May 2, 2002

9:46 PM

Thanks to a breakthrough in medical technologyallowing HIV-infected semen to be purified of the virus, thousands of men will now be able to father children whose high-school graduations they'll never live to see. Is there no limit to human vanity?
posted by tiny pea (19 comments total)

high-school graduations they'll never live to see.

Contrary to your assumption (or oversight), HIV-positive individuals may well live happy, productive lives, free of the AIDS virus.
posted by Marquis at 9:50 PM on May 2, 2002

Why is that vanity? It's a couple wanting to conceive.
posted by nathan_teske at 9:51 PM on May 2, 2002

tiny pea, with or without HIV, there is NO limit to human vanity.
posted by aaronshaf at 9:56 PM on May 2, 2002

Why is that vanity? It's a couple wanting to conceive.

You answered your own question....
posted by rushmc at 10:04 PM on May 2, 2002

I don't get it. What's vane about wanting to become a father? What's vane about giving your wife a child, a legacy to live on after your own passing, if that even occurs due to HIV?

I want to be a father. I want to be just like my father, who wasn't able to watch me finish growing up. He didn't die because of HIV, but that's hardly the point...He gave me life, and I'd like to do the same, if only to pass on his legacy. How is this vane? How is bringing a child to this world vane?
posted by BlueTrain at 10:05 PM on May 2, 2002

I wonder how long it will be before they come out with a home purifying kit.

by the way, where did it say they purified anything?
posted by mikhail at 10:12 PM on May 2, 2002

troll.
posted by n9 at 10:12 PM on May 2, 2002

It's vanity, because if these people could put aside their irrational desire to erect a monument to themselves through genetic continuity, then they could adopt a healthy child who desperately needs a family, which bears no risk of infecting either the inseminated woman or the kid with an incurable disease. It's pure vanity.
posted by tiny pea at 10:18 PM on May 2, 2002

Tiny Pea, vanity (though a different word might be more appropriate considering that it is one of the overriding drives of all life to reproduce) it may be, but the vanity is not that of HIV positive potential fathers, but all humans, or all prospective and current parents anyway. There is nothing about having HIV that makes it more or less right to have a child, assuming it can be done safely and without transmitting the virus tot he child.
posted by Nothing at 10:25 PM on May 2, 2002

Contrary to your assumption (or oversight), HIV-positive individuals may well live happy, productive lives, free of the AIDS virus.

Marquis, this is an oxymoron. To be HIV-positive is to have the AIDS virus, even though viral load may be very low or even undetectable during treatment with anti-retrovirals.l I think you mean, 'free of AIDS-defining illnesses, or something like that.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 10:29 PM on May 2, 2002

New techniques that separate semen from the seminal fluid carrying HIV gives new hope to thousands of would-be gay dads who thought the possibility of fathering a biological child with a willing female would remain forever closed to them.

What, no straight men have aids? or do they just not want kids. bad use of a bad stereotype.
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:44 PM on May 2, 2002

troll.

Way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way overused.
posted by donkeyschlong at 11:04 PM on May 2, 2002

Sure beats ensuring the child HAS HIV just to be 'like' the parents. (Or deafness)
posted by HTuttle at 11:06 PM on May 2, 2002

The vast majority of children born to HIV positive parents will not get HIV. 25% of children born to a positive mother will in fact generally get HIV -- if they're not receiving any treatment. (source).

In fact, for women on successful drug therapy, who show no viral load, the rate drops to around 3%. (source).

I might suggest you use more care in composing posts here. It sounds awfully like what you're saying is it's ridiculous that people with HIV reproduce, as they're all going to die. That would make you sound rather like an asshole, and you wouldn't want that.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 11:28 PM on May 2, 2002

thousands of men will now be able to father children whose high-school graduations they'll never live to see.

Try: thousands of women, with spouses who are HIV+ and often terminally ill, will still be able to carry children and raise them in good health, despite the likelyhood that they will be widowed by the AIDS virus.
posted by kfury at 12:30 AM on May 3, 2002

(Ufez: the datalounge site is for gay males.)
posted by mstillwell at 12:35 AM on May 3, 2002

It's vanity, because if these people could put aside their irrational desire to erect a monument to themselves through genetic continuity, then they could adopt a healthy child who desperately needs a family, which bears no risk of infecting either the inseminated woman or the kid with an incurable disease. It's pure vanity.

Wotta truckload of crap, tiny pea. Kindly take your prejudices elsewhere -- no matter how noble adoption is, the vast majority of people on Earth, in America, in your hometown, here on Metafilter, reproduce naturally. A good number of those kids might have genetic problems, mental retardation, shortened lives, hidden diseases -- or little hope within their parents' environment for a healthy and successful passage through childhood. Are they all vain? Or are you using a somewhat esoteric definition of vanity?
posted by dhartung at 7:02 AM on May 3, 2002

if these people could put aside their irrational desire to erect a monument to themselves through genetic continuity, then they could adopt a healthy child who desperately needs a family

well yeah, I guess, but that doesn't just apply to HIV+ people, that arguement could be made about any person who chooses to reproduce naturally.
posted by palegirl at 9:48 AM on May 3, 2002

thanks, mstillwell, i was unaware of this fact. it makes more sense now.
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:52 AM on May 3, 2002