But He Looked So Healthy! Australian Man Charged With "Knowingly Spreading HIV"

[bryan21]

He kinda reminds me of the guy in the wheelchair on the HBO Show, "OZ".  He's better looking though. 

lmfao he sooo does look like him!!

[Boze]

I'm late on this debate

Criminalisation misplaces the moral onus of self-protection and shifts the burden of preventing transmission to one person instead of recognising it as shared by two. This is a hard but necessary thing to say. HIV has been around for three decades, during which the universal public health message has been that no one is exempt from it. So the risk of getting HIV must now be seen as an inescapable fact of having unprotected sex... We cannot pretend that the risk is introduced into an otherwise safe encounter by the person who knows or should know he has HIV. The risk is part of the environment, and practical responsibility for safer sex habits rests on everyone who is able to exercise autonomy in deciding to have sex with another.

Justice Edwin Cameron, South Africa Constitutional Court, 2008.

Just about sums it up.

I also found this extremely useful:

http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1410517/

http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1441686/

This quote very well exemplifies the hypocrisy of this debate - Justice Edward Cameron is gay and HAS HIV. He sounds more like a lefty activist - which is his right, but let's not pretend that this is some sort of an independent legal view of a dispassionate scholar.

[BT65]

Justice Edward Cameron is gay and HAS HIV. He sounds more like a lefty activist - which is his right, but let's not pretend that this is some sort of an independent legal view of a dispassionate scholar.

So, you're saying he's only espousing that extremely logical kind of thinking because he's gay and has HIV?  Does that mean what he said only means something if it comes from someone who's HIV-, and not gay?  Come on. 

[Boze]

So, you're saying he's only espousing that extremely logical kind of thinking because he's gay and has HIV?  Does that mean what he said only means something if it comes from someone who's HIV-, and not gay?  Come on. 

It's extremely logical mostly to those who have HIV themselves and obviously have a fair amount of 'skin in the game'. HIV- don't find this view very logical.

My point is that you quoted him without referencing that he is an LGBT/HIV activist. Therefore his opinion on this is not one of a legal scholar but an interested party. Therefore he's more likely to espouse views beneficial to his cause.

[BT65]

So the risk of getting HIV must now be seen as an inescapable fact of having unprotected sex... We cannot pretend that the risk is introduced into an otherwise safe encounter by the person who knows or should know he has HIV. The risk is part of the environment, and practical responsibility for safer sex habits rests on everyone who is able to exercise autonomy in deciding to have sex with another.

First of all, I'm not the original quoter.  Secondly, what I've bolded is the honest, cold truth. 

Justice Cameron gets his point across in very well done language, whether or not he's +.  What gets you so rattled about it?  Is it because of the way you got your infection?

[Boze]

First of all, I'm not the original quoter.  Secondly, what I've bolded is the honest, cold truth. 

Justice Cameron gets his point across in very well done language, whether or not he's +.  What gets you so rattled about it?  Is it because of the way you got your infection?

First of all - let's stop the 'analyze the opponent' practice often practiced on this forum. How I got my infection is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the discussion.

On the issue at hand - I've written at length as to why the judge is wrong, regardless of his language skills. It's his logic that's faulty - knowledge that one has HIV places the onus of responsibility on them. They must either disclose or insist on protection. Saying that the HIV+ and HIV- share equal responsibility because 'you never know' is just plain stupid. He's not stupid - so I think he has another agenda - namely advocating the rights of HIV+.

[BT65]

knowledge that one has HIV places the onus of responsibility on them.

Why? Because you didn't insist on using a condom?  Bah.  Responsibility is two-fold.  Always. 

Saying that the HIV+ and HIV- share equal responsibility because 'you never know' is just plain stupid.

No, it's not "stupid."  It's one of the most responsible, and shared consent statements I've heard.

[Miss Philicia]

Ah, so Bozo makes yet another homophobic comment -- only a straight person is "capable of independent legal view of a dispassionate scholar".

Seriously, someone needs to put a stop to this constant barrage of veiled homophobia by this poster, but unfortunately I don't own a ban hammer.

[loop78]

Disregarding a well founded statement about hiv criminalization arguing its biased because of the sexual orientation or hiv status of its author seems like faulty logic to me.

Everyone has a sexual orientation and hiv status, so... go figure

[Joe K]

On the issue at hand - I've written at length as to why the judge is wrong, regardless of his language skills. It's his logic that's faulty - knowledge that one has HIV places the onus of responsibility on them. They must either disclose or insist on protection. Saying that the HIV+ and HIV- share equal responsibility because 'you never know' is just plain stupid. He's not stupid - so I think he has another agenda - namely advocating the rights of HIV+.

Boze,

What exactly is wrong with you? Why do you post such hateful and homophobic comments and how can you even mention the words "logic" and "stupid" in the same paragraph? Did it ever occur to you, that there are people who are capable of being impartial and adhering to the rule of law? You are not a lawyer nor a judge and for you to suggest to understand the "logic" behind this ruling is laughable.

Personally, I would like to see you show some empathy, when someone balks at what you post. However, you seem to be incapable, or unwilling to do that and maybe some time away would help to alter your perspective. Or even teach you some manners.

