It would greatly reduce the risk of them spreading the disease, and it would act as a serious scare for people that otherwise go on having unprotected sex. prevalence of HIV/aids would certainly drop.
2007-03-11 07:19:44 · 18 answers · asked by greekmac7 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
it would definatley reduce the prevalence of HIV considerably as these men would have lower sex drives and would even have difficulty having sex.It would also act as a deterent to men having un safe sex.
This would not eradicate HIV/aids as it would still be spread by women and drug users and by infected blood transfusions, but it could dramatically lower the spread of the disease.
It sounds unhumane but, it would save many more lives in the loing run than it would be ruining so is it really that unethical??
2007-03-11 07:57:58 · update #1
HIV+ people are also human
they have equal right to live
if they are infected arrange counselling for them, provide guidance to them and you will see virus not spread by them to any other.
2007-03-11 08:04:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You wouldn't want to do that, see, when the state begins to decide over individuals bodies a pandora's box is opened: you'll end up throwing weak babies off a cliff.
The real question is: If a law like the one you propose requires you to be mutilated, will you comply?
I think it's brutal and usesless. You'll end up having less detections because of fear of castration, which will make the infection rate actually go up.
Education is the only answer. That and finding a cure.
2007-03-11 07:30:15 · answer #2 · answered by raindogmx 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Castration or a vasectomy would likely be unpleasant for a male with HIV, but would probably encourage unprotected sex due to pregnancy no longer being an issue. Also, castration would prevent sperm from making it to the semen, but the semen is still ejaculated and would still be able to transmit HIV.
2007-03-11 07:34:07 · answer #3 · answered by skruffy_mutt 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Then you would have to castrate men who have syphilis, herpes or any other venereal disease. What about women who knowingly have unprotected sex while infected? You can't remove anything and prevent them from having sex; you would have to go the step further and do what some other societies do, thereby demeaning them as women. You would take all freedom of decision from both men and women.
2007-03-11 07:27:59 · answer #4 · answered by DisIllusioned 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What about IV drug users, or men who spread the disease as the receptive partner?
2007-03-11 07:32:16 · answer #5 · answered by HalJor 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.. that's ridiculous! HIV can be contracted other ways and people with HIV can live fairly normal lives. Now sex offenders.. well....
2007-03-11 07:27:05 · answer #6 · answered by Bobbie 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What about women with HIV? Throw them off a cliff?
2007-03-11 07:22:22 · answer #7 · answered by Mississippi River 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
you gonna castrate and while you are at it you gonna sew up his rear en too?
the best way to keep from getting aids is: sit on butt.keep mouth shut.
2007-03-11 07:28:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That would be inhumane. There are AIDS victims who didn't get the disease through promiscuity. So what about them?
2007-03-11 07:24:09 · answer #9 · answered by Dowland 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no i don't think they should castrated but they should be monitored somehow, like how if a person who is a sexual offender has to register with their county and let neighbors know, but castration is a bit much
2007-03-11 07:23:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