There's also a comment that's shocking:QuoteComment by: RSH (Philadelphia, PA) Wed., May. 27, 2009 at 8:41 am EDT
I agree with the sentence. It's more important to be closed minded to this virus and punish the people who are unfortunate to have it in any way you can. After all it's their fault they have it. Right? Hopefully this will help prevent society from making advances toward understanding and a cure. Let's stay in the dark ages as long as we can.
l. As I said in another thread HIV is not more dangerous today than chronic hepatitis or HPV. But there's not a single sentence applied for a person that infected a partner with any of this viruses.
Really!? So you think there is a higher rate of death from either of those things than HIV? Really?! I generally try not to get too emotional in these threads, but your statement is the biggest load of crap I've heard in a long time.
You're not well informed like most of the people.
Cause of Death | |
Syphilis (A50-A53)
| |
Viral hepatitis (B15-B19)
| |
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease (B20-B24) |
In a perfect world, HIV would be universally treated and in no way a crime to transmit.
I was infected in Switzerland where transmission is a crime but where also, the judges are subtly changing to take into account HAART treatment and undetectable status.
I am in the minority of people who think in certain situations, HIV transmission is "criminal" and should be a prosecutable crime. Maybe a civll penalty, however (education, service, financial, I'm not sure). But, since these situations are virtually impossible to prove, in the end, I think it should not be a crime.
The laws don't consider the advantages of current HAART treatments and of those expected to come...
its called its your body... your sex life... protect yourself and think of everyone as possibly having the potential as being a carrier of a disease...
You don't disclose and have unprotected sex then be prepaired to pay the price.
That works both ways. Have unprotected sex with someone whose hiv status you don't know - then be prepared to pay the price. The only time you're going to get me to say otherwise is in the case of a couple where one partner has every reason to believe they're monogamous and the other partner is playing away behind their back. If you're playing the field and having unprotected, then yes, you just might pay the price. That doesn't mean the other person should go to jail. All criminalising hiv does is drive it underground, which is FAR more dangerous.
Ann
..It is just as much our responsibility to stop the spread of HIV and by us knowing we are infected CAN protect our partners from contracting it by correctly using condoms and do it consistently.
Right, in that case lets throw anyone who's negative and engaging in unprotected sex knowing the risk involved also to jail for allowing the virus to be spread.
Absolutely.
To agree to have unprotected intercourse is to consent to the possibility of being infected with an STI.
That's just the way it is.
Ann
Why should they? Again, you are assuming universal health care. At least in the US (which are a lot of the cases being referred to in this thread) that is not the case. And mark my words, it won't be.
Just some clarification xman:Have to differ with you. I'm poor and I do get the best health care. I can't complain.
In America, if you have money, you have access to the very best health care in the world 2nd to none.
In America, if you are poor, you do not have access to the very best health care in world.
As sad as it is, it is what it is.
Who's negative? Now, how much sense did that make?
Definitely not you, nor me. What doesn't make sense to you?If they are both negative than neither has a worry. What was discussed was a person that is positive and not disclosing and having unprotected sex.
If they are both negative than neither has a worry. What was discussed was a person that is positive and not disclosing and having unprotected sex.
is just as much our responsibility,
I thought it was understood that I meant the negative partner should also be thrown into jail while having unprotected sex with a positive person as this thread is about criminalizing us not disclosing.
If I shoot you nothing should happen to me because you should have had a bullet proof vest on knowing I may shoot you...
That's a very very bad analogy on so many levels but lets not go there now. The OP is about throwing us into jail for simply NOT disclosing. So where the (criminal) responsibility lays?Square on you for not being responible enough to disclose so that the person my have a choice not to have sex with you and riisk their health. You disclose and they are willing to have protected sex then if the condom fails they are as much at fault. They knew what the risk was.
The minute we not disclose whether protection is used or not?
Or if protection is used there's no need to disclose?
What is "as much of our responsibility", which seems to imply the participating negative partner also has some responsibility? Or what?
Square on you for not being responible enough to disclose so that the person my have a choice not to have sex with you and riisk their health. You disclose and they are willing to have protected sex then if the condom fails they are as much at fault. They knew what the risk was.
There is no reason that anyone can come up with that knowingly has HIV doesn't disclose their status to their partner as a reason to have UNPROTECTED vaginal or anal sex. You can't get me to change my stance on it either. It is just as much our responsibility to stop the spread of HIV and by us knowing we are infected CAN protect our partners from contracting it by correctly using condoms and do it consistently.
I think he meant if there was transmission resulting from a safe sex accident.
It's up to Rod to clear this up but transmission did not happen in the case quoted in the OP.The person should have had the right to decide if they wanted to have sex with that person protectected or not had they person disclosed his status. The word is "KNOWINGLY."
The fact is many legislation do not require transmission - it's the act of nondisclosure that is punishable. Criminal laws do not like blurry details so many states/countries opt for simple solution - if you're infected, it's solely up to you to disclose no matter what. So all you need is a paranoid accuser, as in this case who's probably cruising a lot online and does his own verbal serosorting, claiming that he has the right to decide not to be intimate with someone who's not "clean".
And there you have it - the pozzie is spending very likely the rest of his life in jail while this accuser, like many others, can continue to exercise his "right to choose" and be paranoid about "intimacy" with us pozzies while the rest of society can feel "safe" and smug that "justice has been served" as the pozzie monster is behind bars.
The person should have had the right to decide if they wanted to have sex with that person protectected or not had they person disclosed his status. The word is "KNOWINGLY."
Now komnaes, do you go around having unprotected sex with people not disclosing YOUR status? I don't.
It's everybody's right to cross a busy 10 lanes freeway blindfolded but then you don't expect not to be hit by a car. Legally speaking KNOWINGLY can equally apply to anyone who's well aware of the risk.That's your prerogative. I will not change my stance on nondisclosure. I've lived with HIV for 25 years and you only 2. We will see if your stance changes when you've lived with HIV for 25 years.
I thought of you highly Rod, I really did, until I saw this; and the most restrained and respectable way I can think of to deal with it is to not comment it further.
That's your prerogative. I will not change my stance on nondisclosure. I've lived with HIV for 25 years and you only 2. We will see if your stance changes when you've lived with HIV for 25 years.
I honestly don't know what's your stance since you used only languages like "at fault", "pay the price" and "being responsible", while the OP is about a real person being thrown into jail for simply not disclosing.Sorry I'm not a mod nor have I ever been.
And I have passed the point of caring what is your stance and whether you've been positive for 25 or 250 years.
PS - I don't have more prerogative than you or anyone here. I just hope you won't be throwing implicit accusations at someone the way you did to me for simply not agreeing with you, being a mod and all. That's very LOW.
Sorry I'm not a mod nor have I ever been.
Oh right, don't care either. So let me state that again:There was never any accusations thrown at you not once. Questions yes, accusations no and if you look at some of the other's post that don't agree with you. We can agree to disagree.
PS - I don't have more prerogative than you or anyone here. I just hope you won't be throwing implicit accusations at someone the way you did to me for simply not agreeing with you. That's very LOW.
Now komnaes, do you go around having unprotected sex with people not disclosing YOUR status? I don't.