[dvinemstre]

I can't begin to tell you how many guys would be glad to have unprotected sex with me ( or others) and never discuss serostatus. IMO I assume everyone has everything and I know even the best laid plans go sideways. I was infected by a guy who didn't know he was poz and removed condoms without my knowledge. If the women he had sex with were cooerced, raped, or he lied then he should be in trouble, IMO. Otherwise, how is he 100% responsible? That's crazy! As for the drunk driver analogy- be real... If I get in a car with someone who has been drink I'm responsible for that decision. If I don't bother to ask if they've been drinking, that's on me. If I ask and they lie, that's on them. Casuistic ethics! Z

[jkinatl2]

Quoting Boze 1 -

My point is that you quoted him without referencing that he is an LGBT/HIV activist. Therefore his opinion on this is not one of a legal scholar but an interested party. Therefore he's more likely to espouse views beneficial to his cause.

and then

First of all - let's stop the 'analyze the opponent' practice often practiced on this forum. How I got my infection is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the discussion.

So Analyzing the motives, history, practices and prejudices of others is either A) relevant and germane to the discussion, as it colors -even influences- the viewpoints PR B) it is irrrelevant because personal information is irrelevant because it... what, exactly? DOESN'T have anything to do with the discussion?

And let us be clear here. This is not a discussion, not from you. This is yet another in a seemingly endless attempt to begin a flamewar on these forums with not very thinly veiled homophobia and insult. Perhaps, as you stated in another thread, you do it for the lulz and like to play "Devil's Advocate."

All well and good, except that is ALL you seem to be playing, unless you count playing the forum (metaphorically). And after a while, and I do believe that it has long since exceeded that period of time, the title that suits you best is not "Devil's Advocate."

It rhymes with "roll."

[Snowangel]

Unless the women were intellectually and/or emotionally challenged.

You do know that women are reading this right?

Before I slept with the guy that infected me I asked if he had tested for HIV and he lied.  He was and still is a master manipulator on top of being physically abusive.  When I got pregnant with my son he told me "He decided to get me pregnant and slipped off the condom." He used to threaten to tell my job and what little family I have about my status to scare me into doing whatever he wanted.  One of the times I almost got away he caught me near the door, picked me up by the hair and slammed me head first into a wall of electric meters, dragged me back to my apartment and almost choked me to death.  I guess that would make me physcially challenged too.

I have been dealing with this shit and his dumbass since 94 and I am tired of people saying that criminalization is wrong and is going to make the stigma worse. If I could have pressed charges back then, there is no doubt in my mind that there would be quite a few less intellectually and emotionally challenged women here in my state. The stigma doesn't come close to touching the fear and hurt I have to deal with knowing he could at anytime take me back to court because he happened to donate some sperm to me without my knowledge.  I survived the abuse but whose to say that my son would.  I recently found out that when his daughter was a little older than my son now, 9th grade, I think, he would touch her after she came home from school to make sure she wasn't having sex. If he happened to take it all the way and his own daughter couldn't get him to put on a condom would that make her intellectually and emotionally challenged too?

I really wished I lived in a world that without a doubt I had the option to wear a condom each and everytime I had sex.  I guess in my next life I will come back as a man.

[jkinatl2]

You do know that women are reading this right?

Yes, and kudos for taking a sentence out of context and using it to insinuate that I am a mysoginist.

I am sorry someone lied to you. Hey, someone lied to me too.  But that does no mitigate my role in my infection. I chose to let someone have sex with me, without a condom.

I am sorry you were abused. I hope you received the counseling necessary to overcome and break that cycle. But I restate my point. As the victim of an abusive relationship, you were, by definition, emotionally challenged. To think otherwise would be to place the horrors visited upon you and your family as psychologically "normal." They were and are not. And as dreadful a man as your abuser was, you were his victim only until the instant you realized what he was doing. Past that, you were a participant.

I know because I have been there too.

If you want to maintain victim status, that is totally your call. But to consent to have unprotected sex is, and I quote one of the more fabulous WOMEN in this forum, to consent to the possibility of acquiring an STD, including HIV.

That "You realize women read this" comment I found offensive. I respect women too much to assign them any status less than my own. And in more ways than I can articulate, I found your comment perpetuating the stigma we try so hard to overcome. I truly wish you better emotional health, and continued physical health as you care for your child.

But I stand firmly behind my words.

[Snowangel]

How can you insinuate I need better emotional health and physical health?

Really? I find that offensive.

My point is that being infected is not always black and white. If, like you say, I was emotionally challenged because I was in abusive relationship, how did I have the option of choosing to have un-protected sex?

I was a victim only until I realized what he was doing, then I was a participant? Am I reading this right? Next time I'll try to "participate" with someone that doesn't outweigh me by a 100 lbs and have 6 inches on me.

You were where too? Then you know trying to get away from your abuser often results in either more abuse or murder.

How did calling you out on your women comment perpetuate the stigma?

[Rev. Moon]

This quote very well exemplifies the hypocrisy of this debate - Justice Edward Cameron is gay and HAS HIV. He sounds more like a lefty activist - which is his right, but let's not pretend that this is some sort of an independent legal view of a dispassionate scholar.

On the issue at hand - I've written at length as to why the judge is wrong, regardless of his language skills. It's his logic that's faulty - knowledge that one has HIV places the onus of responsibility on them. They must either disclose or insist on protection. Saying that the HIV+ and HIV- share equal responsibility because 'you never know' is just plain stupid. He's not stupid - so I think he has another agenda - namely advocating the rights of HIV+.

