QUOTE(thesupertramp @ Jan 5 2010, 10:01 PM)
I don't think the HIV status of the father matters. The child contracts the virus mostly through the mother's blood as the virus passes through the placenta. The only way the father can pass on the virus to the baby is if he infects the mother, and the mother infects the baby. In other words, sperm does not carry the virus. I'm talking sperm cells here, not semen. Semen does. Be safe.
As for statistics, it is not 100%. According to this study:
Vertical transmission rates for HIV in the British Isles: estimates based on surveillance data.
British Medical Journal Nov 6, 1999, v319 i7219, p1227
The rate is 20% with normal birth for pregnant ladies not on Anti-Retrovirals. Cesarean is higher at 32%. With Anti-Retrovirals, the rate drops to 2% and 4% respectively. Of course, there are also some who contract the virus within 6 months of birth from breast-feeding.
Be mindful these statistics are from one particular population, so might not be representative of all humans.
As far as I'm concerned, anti-HIV antibodies are ineffective against the virus. So even if it was passed on from the mother, I doubt the baby will have immunity.
Hope that helped.
EDIT: sucky grammar.
Helpful statistics, but I don't see how relevant it becomes to the discussion of incest.

QUOTE(hurrr @ Jan 6 2010, 07:43 AM)
was not the whole population of the world started from inbreeding?
how did adam and eve was able to copulate and eventually populate the world with 6 billion people?
So, if I'm a non-believer i.e. aetheist, your argument falls?
More importantly, looking at the essense of your argument, just because (assuming that it does happen) they practice such act in the past, it should be allowed now?
I find it illogical because then by your logic, shouldn't canabalism be allowed since, well, it was practiced last time no?
Vice versa, long ago women has no rights. Perhaps then by your logic women should be chained to the home (or how some would say, specifically kitchen).