Thou Shall Not Share Thy Dingus ....

[E5RANGER375]

i do think if you know you have it and then have sex with someone without telling them then you should be shot. because you just tried to kill them.

if you try to shoot me, i can kill you. so why should someone trying to kill someone with their cooch or penis be any different?

 

[hornadylnl]

Several thoughts here.

It's like playing Russian roulette. You know the risks before going into it. And if you don't know the risks, it's still your responsibility, right? Because many argue it is up to the individual to know their rights, not the governments duty to inform them. Lack of knowledge of the law is my problem. Why shouldn't lack of knowledge regarding std's be the responsibilty of others?

 

[steveh_131]

Feel free to give me your take on how regulations would save us from the infected cook.

I'd probably do it the same way I'd do traffic laws.

If you are knowingly irresponsible and damage a person or property, you are held liable.

If you knowingly infect someone with a disease, you are held liable. Obviously this would be nearly impossible to prove in most cases so I imagine it would rarely be enforced. Of course personal responsibility is the key to avoiding these things as always.

No other regulations necessary really.

 

[rambone]

I'd probably do it the same way I'd do traffic laws.

If you are knowingly irresponsible and damage a person or property, you are held liable.

If you knowingly infect someone with a disease, you are held liable. Obviously this would be nearly impossible to prove in most cases so I imagine it would rarely be enforced. Of course personal responsibility is the key to avoiding these things as always.

No other regulations necessary really.

But a person with Ebola is about 18 hours away from death. Regulations don't scare him much. Neither does missing work, so he probably isn't there flipping hot dogs anyways.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

Rambone,
Just 2 minor things. 1. They can contract HIV and be tested to show it's infection without showing the symptoms of AIDS.

2. I'm talking about the topic of AIDS and unprotected sex with a guy named "Rambone"

 

[Lucas156]

Sure make it a law. I think they would be afraid to prosecute women on it though.

 

[rich8483]

my two cents is, if it were rape and the guy had HIV and knew it, he could be charged of the rape and the potential spread of disease.

however, it was not rape. it was consensual. those of you who are saying that they didnt consent to the disease - well, i say, consenting to sex IS consenting to the very real possibility of some sort of rash or disease. STDs are not a new thing. been around forever. HIV is just the one that hasnt really come on the scene till the last couple decades. but you have to know its a possibilty. thats why forming relationships/getting to know someone is a good idea.

if this guy can be convicted, then what bout the 20% of america with herpes?

sex is a wonderful thing but not 100% risk free just like anything else worth it in life.

thats why my wife and i are and always will be virgins

 

[mrjarrell]

Laws aside the man had an ethical obligation to let his partners know that he was infected with a potentially fatal disease which is easily communicable via sex. He should certainly be liable for his acts. It's only sheer luck that his partners weren't infected and facing a death sentence.

 

[phylodog]

Laws aside the man had an ethical obligation to let his partners know that he was infected with a potentially fatal disease which is easily communicable via sex. He should certainly be liable for his acts. It's only sheer luck that his partners weren't infected and facing a death sentence.

+1. A reasonable person would not knowingly infect another with a potentially deadly disease. He got off easy with his sentence.

 

[rich8483]

Laws aside the man had an ethical obligation to let his partners know that he was infected with a potentially fatal disease which is easily communicable via sex. He should certainly be liable for his acts. It's only sheer luck that his partners weren't infected and facing a death sentence.

i dont think anyone is going to argue about the guy having an ethical obligation. he choose not to anyway which makes him a d bag.
his partners are lucky they were not infected.
however no one on this board as far as i know was infected by him either. that was not luck. that was us not consenting to sex with the guy...

well, really not even knowing him. but im sure there are other women that turned him down. should he also get charged on all counts of women that he hit on?

 

[rich8483]

also, let me make this clear, that a year ago i would have said. hell yeah. hes guilty. as i felt strongly about those who know they were HIV positive.

but now, those women were not forced to bed with the man. if they were then i would still strongly feel he should be sentanced.

 

[rambone]

but im sure there are other women that turned him down. should he also get charged on all counts of women that he hit on?

This man has committed dozens of counts of Attempted Murder!! Yeah!!


Kidding aside, I think this is a very interesting topic. But if the regulation proponents ever want to convince me, you've gotta make some sense out of this for me, and answer some of my questions. To me, the distinguishing line is extremely blurry between one disease and so many others.

• Certainly the responsible thing to do would be to give your brand new partner your medical history and go perform STD testing together. It was their mutual decision to swap fluids. Sex comes with no warranty, expressed or implied. "Buyer beware." There is no victim. (except the taxpayers)

• Should every STD be treated this way?

• Should every infectious disease be treated this way? Virtually all of them can kill you.

• If you kiss a woman and knowingly give her Herpes, should she be able to sue? Should you be arrested? Ticketed?