Bozus Maximus,

With all the respect that is "due" to you, I find your thinly veiled homophobic rhetoric to be quite tiresome and offensive.  I don't care whether you want to "play devil's advocate" or engage others in "healthy" debate, you need to have some consideration for the other members of this forum.  I can't believe that you get away with saying garbage like this.

[jkinatl2]

How can you insinuate I need better emotional health and physical health?

Really? I find that offensive.

My point is that being infected is not always black and white. If, like you say, I was emotionally challenged because I was in abusive relationship, how did I have the option of choosing to have unprotected sex?

I was a victim only until I realized what he was doing, then I was a participant? Am I reading this right? Next time I'll try to "participate" with someone that doesn't outweigh me by a 100 lbs and have 6 inches on me.

You were where too? Then you know trying to get away from your abuser often results in either more abuse or murder.

How did calling you out on your women comment perpetuate the stigma?

I do not know where to start, so I will do a bullet point thing. If I miss anything, I trust you will let me know.

I have posted here for over seven years. No one before you has "called me out" on women's issues. And trust me, I have stated my case consistently throughout my tenure.

I do not insinuate that you need anything. I wished better health for you as I do EVERYONE here, because no matter how well controlled our disease is, it could always be better. As for your emotional health, I would not dare to presume that you have issues.... except that we ALL do. If you have overcome all of yours, then your participation here, especially in this thread in such an accusatory way, presents a bit of an enigma. I wish everyone better health, emotionally and physically.

And I know precisely what getting away from one's abuser entails. I will not belabor you with my stories. I got out alive, if not unscathed, and the attacker (and seriously, at that point, it is rape) walked.

How do you defend against someone who outweighs you and is meaner than you can ever conceive? You fucking try your best to kill him, or barring that, call the cops and report the rape. because at that point, you have not been having consensual sex. You have been raped.

Which is why I use the caveat "people who CONSENT to unprotected sex also consent to the possibility of an STD, including HIV." You were no more consenting at that moment than a woman pinned underneath an attacker in a parking lot.

If you find it offensive that I wish you better health, then put me on ignore, because I am not going to stop doing that. We are all of us, to a person, damaged in some way or another. Fuck, just living on the planet long enough will do that, let alone getting into an abusive relationship, acquiring this awful disease, and losing multitudes of people who deserve to be walking this earth.

But go ahead, if it makes you feel better to vilify my words. You cannot make the substantial claim that I am a misogynist, because I quite simply am not. As a matter of fact, I find that insinuation offensive.

[Matty the Damned]

You do know that women are reading this right?

Before I slept with the guy that infected me I asked if he had tested for HIV and he lied.  He was and still is a master manipulator on top of being physically abusive.  When I got pregnant with my son he told me "He decided to get me pregnant and slipped off the condom." He used to threaten to tell my job and what little family I have about my status to scare me into doing whatever he wanted.  One of the times I almost got away he caught me near the door, picked me up by the hair and slammed me head first into a wall of electric meters, dragged me back to my apartment and almost choked me to death.  I guess that would make me physcially challenged too.

I have been dealing with this shit and his dumbass since 94 and I am tired of people saying that criminalization is wrong and is going to make the stigma worse. If I could have pressed charges back then, there is no doubt in my mind that there would be quite a few less intellectually and emotionally challenged women here in my state. The stigma doesn't come close to touching the fear and hurt I have to deal with knowing he could at anytime take me back to court because he happened to donate some sperm to me without my knowledge.  I survived the abuse but whose to say that my son would.  I recently found out that when his daughter was a little older than my son now, 9th grade, I think, he would touch her after she came home from school to make sure she wasn't having sex. If he happened to take it all the way and his own daughter couldn't get him to put on a condom would that make her intellectually and emotionally challenged too?

I really wished I lived in a world that without a doubt I had the option to wear a condom each and everytime I had sex.  I guess in my next life I will come back as a man.

Firstly, you took JK out of context. Quote mining is bad form. Except when I do it. Then it's perfectly ok.

Secondly, I don't accept that women are passive creatures unable to take responsibility for their own sexualilty and I'm a little surprised that you do accept that.

MtD

[BT65]

You do know that women are reading this right?

Snow, sorry I'm not getting to this until this morning.  With all due respect, I believe you misunderstood Jkintal2.  Usually, when talking about responsibility, a statement could be made like, "Women are responsible also," without putting the ad-on "unless they were raped, or held without their consent."  This is just kind of, well, understood.

I was in a very abusive relationship with my first husband, who I was with from the time I was 16, until I was 24 (except for the stint in the strip club).  Even though he had abused me time and again, I always "took him back," *(for lack of better words), believing he would change.  It was my own fault for taking him back, and I'm not saying that lightly.  I knew what his character was, and what circumstance aggravated it, but I had magical thinking I guess.  That does not excuse me from my responsibility in the ongoing abuse.

Also, I knew he was messing around, and had probably got into IV drug use when he went to Florida, but I didn't ever insist on a condom.  I'm sorry that you seemed to have been tricked by the guy you were with.  What I'm saying is that yes, women need to insist on their partner using a condom (condom, as long as the partner is male), unless both parties have been tested for all STD's, and maintain a monogamous relationship.  Unless, of course, the woman isn't worried about her physical well-being.  Again, I'm not iimplying that was the case in your situation.  But, do you see my point?  If I go to a bar, or even meet someone through a friend, decide to have unprotected sex with the person, then I, like the other person, only have myself to blame if I get an STD. 

