GOP sen. hates women, babies, fetuses - Page 3

Nappy_curly_crown · 02-26-2009, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nappy_curly_crown

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdc

Ridiculous. Why should I as a married woman who is faithful to her husand and her husband is faithful to her undergo this testing?

Besides which NEW HIV cases in non drug using heterosexuals is pretty rare now in my understanding. I'm only talking about the US here. Our blood supply has been secured from what I understand.

I wouldn't want to be tested if I was pregnant, but to keep my baby from having to be tested I would do it, but like medussa said, that sound like mandatory testing to me.

Because **** happens.

Uh...what scientific medical journals have you been reading...because the number of HIV cases amoung hetrosexual WOMEN is on the rise...and it is alarmingly high. And it is estimated that 9 out of 10 of those women are in "committed relationships and/or are married" and it is also estimated that almost 60% of new HIV positive women got it from thier partner (and this for women across all socio-economic groups and races). Add to that, the numbers for minority women are even higher.

I was a bit antagonistic in my response and there was no reason to be so sorry about that but, I stand by what I said. I don't think most of us need to be tested and certainly not on an annual basis. This is from the CDC website. NOTE that for women they are talking about women who engage in sex with men they either know have HIV or who have high risk of it, but they may not know that. I know for me, and I believe that vast majority of women those situations just don't apply. The number is small to me even with that. While every case is sad, 11,754 diagnosed in one year out of our huge population is not a lot of women (2006 statistics). More people than that die of cancer every day. The table I am referring to for HIV is about half way down the page.

http://www.cdc.gov/HIV/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

This is the cancer death rate for 2008.

http://www.cancer.org/downloads/stt/...8Table_pg4.pdf

Compairing cancer and HIV is like compairing apples and oranges. Cancer is not a infectious disease, so the progression of the diseases are entirely different as are the social stigmas that are attached to them. And let's face it, a larger part of this has to do with social stigmas.

Let's define "person at risk for contracting HIV". To my knowledge, that includes a person that has had at least 1 unprotected sexual partner. If a spouse is cheating...can u be so sure that they are using protection? I mean after all they are cheating...and I doubt that many husbands go out and purchase condoms...that's just evidence to prove what they are doing! And to purchase a condom means that you are making a concious decision to go and have sex with another person...so no excuses of it just "happened". I mean how many husbands have babies for other women while still married to thier wives? To be a person at risk, you don't have to be sleeping with an entire NFL football team...all it takes is ONE encounter with an infected person...espically for women since the rates of transmission from infected male to uninfected female are MUCH higher than the other way around.

Boomygrrl · 02-26-2009, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PixieCurl

Quote:

Originally Posted by cynaminbear

Pixie, I understood what you're saying and see the connection.

YAY I'm not crazy!!!

And boomygrrl, it saddens me that you think any woman is naive if she trusts that her husband is faithful.

I didn't mean it that way. I"m just saying that if he isn't faithful, she isn't negligent because she assumes he's faithful...she might be naive, but not negligent with her baby. Does that make sense? I should've clarified it more. I assume my husband is faithful, but I do not know for 100 percent. For all practical purposes, it's okay that I don't know for 100 percent, because I assume it and that's okay with me. However, if a mother ends up being infected and passes it to the baby...she's likely to be more of the naive type than the negligent type, if she really believed this couldn't happen to her.

Eilonwy · 02-26-2009, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boomygrrl

And boomygrrl, it saddens me that you think any woman is naive if she trusts that her husband is faithful.

People need to take cautious, even with those they love and trust. Frankly, I do think it's naive not to take simple precautions. Unfortunately, a lot of people have been screwed over by the spouses they loved and trusted.

CurlyGina2 · 02-26-2009, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eilonwy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boomygrrl

And boomygrrl, it saddens me that you think any woman is naive if she trusts that her husband is faithful.

People need to take cautious, even with those they love and trust. Frankly, I do think it's naive not to take simple precautions. Unfortunately, a lot of people have been screwed over by the spouses they loved and trusted.

Agreed. Every year at my GYN appointment I have blood taken for STD testing.