• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Alavard
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:55 PM)
Alavard's Avatar

Originally Posted by skullmuffins

The article's use of "current law" is ambiguous. The bill is here, and it looks to me like it was a felony and the new law changes it to a misdemeanor, in line with how the state charges intentional transmission of any other disease.

This is probably the most important post in the thread.
Giolon
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:56 PM)
Giolon's Avatar

Originally Posted by MrOogieBoogie

CDC recently announced that "people who take ART daily as prescribed and achieve and maintain an undetectable viral load have effectively no risk of sexually transmitting the virus to an HIV-negative partner."

It's kind of scary that in this day and age there are still people who use "HIV" and "AIDS" interchangeably, as if they're the same thing. They're not, folks. Come on.

How much does that kind of continual course of treatment cost?
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:56 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by WaterAstro

Your partner doesn't have the right to know about your health before having sex? lol society these days...

A legal right? Like the right to privacy with regards to medical records?

They don't have a right to know your health before having sex with you, no.

Is it morally right to tell someone you have an infectious disease (if indeed you do)? Of course.

Should it be a felony not to in only one specific infectious disease that isn't the worst disease out there? Of course not.
Brock Reiher
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:56 PM)
Brock Reiher's Avatar

Originally Posted by FiggyCal

Maybe, but AIDS is a pretty serious disease. It's not totally unreasonable that people treat it differently.

So are much more contagious diseases like Hep B and even Hep C but
Plumbob
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:57 PM)
Plumbob's Avatar
HIV and diabetes are chronic, treatable conditions that kill at roughly the same rate.

If someone knowingly gave me diabetes, I would absolutely press charges if possible.
Earthbound64
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:57 PM)
Earthbound64's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Why should one infectious disease be singled out?

You're right.
Make it a crime for the rest of them too.

I just spent my morning / early afternoon at a hospital getting tested for STDs.
F*** people (with proper testing and disclosure).
metalslimer
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:58 PM)
metalslimer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Plumbob

HIV and diabetes are chronic, treatable conditions that kill at roughly the same rate.

If someone knowingly gave me diabetes, I would absolutely press charges if possible.

Diabetes is much harder to control than HIV actually
ApharmdX
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:58 PM)
ApharmdX's Avatar
Why would anyone think this was a good idea? It's a mistake. If you have HIV, not disclosing should absolutely be a felony!
Hollywood Duo
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:58 PM)
Hollywood Duo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Keri

I was skeptical at first, but I guess it makes sense. HIV used to be a death sentence, but with modern medicine that is no longer the case.

At the same time though, if itís so treatable then you wonít be exposing other people to it unless itís malicious or you are incredibly negligent right? I suppose there are some medicinal failures but you should be tested regularly before potentially exposing someone else.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:58 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Earthbound64

You're right.
Make it a crime for the rest of them too.

I just spent my morning / early afternoon at a hospital getting tested for STDs.
F*** people (with proper testing and disclosure).

It's a misdemeanor for all the others. Now it will also be a misdemeanor for HIV.
kiyomi
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:59 PM)
kiyomi's Avatar

Originally Posted by legacyzero

Uhhhh wat..

So youre saying people feel it easier to warn you of that they're infected if felony laws aren't in place, versus when they are????

Yes? How can you think otherwise?
DrROBschiz
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:59 PM)
DrROBschiz's Avatar

Originally Posted by ApharmdX

Why would anyone think this was a good idea? It's a mistake. If you have HIV, not disclosing should absolutely be a felony!

what about after we have a cure

should we still leave this law alone. At the very least this seems forward thinking
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:59 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by WaterAstro

Your partner doesn't have the right to know about your health before having sex? lol society these days...



Unless the meds completely kill the virus so that you don't need to take them anymore, it's not practically impossible because mistakes could be made.

Mistakes like? Once you have been undetectable for a year, chances are very slim if not zero that you become detectable again. Current drug regimens are very forgiving.
Plumbob
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:59 PM)
Plumbob's Avatar

Originally Posted by metalslimer

Diabetes is much harder to control than HIV actually

But it is reversible.
metalslimer
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:00 PM)
metalslimer's Avatar
Man it's obvious nearly no one in this thread knows anything about HIV
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:01 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by Diablos

I am not sure how I feel about this. I understand if you intend to do harm you'd still get in trouble, but it would be easy to lie your way out of that. Leaning towards bad idea honestly.

No it's not. Medical records are a thing and it's easy to prove that you are being adherent and taking your meds since most people infected with HIV who are on treatment have to come in for labs at least once every six months.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:01 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

Mistakes like? Once you have been undetectable for a year, chances are very slim if not zero that you become detectable again. Current drug regimens are very forgiving.