That's my responsibility, and involvement in my healthcare.  I believe that was more JK's point, not to say that women who are severely abused are responsible for the abuse, or the result of the abuse.

[TabooPrincess]

Agreed, but there are still some exceptions to this.  I was in what I believed to be a monogomous relationship and we were both tested prior to un-protected sex - he told me his test had come back negative.  I later realised this was a lie when 4 weeks later I seroconverted.  I took all necessary precautions to stay safe but was lied to. 

It comes to something when you can't even believe what your partner tells you about an hiv test doesn't it? 

[Hellraiser]

Agreed, but there are still some exceptions to this.  I was in what I believed to be a monogomous relationship and we were both tested prior to un-protected sex - he told me his test had come back negative.  I later realised this was a lie when 4 weeks later I seroconverted.  I took all necessary precautions to stay safe but was lied to. 

It comes to something when you can't even believe what your partner tells you about an hiv test doesn't it? 

This may come off harsh but it isn't meant to be, so I'm going to apologize ahead of time (I'm sorry!).

The fact that you trusted someone else, even in the confines of a supposedly monogamous relationship, means that you allowed them to take your life in their hands.  Any time you have sex with someone without a condom you take a risk of contracting some form of STI and in your case it was unfortunately HIV.  Ultimately the responsibility lies with you for trusting him.  He was not right to lie to you nor was he in the right when he cheated on you, but at the end of the day you trusted him and seroconverted as a result of it.  This means the responsibility lies with you.

[Miss Philicia]

Agreed, but there are still some exceptions to this.  I was in what I believed to be a monogomous relationship and we were both tested prior to un-protected sex - he told me his test had come back negative.  I later realised this was a lie when 4 weeks later I seroconverted.  I took all necessary precautions to stay safe but was lied to. 

It comes to something when you can't even believe what your partner tells you about an hiv test doesn't it? 

No, it just means that if you're really serious about the issue you don't take someone's word -- you insist on seeing the test result on a piece of paper.  And as far as believing in monogamy in the first place, we all know how that one often goes.

[Rev. Moon]

he told me his test had come back negative.  

Princess, not to add more to this debate, but he "told" you?  That should never be enough.  Even having papers in hand that show a negative result (one time a queen tried to fool me with a test paper that was like 8 months old) should not exempt people from responsibility (window period and all that schtuff).  The world has a significant percentage of liars and people who don't truly know their status.

[Ann]

Snow didn't just take him at his word, it would seem she still insisted on condoms, but he took it off - without her knowing - to get her pregnant. How is this her fault?

When I got pregnant with my son he told me "He decided to get me pregnant and slipped off the condom."

Ann

[Miss Philicia]

I've never understood how someone can't tell when a condom is taken off during sex.  What am I missing?  Maybe it's because I like the lights on.

[Hellraiser]

Taboo didn't just take him at his word, it would seem she still insisted on condoms, but he took it off - without her knowing - to get her pregnant. How is this her fault?

Ann

That was snowangel you quoted

[skeebo1969]

Taboo didn't just take him at his word, it would seem she still insisted on condoms, but he took it off - without her knowing - to get her pregnant. How is this her fault?

Ann

I agree...

And to be honest, regarding Snow, I would never be able to tell a person who was in an abusive relationship they were responsible for their infection as well.  There is a lot of grey area in the "black and white" issue so easily accepted by most of us, especially for those who were abused.

Just my opinion.

[Ann]

That was snowangel you quoted

I meant to say Snow.

[MarcoPoz]

I seldom use words like 'fault' or 'responsibility' when discussing others actions concerning HIV transmission.  To me, I'm not sure these words help or are even appropriate given the myriad of circumstances surrounding sexual/sensual relationships and syringe sharing relationships.  Just not MY call to make for others, I think.

I do however think for myself as an HIV positive person that not only should I tell my sex or syringe sharing partners that I have HIV, I know I CAN tell them.

No, I wasn't told of my partner's HIV status when she transmitted HIV to me.  I also never discussed STDs with her. I never thought in terms of 'fault'.  I've heard other people discuss the assignment of blame, fault and responsibility in my case, but I never saw any of it as helpful once I became positive.

For me--I tell and I ask other people about their HIV and STD status.  Not saying I'm right or wrong here---just my take on things.

[komnaes]

This quote very well exemplifies the hypocrisy of this debate - Justice Edward Cameron is gay and HAS HIV. He sounds more like a lefty activist - which is his right, but let's not pretend that this is some sort of an independent legal view of a dispassionate scholar.

It's on the one hand amusing that you could fit in so many misguided prejudices into this short paragraph, on the other it's just sad you'd achieve that while being HIV+ yourself.

(edited for typos)

[jkinatl2]

Snow didn't just take him at his word, it would seem she still insisted on condoms, but he took it off - without her knowing - to get her pregnant. How is this her fault?

Ann

One time, and you are a victim. Unless this was the one and only time without a condom, my statement stands. And if it WAS the one time, and a child was conceived along with an HIV infection, then it is amazingly bad luck, AND rape. Again, that is not consent.

