4 ms·
Should the government not pay for costs due to pregnancy? The steps to avoid it are well understood, and it does cost a lot of money.
by kevinh 8y ago
Should the government not pay for costs due to pregnancy? The steps to avoid it are well understood, and it does cost a lot of money.
- gadders 8y agoYeah, not sure you can class promiscuous shagging to bringing a child into the world.
- foldr 8y agoThat’s just straight-up homophobia, which is not ok on HN. Most HIV transmission occurs within relationships, and most causal sex (gay or straight) happens indoors and in private. Your edit doesn't really make sense, as a quite a lot of children are the result of "promiscuous" sex, and the NHS still pays for the relevant care. You're still ignoring the fact that HIV transmission typically occurs in the context of regular sex with the same person. Having one-off sex with strangers actually isn't a particularly efficient way of becoming HIV positive.
- gadders 8y agoWell, I'd say one was the most important thing most people will do, and evolutionarily their whole reason for existing. Absent being a sex worker, the other is just hedonism.
- foldr 8y agoWeirdly, you seem to be missing the fact that children happen as a consequence of sex (and not uncommonly as a consequence of promiscuous sex). Accidentally becoming pregnant can be exactly as "hedonistic" as accidentally becoming HIV positive.
- gadders 8y agoFoldr - updated.
- joshstrange 8y agoAnd I think you are going to bring a lot more data to back up the nobility of "bringing a child into the world" because I think that's straight up BS. Ignoring the scores of unplanned pregnancies I think the notion that "bringing a child into the world" is "the most important thing most people will do" is reductionist and frankly disgusting that you think THAT is "the most important thing most people will do". What a sorry state our world is in if that is the case.