You’re the worst kind of commenter. “You are a troll because I disagree with you”.

“ Go to sleep, Scarface.” LOL

A second HIV test, 12 weeks after potential exposure would give anybody clarity. I bet the judge will reverse his decision, after the second test comes back negative. Problem solved.

And never and mind are two different words.

I knew him from Seinfeld, King of Queens and Malcolm in the Middle. Didn’t think he could pull it off when I heard about the casting. The first episode had him in a similar situation as in MITM, sitting at a breakfast table with his family, but within the first 10 minutes, all the dorky dudes he’d portrayed in the…

Yes, and we all know that the first order in a divorce/custody battle should be to seperate the father sperm donor from his child. That stupid fuck, why should he want to see his child anyway? Before you know it, he’ll manage to establish an emotional connection to his child, much like a.....father. Can’t have that!

OMG, that’s a scientific term!! Care to read, please: http://i-base.info/guides/testing…

So many straw man argumets. Technically allowed? Yes, you are technically allowed to strap you baby to your back and go free climbing if you want. Have fun! This woman could have easily waited until weaning to get a tattoo or she could have waited until the second HIV test result was in (12 weeks after exposure). She…

As a parent, you would take a 5% risk of your baby being HIV positive because ‘fuck it, I want my tattoo’? How could you find a dirty tattoo needle and present it in court a month!! after you went to the tattoo parlor? There would be no chance to identify the very needle that the guy used for the tattoo. You know that.

...and to be absolutely sure, you’d certainly wait for the second test result after 12 weeks, before you had unprotected sex? She doesn’t even have that second test result yet. That was the main probably the main reason for the judge to deem the negative results inconclusive and grant the injunction!

It’s called an equation. Nevermind.

It is a matter of bodily autonomy! Women want to be able to have control over their bodies, and make the decisions that they think are best for themselves and their families

Ok, here’s my question. You want to have unprotected sex, but you both insist on HIV testing. Immediate test results arenegative, but the doctor tells you, you both need another test after 12 weeks. What do you do? Have unprotected sex in the meantime because YOLO!!!???

I get the distinct notion, that you would still defend her, even if it turned out that she contracted and submitted HIV to the baby, on the grounds that said “maternity police” better stay away from poor opressed women. Dogmatism at it’s finest.

You cannot avoid some sort of transporation in your day to day life, unless you are holed up in your home, but you can and should avoid taking a unnecessary and AVOIDABLE risk for your baby.

This for you, regarding detection of a possible HIV infection:

OK let me support my argument. She received HIV testing roughly 4 weeks after exposure (probably less, because she got the tattoo 4 weeks prior to the court order. The test must have been done before court day). To be absolutely safe, you need to be tested 12 weeks after exposure. She was taking a risk, not a big one,…

It’s super easy to not get a tattoo, sure.

It has now become amatter of bodily autonomy to wait getting a tatto since after weaning? Former generations would have called that “better safe than sorry”.

Here’s the thing; she was banned from breastfeeding a month after getting the tattoo by the court. The earliest etection date for HIV is about a month after exposure. But to be sure you have to be tested at 12 weeks after exposure. Would you be willing to take the gamble for your baby?