Sorry, I take it to heart when people accuse me of misogyny.

[TabooPrincess]

This may come off harsh but it isn't meant to be, so I'm going to apologize ahead of time (I'm sorry!).

The fact that you trusted someone else, even in the confines of a supposedly monogamous relationship, means that you allowed them to take your life in their hands.  Any time you have sex with someone without a condom you take a risk of contracting some form of STI and in your case it was unfortunately HIV.  Ultimately the responsibility lies with you for trusting him.  He was not right to lie to you nor was he in the right when he cheated on you, but at the end of the day you trusted him and seroconverted as a result of it.  This means the responsibility lies with you.

No need to apologise.  He didn't cheat on me - what I meant was that he had been positive for years.  It's right though I should have asked to see the results and to some extent it's the fault of the government for not highlighting this issue more because it's just not in the public eye enough.....  I thought the worse case would be chlymadia or something.  Nieve I know but I never even knew anyone with hiv before. 

Either way my guy commited a crime, be it reckeless transmission or otherwise and I don't think it's necessarily right to think that the 'victim' could have prevented this.  I was in love, I trusted, I believed....ultimately I was stupid.  More people need to know that despite making all efforts this can still happen.

[Hellraiser]

Naive I know but I never even knew anyone with hiv before. 

We can commiserate on this one.  I too felt insulated from HIV because of where I lived.  No one I personally knew had hiv (or had said as much to me).  Another piece of the puzzle that led to my infection was ignorance about the disease and what I thought someone who had it might look like.  Most likely I was infected by someone who didn't know they had it however.

[Realist]

but let's not pretend that this is some sort of an independent legal view of a dispassionate scholar.

Nobody said it did, my inference was it summed up my own position and view. The words were more eloquent than my own but the sentiment was the same. Like any good researcher, Boze (you being the expert), I simply quoted my source. I do not hold this man's opinion (who I had never heard of before) in any higher regard than anyone else's; it simply supports my own view. (But obviously as we now know from you, as a gay HIV+ male I am not entitled to this view).

You make reference to the original quote as only being in place to further the individual's "cause" who made it. The view expressed in the quote matches my own and I, certainly, am not here to further a "cause". An individual does not have to hold an opinion simply to further a "cause". My own opinions on HIV and on all other matters discussed in these forums are not formed to further my "cause", they are formed because I choose to come here and elsewhere to discuss, listen and learn. I am not here to espouse every right and virtue of the HIV+ community.

You will also note that I provided links to further reading and ethical debate. I, like any good researcher, can present and criticise both sides of the argument. It appears you cannot (despite your desire to be the forum's research methods and statistical expert). It is disappointing that in a forum and community of free and independent opinion making there are always a small number who seek to damage that. I do not have a problem with differences of opinion but I do have a problem with people who simply cannot accept that differences exist and are unable to rationalise that concept.

The ethics of responsibility is an argument that will always divide thought and opinion in all manner of applications, not just in the context of this thread.

You purport that HIV- individuals simply do not accept the ethical view of individual responsibility. Please don't forget that we were all HIV- before we were HIV+, and if your statement were correct surely we would all be prosecuting those who may have transmitted the virus to us and that the vast majority of us who are now HIV+ would accept no responsibility for ourselves. Yet the majority of HIV- people who become HIV+ do not prosecute and certainly, in a large number of cases, do accept responsibility for themselves - as I do in this and all other situations.

And by the way, Boze, saying that someone who is HIV+ and gay is a hypocrite for stating an opinion that does not match your own when discussing issues which are borne from HIV is deeply saddening. In this you not only question the integrity of individuals but of any gay and HIV+ individual who has chosen to provide opinion in any part of this forum on any matter.

[Boze]

Nobody said it did, my inference was it summed up my own position and view. The words were more eloquent than my own but the sentiment was the same. Like any good researcher, Boze (you being the expert), I simply quoted my source. I do not hold this man's opinion (who I had never heard of before) in any higher regard than anyone else's; it simply supports my own view. (But obviously as we now know from you, as a gay HIV+ male I am not entitled to this view).

Fair enough. I surmised from your referencing the quote as coming from a SC Judge that he presented this view as part of a legal ruling on the matter. At least that's what I think it would appear to any neutral party. Upon further research I found that he is also an HIV+ LGBT activist - which certainly doesn't invalidate his view but also doesn't paint it in the light I took your quote to be.

You make reference to the original quote as only being in place to further the individual's "cause" who made it. The view expressed in the quote matches my own and I, certainly, am not here to further a "cause". An individual does not have to hold an opinion simply to further a "cause". My own opinions on HIV and on all other matters discussed in these forums are not formed to further my "cause", they are formed because I choose to come here and elsewhere to discuss, listen and learn. I am not here to espouse every right and virtue of the HIV+ community.

Yes, I fully accept it. You found a quote that matched your view of the matter - which you are fully entitled to present and hold.

You will also note that I provided links to further reading and ethical debate. I, like any good researcher, can present and criticise both sides of the argument. It appears you cannot (despite your desire to be the forum's research methods and statistical expert). It is disappointing that in a forum and community of free and independent opinion making there are always a small number who seek to damage that. I do not have a problem with differences of opinion but I do have a problem with people who simply cannot accept that differences exist and are unable to rationalise that concept.

