Thou Shall Not Share Thy Dingus ....

[hornadylnl]

I can say 1,000,000 percent without a doubt that I've only fathered 1 child and that if I have an STD, I either got it from my wife or a toilet seat. Funny how that works.

 

[phylodog]

There are lots of diseases and plenty of expenses to go around. Few are intentionally transmitted.

He absolutely should be financially responsible for medical expenses for anyone that he knowingly and intentionally infected. Of course, this is America and all he has to do is not pay and the consequences are that you and I will pay $1500 for 30 seconds of a Doctor's time should we become ill.

 

[rambone]

This whole debate got me curious how moral our fellow INGOers are. I created a poll regarding this moral dilemma.

You have an STD; (How) Do you tell your partner(s)?

 

[rich8483]

I can say 1,000,000 percent without a doubt that I've only fathered 1 child and that if I have an STD, I either got it from my wife or a toilet seat. Funny how that works.

this is what i base my argument on. these women are not guiltless. they engaged in behavior that has risks.

if i ever contract HIV, it will be a one in a billion chance slip up with a needle at a hospital.

 

[E5RANGER375]

language warning!
YouTube - Team America-EVERYONE HAS AIDS!

 

[steveh_131]

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?

Maybe the answer isn't banning behaviors. Maybe the answer is judging each situation based on the intent and the consequences.

In a true libertarian society, if this man caused harm to another person in this way, shouldn't he receive a trial? This way all of the various facts can be weighed. His motive and intent can be determined, as well as the damages that he caused, and it can be settled from there.

Is this a good way to prevent a slippery slope? We all rail against "zero tolerance" policies, and bans on behavior are exactly that.

In this particular instance, I think most juries would agree that he knew he was infected and he knew that he could potentially be killing the people that he slept with. However, if you consider a case of influenza...how many juries would consider that an instance of attempted murder as opposed to just another guy trying to go to work and feed his family?

I don't know if this is the ultimate answer, it's just my

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Knowing you have HIV/AIDS and engaging in sex with an unknowing partner has a high probability of transmitting a disease for which there is no cure.

This is not about behavior. It is about knowing you have a disease that is going to kill you, and purposefully transmitting that disease to someone else without their knowledge or consent knowing it is going to kill them. That's a crime even in Libtardia. It's bat s**t crazy to think otherwise.

As far as I'm concerned AIDS is a disease that will burn itself out in about 20 years if people just stop sticking things where they ought not be stuck.

 

[rambone]

Maybe the answer isn't banning behaviors. Maybe the answer is judging each situation based on the intent and the consequences.

In a true libertarian society, if this man caused harm to another person in this way, shouldn't he receive a trial? This way all of the various facts can be weighed. His motive and intent can be determined, as well as the damages that he caused, and it can be settled from there.

Is this a good way to prevent a slippery slope? We all rail against "zero tolerance" policies, and bans on behavior are exactly that.

In this particular instance, I think most juries would agree that he knew he was infected and he knew that he could potentially be killing the people that he slept with. However, if you consider a case of influenza...how many juries would consider that an instance of attempted murder as opposed to just another guy trying to go to work and feed his family?

I don't know if this is the ultimate answer, it's just my

If disease is ever to be considered a crime -- which I am very hesitant about -- this would be the most acceptable way to handle it. You are right to point out the folly of "Zero Tolerance" in law; banning behaviors that will criminalize half the country. Good call on this one.


However, here are some other aspects of criminalizing disease that make this issue into a big nasty can of worms:

• How do you prove a case like this? What manner of evidence properly shows with certainty that Person A positively & knowingly infected Person B with Disease X? Seems like circumstantial evidence at best, without a confession.

• Two people who have Disease X start pointing fingers at each other -- Who goes to jail?

• Are the Health Care Police going to want to have a "Registry" filled with known infected people?

• Include people with STDs on the Sex Offender Watch List so their neighbors can know not to sleep with them?

• Why would anyone ever admit their illness with these kind of laws on the books? I imagine this being a situation where regulation makes the outcome worse. Instead of encouraging people to be honest, people will be compelled to hide their disease and plead ignorance if ever accused.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Here's my opinion.

Sex with a stranger is a risky behavior that is a lot of fun, just like sky diving, mountain biking, skiing, etc. Most of the time, nothing bad happens. However, death is something that can happen in all risky behavior.

Now, if someone fraudulently represents any of this behaviour to be "safe" when a deadly risk is known, then the victim should be compensated, and criminal fraud and/or manslaughter charges filed.

So, if he/she asks, "Do you have AIDS/HIV," and he/she fraudently answers in the negative, then said party should be liable for any costs and subject to criminal proceedings.

If the engaged party does not inquire as to the safety of any fun/risky activity, then they assume all responsibility for the consequences.

Just one man's opinion.

 

[LPMan59]

by playing Sigmund Freud, does Rambone have an STD? Or does he never get laid?

