Other people's risky sexual behaviour can harm you even if you (normally) don't engage in it yourself; it's not like skiing where people can break only their ow

Other people's risky sexual behaviour can harm you even if you (normally) don't engage in it yourself; it's not like skiing where people can break only their own necks. You can do two things to minimize the harm: (a) try to reduce the number of people who engage in risky sex—through changing people's views, different upbringing and whatnot; (b) try to mitigate the consequences of their behaviour—by subsidizing testing for infections and treatment. Note that there's no dichotomy here. I don't know if there's a good, reliable way to do (a); also, some people can be against it for ideological reasons. But (b) in the meantime is straightforward to implement and is known to be efficient. Why not implement (b) and make it work it while we are arguing about (a)? > maybe the “conservatives” are correct to be “prejudiced” against it? Conservatives should not be stigmatized for supporting (a), this is not prejudice, they can have the view they have on sex. But I don't see a single reason, except prejudice, that can make you go against (b), which is simply practical.