What do I damage? I criticise the view that I find to be a) wrong b) self-serving.

The ethics of responsibility is an argument that will always divide thought and opinion in all manner of applications, not just in the context of this thread.

You purport that HIV- individuals simply do not accept the ethical view of individual responsibility. Please don't forget that we were all HIV- before we were HIV+, and if your statement were correct surely we would all be prosecuting those who may have transmitted the virus to us and that the vast majority of us who are now HIV+ would accept no responsibility for ourselves. Yet the majority of HIV- people who become HIV+ do not prosecute and certainly, in a large number of cases, do accept responsibility for themselves - as I do in this and all other situations.

When talking about criminal responsibility I refer to a very small percentage of encounters - when an HIV+ person has unprotected sex with another without informing them of his status or using any protection (haart/condoms).
If that were to occur, I think that the 'victim' should have a form of redress. Whether they choose to seek it is up to them.

And by the way, Boze, saying that someone who is HIV+ and gay is a hypocrite for stating an opinion that does not match your own when discussing issues which are borne from HIV is deeply saddening. In this you not only question the integrity of individuals but of any gay and HIV+ individual who has chosen to provide opinion in any part of this forum on any matter.

No, that's not what I meant. First of all, being gay is not very relevant. I mentioned the Judge being an LGBT activist to highlight that his statement has to be read in that context. But being HIV+ certainly colors one's perception. It's not really hypocritical, that was a wrong word choice on my part. It's rather self-serving. And I do also think that a lot of the people here who think that hiding HIV status & passing it to HIV- people are also self-serving. Reason is very simple - because we (and I am one of club obviously) stand to be liable if this were to occur. HIV- people simply don't have to worry about that. They have to worry about getting HIV but not going to jail for passing it since they don't actually have it.

It's like rich people care about lower taxes. Why - because they actually PAY high taxes (those they can't bypass0. So while they may talk about various lofty philosophical issues, the heart of the matter comes down to the fact that by lowering taxes they benefit THEMSELVES. By the same token, HIV+ are just as interested in making sure transmission is not criminalized - since our skin is in the game.

Lastly - to all the nice folks who accused me of homophobia - puh-lease. All I do is state facts. If you find them offensive - you can call me a homophobe but it won't change the reality. I find it very popular in America today - labeling the ideological opponent a racist or homophobe or antisemite just because they hold a view that's different to one's own.  To me it's a sign of a weak argument - when you can't argue with a position, label the person a 'hater'.

[Snowangel]

I didn't know anyone who was infected either but I had gotten tested before.

To me there has to be some kind of accountablity if you know your status and do not disclose.  Shoot if he had lied and said no, I haven't tested, then I could of made a more informed decision.  Blatantly telling someone that they are not positive when they are,and having un-protected sex with them, should have some sort of recourse.  People counterfeit money and prescriptions and whatever else they want to counterfeit, they could certainly do a test result.


I was already infected when he slipped off the condom and got me pregnant.  

Philly- Apparently he is pretty adept at it, he did the same thing to the mother of his daughter.  He never told her of his status either, even after she found his pills(they weren't in the bottles).  When he finally told her, he lied yet again and told her he had found out when I was pregnant with my son.

Abuse is hard enough to get away from by itself. When the person uses your status to control and abuse you even more is not right, no matter which way you spin it.

[Joe K]

Boze,

I was going to include quotes, but why bother, because the argument here is very simple. Consensual sex, between two adults, absent violence, rape or abuse, requires that both parties negotiate what risks are acceptable to them. This places responsibility on both parties, exactly where it belongs. To suggest that one party, has more of a duty to insist on using protection is both unfair and impractical. I believe the goal of preventing infections, has to do with empowering people so they know their status and great treatment and services for those who are impacted by rape, violence or abuse.

This does not mean that those people who intentionally infect others, should not be prosecuted, however, there are plenty of laws on the books to cover such crimes. By criminalizing a basic human need, you do nothing to protect anyone. Laws cannot stop people from lying and cheating and humans are, by our very nature, human and prone to mistakes. This idea of legislating our way to a healthy society is very disheartening to me. It absolves people of their given right to protect themselves and that absent extenuating circumstances, we are each responsible for what we do with our body.

Being a survivor of domestic violence, I both empathize and understand the cycle of violence. I remember clearly my years of abuse and I am sure that I did things, during that time, that I would not approve of today. But to me, the mere presence of violence, in any form, removes any responsibility for infection, from the victim. Even the law recognizes the concept of being unduly influenced by someone, and it is called duress. I can only speak for myself, but duress is a mild term to describe what most people suffer from abuse. If you have never experienced it, please understand that it is an experience, that is very hard to put into words.

I would also ask that you have some consideration for the members of this forum. If someone calls you a homophobe, it is because they are offended by what you said. Some of your comments have been incredibly insensitive, but what I find most disappointing, is that even when you are told that you have been insensitive, you play the victim. If you wish to engage in adult conversations, then please conduct yourself accordingly. That includes being sensitive to issues that are very dear to members here, or at the very least, displaying mutual respect for all posters.

[Boze]

This does not mean that those people who intentionally infect others, should not be prosecuted, however, there are plenty of laws on the books to cover such crimes.

So then we are in agreement. I am not saying that there should be a specific law for 'sex while HIV+' - rather a form of redress if a person intentionally* infects another. For example UK has a more a broad legal stature that applies in this case.

