People with AIDS... dilemma.?

There are two parents, mom and dad. They want kids. The dad is an unknown carrier for aids, which is currently hiv positive. If they decide to have sex and have a child, the dad will pass the aids onto the child AND the mom will receive aids, which will kill you. So what happens (PRETEND THAT YOU ARE THE DAD): adopt a child, or make a child yourselves, but kill the mom and pass aids onto the child. And we got this debate in science class today. Your opinions?

Firstly your science teacher has his facts wrong.
The father would pass the hiv on to the mother who would then pass it on to the baby.

So killing the mother wouldn't work.

However there are some people who have an immunity to hiv.

If I as the dad didn't know that I had hiv then I wouldn't have a dilemma.

If I knew however I'd get my partner to check if she was hiv positive.

Then if she is pregnant you'd be able to get the baby checked for hiv. It doesn't always result in the baby being hiv positive for the baby.

If knowing that I was hiv positive I only had these as my options I would probably adopt.

However if I am allowed another choice I would organise for my partner to have in vitro fertilisation as she would then not get infected, I would still have something to do with the pregnancy and the baby would have someone around even after I died.

if the dad is an unknown carrier that means he doesn't know. how would you be able to make a decision if the couple doesn't know?

If the question is he knows...then the couple can adopt, however, the adoption process may be very tough. Another thing. Just because you have HIV does not mean you will automatically get HIV. Many mothers have avoided becoming infected somehow because I think I saw somewhere the placenta or amniotic fluid acts as a barrier somehow to prevent the mother and baby from becoming infected but it is hard to say who will or will not become infected. Case in point: Magic and Cookie Johnson.

Actually it is possible, though very expensive to use invitro fertilization methods to create a child and not put the mother or child at risk.

Of course ignoring that there is not a single point of view that this should create any kind of quandary. Unless the father was truly a sociopath, they would see nothing to gain from this scenario, they are not passing on their genetic traits to future generations since they are pretty much killing or making a non-viable child, they are potentially committing double homicide and they are insuring the financial ruin of their family in future medical costs. With no rational debate, there really shouldn't be one, and if a person where to press on this course of action it would be safe to say that there should be mental health intervention.