• If you come to work sick, and knowingly spread the flu around your office, can your coworkers file a joint lawsuit against you? Should you be arrested? Ticketed?

• Where does the government derive its authority to regulate safe sex practices?

• Would you support a law to require condoms for all unmarried couples having sex?

• Does a 8 year sentence seem ridiculous to anyone else?

• How many hundreds of thousands of dollars is that costing me to keep his butt in prison? Please, enlighten me, what country are we going to borrow that money from this time?

• If we are going to create a Safe-Sex division of Law Enforcement, shouldn't the punishment be more in line with prostitution? They spread disease for a living. They don't spend 8 years in prison.

 

[phylodog]

It's crazy. Just think about how many more women he could be giving his gift to during those 8 years. 20? 30? What if half of them were to contract HIV? Who is going to pay for their medications? How much is that going to cost?

I say let him go. Hell pay for a face lift before he goes so no one will recognize him and know he has HIV. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[rambone]

What if half of them were to contract HIV? Who is going to pay for their medications? How much is that going to cost?

I'm not a collectivist so I take no collective responsibility for keeping the population healthy, medicated, and disease-free. She should buy health insurance if she plans on acquiring all those things. Not my problem.

If you don't want to respond to my questions then maybe someone else will. I would hope you don't think that that every disease should get this kind of response. But I'm not getting any feedback about it.

17,000-18,000 Americans die of AIDS every year, while the CDC estimates around 36,000 Americans die of influenza per year. So where do we draw the line? Are we going to rely on some of the famous "common sense" that the government uses to keep the Disease Police from getting out of hand?

 

[phylodog]

You can refuse all the collective responsibility you want but your tax dollars can't.

Has anyone caught HIV from someone else sneezing or coughing and not covering their mouth? Maybe the flu that is killing 36,000 people a year is knowingly and intentionally being propelled out the end of people's dirty bits?

I dunno, never had either one so maybe I'm not qualified to answer your question.

 

[rambone]

You can refuse all the collective responsibility you want but your tax dollars can't.

Has anyone caught HIV from someone else sneezing or coughing and not covering their mouth? Maybe the flu that is killing 36,000 people a year is knowingly and intentionally being propelled out the end of people's dirty bits?

I dunno, never had either one so maybe I'm not qualified to answer your question.

Hopefully you can at least see that the slope is quite slippery on this one and respect my disagreement about having laws about spreading disease. Sex is a risk; always has been, always will be.

 

[phylodog]

I see a very clear difference between the spread of influenza and the spread of HIV. The difference is intent and this isn't the only segment of the law that recognizes it.

 

[rambone]

I see a very clear difference between the spread of influenza and the spread of HIV. The difference is intent and this isn't the only segment of the law that recognizes it.

Intent, that is a fair answer. Thank you. Now we walk down the icy slope.

Should kissing someone -- secretly knowing you are sick with the flu -- be an arrestable offense?

 

[phylodog]

What do you want me to say Rambone? That I feel it should be perfectly acceptable to fire death out the end of your cock to as many people as possible as punishment for their sinful sexual behavior?

What percentage of people who get the flu die from it? How likely is it to kill you? How long does the average flu infection last? How many thousands of dollars in medications does it take to keep someone infected with influenza alive? How about for HIV/AIDS? You are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes it's a slippery slope but only if you're a complete idiot and can see no difference between HIV/AIDS and the flu. I don't think the idiot who was convicted in this case would have been crying and begging for his medical benefits if he was fighting the flu.

 

[rambone]

What do you want me to say Rambone? That I feel it should be perfectly acceptable to fire death out the end of your cock to as many people as possible as punishment for their sinful sexual behavior?

What percentage of people who get the flu die from it? How likely is it to kill you? How long does the average flu infection last? How many thousands of dollars in medications does it take to keep someone infected with influenza alive? How about for HIV/AIDS? You are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes it's a slippery slope but only if you're a complete idiot and can see no difference between HIV/AIDS and the flu. I don't think the idiot who was convicted in this case would have been crying and begging for his medical benefits if he was fighting the flu.

You don't have to have all the answers; I don't either.

We are nearing the great philosophical divide that separates us. That is: Can/should a behavior be banned because of some fraction of risk that the behavior presents?

Generally my answer is "no." I would prefer to see laws focus mainly on direct, tangible crimes where there is a clear victim. I don't think its possible to victimize yourself. I think other crimes that are relevant in a similar way are drug use, gambling, prostitution, & playing with lawn darts. I think the risks are self-evident in the very nature of the activity, but I don't think they all need to be banned -- and I don't think we can afford to imprison all these non-violent people.

I think it would be halfway discussion-worthy to examine whether he should be financially liable for his "victim's" health care bills. Yet there are many other infectious diseases that cost money to treat; again we approach the slippery slope. It is a totally foreign subject because no disease is currently treated that way -- as somebody else's fault.

Its a very complicated subject.