* Here we have to define what intentionally means. To my mind someone who knows they have HIV, is not medicated (ie a sizeable VL) and has unprotected sex that results in transmission has, for all intents and purposes, done so intentionally. Ie he has omitted a number of steps that might indicate his intention to NOT transmit.

[Realist]

I criticise the view that I find to be a) wrong b) self-serving.

I appreciate your criticism of my views, however, I think the reality of the situation is that you cannot deem my simply stated view to be self-serving (or anyone else's for that matter) if you don't know a) how I have come to form that opinion or b) what social factors I have interpreted in order to form that opinion.

You cannot suggest that my views on the ethical position of self-responsibility are self-serving simply because I am HIV+. My view has not been shaped by HIV in isolation, and certainly for me, it has not changed since the time when I was HIV-.

I may be HIV+ but I might be celibate - is my view still self-serving?. I may be HIV+ but I might be physically disabled and unable to have intercourse - is my view still self-serving? You do not know either of these two things i.e. you know nothing about the way in which I have interpreted my position in the world and how this may or may not have shaped my opinion, you have decided however, that the only factor that I can have used to form this opinion is my HIV+ status. To suggest that simply because I am HIV+ that my stated views in their basic form are self-serving demonstrates a level of naivety which does not accept the contextual nature of the way in which opinions are formed.

There are better examples in anthropology and social history which can further demonstrate this. Take suffrage as a particular example. When women's suffrage moved forward in the UK between in the late 19th and early 20th century, there are contemporaneous examples of men actively supporting the movement. On the basis of a basic juxtaposition of gender identities and social gender roles at the time, the naive assumption to make is that the views of the majority of these men are not self-serving as they are male and the context is women's rights. The naive view is that man supports woman and woman is the beneficiary to the outcome therefore man is not looking to benefit himself.

However, interpret these circumstances in the social world in which they existed. One of the biggest beneficiaries of women being granted the vote in the Representation of the People Act of 1918 were men - men who had supported the suffrage movement as they knew it held wider connotations for electoral reform and thereby strengthened their own, male, position. Examples of this being redistribution of parliamentary seats to industrial areas, increased enfranchisement of men vs. women i.e. males were able to further aggrandise themselves through support of electoral reform which was only made possible in part through support of the suffrage movement to force the hand of change.

Now take a male view of the time holding this knowledge and the nature in which the view of some male suffragette supporters of the time was formed - is their view still not self-serving?

One cannot EVER truly know that an opinion is self-serving or not if it is viewed in singular isolation.

So in simple conclusion, you cannot state that my views on the criminalisation of HIV are self-serving if you isolate them only in the context of my current HIV status.

[newt]

To my mind someone who knows they have HIV, is not medicated (ie a sizeable VL) and has unprotected sex that results in transmission has, for all intents and purposes, done so intentionally. Ie he has omitted a number of steps that might indicate his intention to NOT transmit.

Boze, before you discuss intention further you might like to review and digest this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

- matt

[Miss Philicia]

MENZRAY u say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acUFdP7N1vw

[Matty the Damned]

MENZRAY u say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acUFdP7N1vw

I read it as "Mens' Rears" but I have a guilty mind when it comes to this sort of thing.

MtD

[bocker3]

Why argue with Boze -- his mind is made up.  He clearly is more intelligent and knowing than anyone else.  Quite frankly I think he's getting off on offending others.  When people call him on it, he claims victimhood -- to much political correctness, you see.  It's not about anyone else -- it's simply him striking out because of all the wrong done to him.  I say -- stop feeding him.

Mike

[Boze]

Boze, before you discuss intention further you might like to review and digest this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

- matt

Matt, thank you for the link. You are right - according to law someone who just wants to have sex may not necessarily intend to transmit. However another aspect applies - endangering the life of another that results in transmission. Ie i see the analogy to homicide - if a person kills another (without actually intending to kill him but as result of actions that he knew might result in death) - he is liable for homicide.
In this paragraph we can replace words 'death' and 'transmission' to arrive at what I find logical.

Specifically,

"Modern Law approaches the analysis somewhat differently. Homicide is a "results" crime in that it forbids any "intentional" or "knowing" conduct that results in the death of another human being. "Intentional" in this sense means the actor possessed a "purpose" or "desire" that his or her objective (i.e. death of another human being) be achieved. "Knowing" means that the actor was aware or practically certain that the death would result. Thus, the actus reus and mens rea of homicide in a modern criminal statute can be considered as follows:
actus reus: Any conduct resulting in the death of another individual.
mens rea: The conduct resulting in the death was done intentionally or knowingly."

Why argue with Boze -- his mind is made up.  He clearly is more intelligent and knowing than anyone else.  Quite frankly I think he's getting off on offending others.  When people call him on it, he claims victimhood -- to much political correctness, you see.  It's not about anyone else -- it's simply him striking out because of all the wrong done to him.  I say -- stop feeding him.

This is an ethical question - so I don't claim that I possess 'the truth'. I just don't mind expressing my view, partly because I want to and partly because I think a lot of people agree with me but don't want to argue with majority.
On the question of offendedness - I want to separate the 'I find your view offensive' and 'you hate my kind'. If I happen to say something that is true but unpleasant to hear for some people - that's tough luck. But I don't think it's fair to label me a 'X-hater' for that.

