...I'm quite certain that LilithsThrall can speak his/her own mind and doesn't require you to insinuate at his/her meaning.
Matthew, I'm certain you are aware that law enforcement, lab techs, doctors, emts, paramedics, etc. all come into regular contact with possibly contaminated needles and/or blood & tissue samples. Also, since most of the world's billions are stuck with Third World medical care (if any), the lack of medical precautions and sanitary conditions lead to an even greater risk of infection. Since many of these people lack the money to buy food, ready access to HIV testing isn't exactly convenient. So those people all choose to live with high risk?
Ah, what about trauma and organ transplantation? Risk, gotcha. If you hadn't been driving to work, you wouldn't have gotten t-boned by an idiot and need blood donations and a new spleen.
And of course, HIV tests never come back with false negatives. And blood- and organ-screeners never screw up.
Oh yeah, before I forget, what about female genital mutilation and rape? But that comes back to choice and risk again, right?
And a simple reminder that viruses readily mutate. Just because a strain of HIV does not currently spread via other fluids or skin-to-skin, doesn't mean it won't always.
And again, please refrain from the derogatory insinuations about GLBT people in this discussion for being born non-hetero.
This is getting a bit far off track. I mean, you are not suggesting that individuals in those high risk professions should be all be required to use condoms whenever they have intimiate relations, are you? Each couple must decide which dangers are acceptable and which are not.
Here's a question, does increase safety methods increase risky behavior?
While the topic is an excellent point of discussion, the behavior in this thread has not been so exemplary.
Thread locked.