Thursday, March 22, 2007

I read this article over lunch and it really sort of irked me a bit. It was in Good housekeeping and generally I enjoy there stories they are very inspiring and "hopeful"

Ok long story short, this lady was raped when she was 19 when she was in Spain and contracted HIV which she found out about 2 years later.
It then turned into full blown AIDS (this is where I skip over the part where she becomes an advocate for women living with HIV and AIDS).

Anyways what really irked me about the whole article is
THEN SHE DECIDES TO HAVE KIDS!!! KNOWING there is a chance that her children could be born with HIV!!! I mean this is my opinion but I CAN NOT BELIEVE HOW SELFISH that is.

I know there has been leaps and bounds in the area and BOTH (yes she had 2) kids were not born with the virus but what if they were? What if they will still get it (takes up to 5 years to see if its in their system) you have just committed you child to a death sentence. Neither girl is healthy both have some sort of ailment and who do I blame??

Anyways that bugs me. Bottom line. I know its not my place to tell someone what they can and can not do, but all I can think of is HOW DARE SHE!!! I mean there are enough kids with problems and issues not to mention their mother will be dead before they ever get married or graduate high school. UUGGG SO ANGRY!!

Ok go on discuss.


T-girl said...

I agree also to some extent. If you have a terminal illness isn't it kind of selfish to bring a child into the world who you may never get a chance to raise? Not only that, what kind of hope is it to know your whole life that most likely your mother will not see those great milestones later on (marriage, college etc). BUT on the other hand, many children born to HIV/AIDS patients tend to have an immunity to the disease if they don't develope it... there are a number of researchers using these children trying to make vaccines. Agian though, do you really want to have a child so they can be a guinee pig for a cure for a disease you have? Where is the line drawn in selfishness.

That being said it doesn't bother me at all when families have another baby for cancer treatments! Go figure! LOL

AM said...

I wouldnt oppose her wanting to adopt but I agree that it is not fair to the unborn child to risk them having such a disease. That would irk me too.

RWA said...

That is a bit strange. However, if it does end up that one or both children are HIV-positive, perhaps they will have the same luck that Magic Johnson has had - and not have the disease develop.

astrocoz said...

I can't say that I agree with you totally on this. I see benefits both ways. Then again, I lost my father from a terminal illness when I was 12. It sure makes you appreciate your family more and focus on the things you do have rather than the things you don't have.

On the mother's side of it, it wasn't her fault she got raped and contracted HIV. In a way, I really can't blame her for having hope and trying to live her life as she would if she didn't have HIV. You have to go on with life and you can't just limit yourself because you have HIV. I think when you place limits on yourself because of a disease, you are living a half life and you are letting that disease beat you down painfully before the real onset of it begins.

I can see where you are coming from, but I can also see where she was coming from. There is always a hope for a cure...and maybe that outweighed the gravity of reality. There is a very good chance that she will get to see her kids milestones while they are under 18. This time of a child's life is most important in shaping their lives and the people they will become.

Being a person who lost their father at 12, having him not there for my HS graduation was more painful than not having him there for my college graduation. My wedding was tough without him, but I did have my mother and the rest of my family and we focused on the positive aspect of the life he lived rather than the life he was missing out on with us.

You learn to deal and move on with life.

This woman could have given her children HIV, but if she didn't, she just let the world have a piece of her for a little bit longer. Her children will be her legacy and will remember her...when you are dying from a terrible disease, knowing this is a small comfort to her and her family.

Its just a different perception. If I was a woman with HIV, I'd choose hope and a positive possibility over a negative possibility.

Boobless Brigade Master said...

Hmmm...this is a tough one.
At first glance I agree to some degree.
But then I have to consider that I've never researched the subject and I don't know all the facts and statistics of the percentage of babies that contract/don't contract it.
The thin line for me if *I* apply this theory to HIV, than I have to apply it across the board.
People with cancer genes, shouldn't have children...alcoholics shouldn't have children, etc.

Joie de Vivre said...

I agree with Boobless and Astrocos. It seems selfish at first, but there are a lot more people doing more selfish acts (people purposely spreading HIV etc) and life is weird anyway. Perfectly healthy people can end up ill and leaving young children behind, no amount of careful parenting planning can be foolproof unfortunately.

The woman wasn't a kiwi was she? I think I have read a local story where the woman is now an advocate.

This Template was custom created by Bloggy Blog Designz Copyright © 2010