Realist - I did not mean to say that YOUR particular view on the subject is self-serving, I apologize if you took my comment in that light. I meant it more as a general comment on the attitude of the OVERALL HIV+ community members who think that there should be no criminal redress for knowing spread of HIV.

The issue here is slightly different that enfranchisement you brought up. When women were asking to vote the situation was not zero-sum. The votes were not going to be taken away from men. In the current situation I believe that justice is sort of zero-sum. The 'victim' (I put it in quotes because some people disagree with such designation) either has a legal claim to his/her transmitter or does not. I happen to believe that she should - ie I see her right to justice as paramount. If one believes that there shoul be NO way to address this - then the right of the transmitter is seen as more important.

[loop78]

Matt, thank you for the link. You are right - according to law someone who just wants to have sex may not necessarily intend to transmit. However another aspect applies - endangering the life of another that results in transmission. Ie i see the analogy to homicide - if a person kills another (without actually intending to kill him but as result of actions that he knew might result in death) - he is liable for homicide.
In this paragraph we can replace words 'death' and 'transmission' to arrive at what I find logical.

The analogy however ends there: an homicide does not require per se any cooperation of the victim, while the only kind of sex that may result in transmission and does not require the cooperation of both (or more!) people is rape.

And you must remember, that those who consent to unprotected sex also know that it may result in acquiring an STD.

Variations of consensual sex transmission are endless, of course, but I don't think even the most grievous ones can be rightfully compared to homicide.

[Realist]

Realist - I did not mean to say that YOUR particular view on the subject is self-serving, I apologize if you took my comment in that light. I meant it more as a general comment on the attitude of the OVERALL HIV+ community members who think that there should be no criminal redress for knowing spread of HIV.

The issue here is slightly different that enfranchisement you brought up. When women were asking to vote the situation was not zero-sum. The votes were not going to be taken away from men. In the current situation I believe that justice is sort of zero-sum. The 'victim' (I put it in quotes because some people disagree with such designation) either has a legal claim to his/her transmitter or does not. I happen to believe that she should - ie I see her right to justice as paramount. If one believes that there shoul be NO way to address this - then the right of the transmitter is seen as more important.

Boze, that's because you simply do not understand the exchange, you are so focused on the defence of your position that you can't engage at the level the exchange is being pitched at. In our exchange I have neither sought to justify my own views nor question your own. Reading back will show you this.

What I have done is address your assumptions and generalisations, address your unjustified comments about people's alternate opinions to your own (specifically that they must be self-serving) and address the way you conduct the debate (which is what gets people's backs up).

I did not apply the enfranchisement example to the transmission of HIV (please read my last post again) so you can spout bollocks about victims and zero-sum situations all you like. The enfranchisement example was used to demonstrate your naivety when making assumptions about an individuals opinion to be self-serving. It was not applied to the situation of criminal or non-criminal transmission of HIV.

You need to step back and come up a level and look at the exchange for what it is. I am questioning your too rapid tendency to making sweeping assumptions and generalisations about other people's opinions not the ethical position you have adopted.

[Hellraiser]

Let's also point out that HIV isn't killing anyone.  The virus itself is never the direct cause of death, unlike say Influenza or Tuberculosis, which are much more easily spread and without the willing participation of the "victim".  Boze you're just wrong again, but I'm sure you'll think that my opinion is biased toward hiv+ folks.

Should people with hiv disclose before sex and use protection? Yes.
Do they always? No
Does this sometimes lead to transmission? Yes
Should this be a criminal offense? No

The more interesting part of this conversation is that you yourself are having unprotected sex while holding up the Swiss Study as your sword and shield.  If you accidentally infected someone would you feel criminally negligent?

[Matty the Damned]

Let's also point out that HIV isn't killing anyone.  The virus itself is never the direct cause of death, unlike say Influenza or Tuberculosis, which are much more easily spread and without the willing participation of the "victim".  Boze you're just wrong again, but I'm sure you'll think that my opinion is biased toward hiv+ folks.

This "HIV never killed anyone" crud is so disingenuous.

Sure kidney failure killed Kate, but it couldn't have happened if she wasn't HIV positive.

Valley fever wouldn't have taken Daddy Tim if his immune system hadn't been fucked to death by HIV.

Christine's life was cut short because she had HIV infection.

I could go on but I won't belabour the point except to say that the thing what brings us together is the thing what kills us.

MtD

[Hellraiser]

This "HIV never killed anyone" crud is so disingenuous.

Sure kidney failure killed Kate, but it couldn't have happened if she wasn't HIV positive.

Valley fever wouldn't have taken Daddy Tim if his immune system hadn't been fucked to death by HIV.

Christine's life was cut short because she had HIV infection.

I could go on but I won't belabour the point except to say that the thing what brings us together is the thing what kills us.

MtD

It was really just to get to the next point which is the timeline for HIV, considering the new drugs, is lengthy in comparison to the other two mentioned.  There are no laws on the books for the prosecution of manslaughter via influenza however.

[Matty the Damned]

It was really just to get to the next point which is the timeline for HIV, considering the new drugs, is lengthy in comparison to the other two mentioned.  There are no laws on the books for the prosecution of manslaughter via influenza however.

Well whatever. HIV is killing the people I love most. Right now and I hate it.

Just sayin'.

MtD