I disagree. The steps to avoid requiring it are well understood.

If people want to indulge in "risky" behaviour, I have no problem with that. I just don't want to pay for it out of my taxes. It's like someone who makes a habit of jumping out of aeroplanes complaining that the government won't pay for his parachutes.

>If people want to indulge in "risky" behaviour, I have no problem with that. I just don't want to pay for it out of my taxes.

You will pay for it out of your taxes when those people become HIV positive - and it will cost even more than PREP.

> If people want to indulge in "risky" behaviour, I have no problem with that. I just don't want to pay for it out of my taxes.

You do understand that taking PrEP is literally the opposite of "risky behavior"? Just because you are on PrEP does not mean you immediately stop using condoms. Do some people use PrEP as an alternative to condoms? Sure but some women use birth control as the same thing. Please don't lump us all into the same category. Even on PrEP I still used condoms and only had sex with people who were undetectable. I used PrEP to cover all my bases, not to take risks.

According to your logic, people who ride in or drive cars shouldn't get any insured treatment if they have a crash, because they willingly indulged in risky behavior.

Should the government not pay for costs due to pregnancy? The steps to avoid it are well understood, and it does cost a lot of money.

Yeah, not sure you can class promiscuous shagging to bringing a child into the world.

That’s just straight-up homophobia, which is not ok on HN. Most HIV transmission occurs within relationships, and most causal sex (gay or straight) happens indoors and in private.

Your edit doesn't really make sense, as a quite a lot of children are the result of "promiscuous" sex, and the NHS still pays for the relevant care.

You're still ignoring the fact that HIV transmission typically occurs in the context of regular sex with the same person. Having one-off sex with strangers actually isn't a particularly efficient way of becoming HIV positive.

Well, I'd say one was the most important thing most people will do, and evolutionarily their whole reason for existing.

Absent being a sex worker, the other is just hedonism.

Weirdly, you seem to be missing the fact that children happen as a consequence of sex (and not uncommonly as a consequence of promiscuous sex).

Accidentally becoming pregnant can be exactly as "hedonistic" as accidentally becoming HIV positive.

And I think you are going to bring a lot more data to back up the nobility of "bringing a child into the world" because I think that's straight up BS. Ignoring the scores of unplanned pregnancies I think the notion that "bringing a child into the world" is "the most important thing most people will do" is reductionist and frankly disgusting that you think THAT is "the most important thing most people will do". What a sorry state our world is in if that is the case.

Name something most people do that is more important than having a child.

Choosing deliberately to not have a child.

Foldr - updated.