that needed to be discussed in society.

"Just through a law this cannot be made compulsory," the minister said.

Reacting to the survey, public health expert C.R. Soman said the idea of a HIV certificate was ridiculous. "HIV is not the most important public health problem in Kerala, and is therefore not a priority. Surveys show that Kerala is a low HIV prevalence state."

"In ante-natal women, HIV prevalence is as low as 0.3 percent. There is no evidence of increasing HIV prevalence in the state. Moreover, a mere 2.5 percent of those having sexually transmitted disease are HIV positive in Kerala, unlike in other states."

According to Soman, over the last two decades since the first AIDS case was reported in the country, things have not worsened in Kerala as far as HIV was concerned.

"There are more public health problems that need to be addressed than HIV," said Soman. "Currently there are 4.5 million people sufferi
'"

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Majority-of-Kerali tes-Vote-in-Favor-of-HIV-Certificate-Before-Marriage-12359-1 /

[/quote]

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

btw, is marriage the only way one gets to have sex? I mean how effective this law will be in curtailing the spread of STDs in today's times when pre-marital and extra-marital sex is so common and on the rise????

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

there are numerous instances of physically healthy people harming their children. actually, the cases of healthy people harming their children are lot higher than HIV+ couples going for babies. so, shd we prevent all from procreating now? again, the question is how much invasion of privacy is too much? abhi HIV+

Another very relevant point. Made me recollect the ultra sound scene in Juno. Why do people have to judge who will make a good parent or not, who deserves to have a child or not. The most unexpected people can make great parents. Usually I am against invasion of privacy. However, I think in this case children do take precedence. No child deserves this. Testing will prevent children from suffering this.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

You make an excellent point. This law will have very limited effect when it comes to extra marital and pre marital sex. But I do believe medical testing for marriage even with its limited scope can be helpful. Education will definitely be the most important key factor. Even people who wish to be promiscuous can be safe. In Sex and the City a guy refuses to sleep with Samantha till she is tested and says he has himself tested regularly too.

Another very relevant point. Made me recollect the ultra sound scene in Juno. Why do people have to judge who will make a good parent or not, who deserves to have a child or not. The most unexpected people can make great parents. Usually I am against invasion of privacy. However, I think in this case children do take precedence. No child deserves this. Testing will prevent children from suffering this.

Perhaps passing a law is too extreme. But testing should be encouraged before sex and before having a child and the emphasis clearly explained in HIV education. At least responsible people will make a conscious choice of testing themselves before passing it to someone. But at the same time there are creeps and so much misinformation that it comes down to either believing in the greater good in humans and risking a few casualties or taking control of a special circumstance to minimize innocent victims. In USA many states required blood work for a marriage license much before the AIDS scare to test Rh factor which was an extremely rare factor effecting reproduction. Many states have done away with it but many couples do have it as part of their wedding ceremony. It is a good measure for several reasons.

i think we both r saying the same thing here. i am not against screening...i am only agaibnst slapping one more law to screen. like pre-nups, this screening shd be at the descretion of the couple...whether engaged to get married, having an affair, or merely living together. that's why i said raise the awareness, educate them......but no, do not start forcing them to get screened.

i know an african american couple who went for sickle cell anemia screening before they got married. this is significant problem in african americans and if both persons happen to have the gene, it cld cause problems for their offsprings. awareness helps.....forced laws invade the personal space here.

as far as the debate premises here, one shd go for the screening but one shd not be "forced" to go for one because marriage is not the only way one gets exposed to HIV or other STDs😊

I think we both agree on the futility of having laws for "allowing" or not "allowing" them to have offsprings😊

Originally posted by: Morning_Dew

Accepting liberal cutlure , can increase a chance of premarital sex hence there is a higher probability of acquiring HIV and other sexual diseases.

Question is , should there be a law for medical certification before marriage to protect a person who doesn't have it?

unfortunately , HIV so far doesn't fall under treatable diseases. It doens't indicate that the person is definitely immoral . many of them are innocent victims however unfortunately due to current medical situation chances of transmission of HIV to baby born to HIV infected parents are much higher than general population .. In such situation , should HIV infected people be allowed to procreate . At one point it seems like their right just like all other human beings , however what about a child's right ? besides getting a killer disease all other social difficuties which a child could face in such situation which could be avoided by simply preventing its birth , especially if both parents are affected and likely be died while a child still in need of a parent.

Yes.. it should be right of information for either.. the problem is asking for something with a little chance of them having as it is considered insulting by all cultures and now there is a prick involved...😆

Originally posted by: Morning_Dew

Accepting liberal cutlure , can increase a chance of premarital sex hence there is a higher probability of acquiring HIV and other sexual diseases.[/quote]

Just because someone says they're are/will be monogamous and have not been sexually active before marriage, does not make it so. It's a nice concept to think that people are being honest about their sexual exploits but, truth be told, people lie/cheat, always have and probably always will.

Even when married, I think, people ought to have a test done on a daily basis.

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

hmmm, if one needs a law to protect them against any harm the person they are going to marry may bring them knowingly, then we have some other serious issues to tackle here first....imo....HIV or any other std becomes a secondary issue then.

yes, but dont people need to get a blood test before they get married in any case, for other signs of incompatibility? one could apply the "other serious issues" argument then too, cant we?😉😆

btw, is marriage the only way one gets to have sex? I mean how effective this law will be in curtailing the spread of STDs in today's times when pre-marital and extra-marital sex is so common and on the rise????

i mean it would help to weed out the real prudes from the born-again virgins who've had "ghat ghat ka paani" and then decide they are going to settle down. 😛 😆

and i dont think this is a case of moral principles, policing or anything. it's more about saving lives from duplicitous/ uninformed folks. if it saves even a few lives, isnt that worth it? often society spends enormous medical resources on research into fringe diseases just to benefit a few. so what's wrong with this.😊

Originally posted by: chatbuster

Originally posted by: *Jane*

I think Gauri_3 explained this very well. I have nothing more to add to that.

Thanks Jane😊