Both would explain his position.

 

[steveh_131]

If disease is ever to be considered a crime

Perhaps this sort of thing should be considered a civil matter and not criminal.

It seems to me that only violent crimes should belong in criminal court.

Then the rules of evidence can be more lax, as a person's freedom is no longer at stake. The jury can decide who deserves to be compensated, if anyone, based on the evidence at hand.

Obviously this wouldn't call for any new laws, STD registries, or further government involvement. And being tried on a case-by-case basis eliminates the need for black and white laws regarding issues that are ultimately shades of gray.

 

[rambone]

Now, if someone fraudulently represents any of this behaviour to be "safe" when a deadly risk is known, then the victim should be compensated, and criminal fraud and/or manslaughter charges filed.

So, if he/she asks, "Do you have AIDS/HIV," and he/she fraudently answers in the negative, then said party should be liable for any costs and subject to criminal proceedings.

If the engaged party does not inquire as to the safety of any fun/risky activity, then they assume all responsibility for the consequences.

I agree with you in principle but I can't see how this would work in practice. What evidence would be brought forth in court to prove that you had knowledge of the disease prior to having sex? A sexual consent form with a signature on it?

This is an aspect that makes me want the law to stay away from the whole issue. Imagine if the person with AIDS actually had told his partner about the disease -- but then they break up later on and she has him arrested and accuses him of hiding it from her. Can of worms. I'm not interested in setting up Kangaroo Courts that convict people without any real evidence.

by playing Sigmund Freud, does Rambone have an STD? Or does he never get laid?

Both would explain his position.

I defend a lot of people; doesn't have to make me one of them. I want to see less intrusive laws governing society, and less non-violent people in prison.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Well, if we are innocent until proven guilty, then the accusing party would need to be the one to provide the "consent to bone" form with the fraudulent signature.

Either that, or record all of your "relations."

 

[ATOMonkey]

Also, since positive HIV cases are tracked by the government, it would be easy enough to determine exactly when a person became aware of their infection.

 

[rambone]

Either that, or record all of your "relations."

There's an idea I can support.

Also, since positive HIV cases are tracked by the government, it would be easy enough to determine exactly when a person became aware of their infection.

I wasn't aware of that. I thought I was making up some crazy Orwellian scenario when I referred to government STD registries.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Perhaps this sort of thing should be considered a civil matter and not criminal.

It seems to me that only violent crimes should belong in criminal court.

Then the rules of evidence can be more lax, as a person's freedom is no longer at stake. The jury can decide who deserves to be compensated, if anyone, based on the evidence at hand.

Obviously this wouldn't call for any new laws, STD registries, or further government involvement. And being tried on a case-by-case basis eliminates the need for black and white laws regarding issues that are ultimately shades of gray.

Injecting someone with a disease that will kill them is not a violent crime? WTF is it then, a present?

You guys tweak over a vaccine that has an adverse reaction rate of 1:50000, but it's OK to inject someone with a virus that kills 100% of hosts it attaches to? Priceless.

 

[hornadylnl]

Injecting someone with a disease that will kill them is not a violent crime? WTF is it then, a present?

You guys tweak over a vaccine that has an adverse reaction rate of 1:50000, but it's OK to inject someone with a virus that kills 100% of hosts it attaches to? Priceless.

You've apparently never heard of these people. Bug Chasers and Gift Givers.
Bugchasing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[steveh_131]

Injecting someone with a disease that will kill them is not a violent crime? WTF is it then, a present?

You guys tweak over a vaccine that has an adverse reaction rate of 1:50000, but it's OK to inject someone with a virus that kills 100% of hosts it attaches to? Priceless.

This isn't the same as forcing an injection upon someone. This is consensual behavior and the risks are known.

And you'll notice that neither of us have advocated criminal penalties regarding vaccinations, so I'm not sure why you're trying to compare the two.

I coughed yesterday and didn't cover my mouth. Who knows how many lives I put at risk. Put me in jail, jackboot.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You've apparently never heard of these people. Bug Chasers and Gift Givers.
Bugchasing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Damn I guess I don't get out enough. Wonder if they have one of these?

Urban Dictionary: Rambone

This isn't the same as forcing an injection upon someone. This is consensual behavior and the risks are known.

And you'll notice that neither of us have advocated criminal penalties regarding vaccinations, so I'm not sure why you're trying to compare the two.

I coughed yesterday and didn't cover my mouth. Who knows how many lives I put at risk. Put me in jail, jackboot.

Consensual? Not telling someone you are about to have sex with you will likely give them a virus that will kill them is consensual? On what planet?

 

[steveh_131]

Consensual? Not telling someone you are about to have sex with you will likely give them a virus that will kill them is consensual? On what planet?

Because they know the risks of the activity and the activity is consensual.

I agree you should be held responsible for it, I just don't necessarily agree that it's violent or deserving of jail time.