It's almost like they account for stuff like occasionally forgetting or being unable to take your medicine when they figure out the treatment regimen.
Wheatly
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:01 PM)
Wheatly's Avatar

Originally Posted by Brock Reiher

So are much more contagious diseases like Hep B and even Hep C but

But,

All of us, in the first world, are vaccinated for protection against Hep B

Hep C is now curable with a 12 week treatment course of anti-virals
ApharmdX
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:02 PM)
ApharmdX's Avatar

Originally Posted by DrROBschiz

what about after we have a cure

should we still leave this law alone. At the very least this seems forward thinking

After we have a cure, no, then it's time for the law to be changed. But at this point it's too early IMO.
Malakai
Hello, please read this post and this post before bothering to respond to me.
(10-07-2017, 07:02 PM)

Originally Posted by plagiarize

OH LOOK ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAS NO IDEA HOW TREATABLE HIV IS THESE DAYS.

Dear EVERYONE in this thread decrying this, please look at the current state of treatment for being HIV positive, rather than throwing around fearmongering based on attitudes and treatments that date back to the 80s.

Thank you.

HIV meds are expensive as hell. And considering the state of health care in the U.S.; I wouldn't want to be in a situation that requires meds in order for me to live.
MrOogieBoogie
BioShock Infinite is like playing some homeless guy's vivid imagination
(10-07-2017, 07:02 PM)
MrOogieBoogie's Avatar

Originally Posted by Earthbound64

You're right.
Make it a crime for the rest of them too.

I just spent my morning / early afternoon at a hospital getting tested for STDs.
F*** people (with proper testing and disclosure).

lmao

Good luck making every possible case of STD transmission a crime in today's world.

New STD cases hit record high in US, CDC says:

In 2016, Americans were infected with more than 2 million new cases of gonorrhea, syphilis and chlamydia, the highest number of these sexually transmitted diseases ever reported, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Tuesday.

"Clearly we need to reverse this disturbing trend," said Dr. Gail Bolan, director of CDC's Division of STD Prevention. "The CDC cannot do this alone and we need every community in America to be aware that this risk is out there and help educate their citizens on how to avoid it."

The agency's annual Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance Report shows that more than 1.6 million of the new cases were from chlamydia, 470,000 were from gonorrhea and nearly 28,000 cases were primary and secondary syphilis, the most infectious stages of the disease, according to the CDC. While all of these can be cured by antibiotics, many people go undiagnosed and untreated.

Only those three STDs and HIV are required by law to be reported to the CDC by physicians. When you include herpes and more of the dozens of diseases which can be transmitted sexually but which are not tracked, the CDC estimates there are more than 20 million new cases of STDs in the United States each year. At least half occur in young people ages 15 to 24.

"STDs are out of control with enormous health implications for Americans," said David Harvey, executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors. The coalition represents state, local and territorial health departments who focus on preventing STDs.

"If not treated, gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis can have serious consequences, such as infertility, neurological issues, and an increased risk for HIV," said Harvey.

"Hook up" culture is a huge part of this. Dating apps have contributed immensely to the spread of disease.

And a huge majority of people have no idea that they're infected with something. My buddy is 30 years old and sleeps around a ton and has never gotten an STD test. If his partner asks him, "You clean?" He can just say, "Yeah, never been sick or anything," and for most people in the heat of the moment this is good enough.
Last edited by MrOogieBoogie; 10-07-2017 at 07:09 PM.
legacyzero
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:03 PM)
legacyzero's Avatar

Originally Posted by kiyomi

Yes? How can you think otherwise?

I think you got your wires crossed. I dont understand.

The law is the accountability for those who are positive to be up front. Makes no sense to hear "Well I guess since there's no longer a law requiring I inform my partners, I feel much more accountable to do so!" That just makes no sense.
Last edited by legacyzero; 10-07-2017 at 07:06 PM.
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:04 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by GoldenEye 007

I'm not sure I follow. Sure at some point people may have HIV and not know. But once they get tested, they now know. Are you saying that by getting tested, they could be charged for past sexual encounters?

Or at least charged for sexual encounters that happen after getting tested.

That on itself opens up anther can of worms. Why get tested when you can live in relatively bliss in your ignorance that you don't have HIV and continue having sex with other people, unknowingly spreading the virus and exposing others.
DrROBschiz
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:05 PM)
DrROBschiz's Avatar

Originally Posted by MrOogieBoogie

lmao

Good luck making every possible case of STD transmission a crime in today's world.

New STD cases hit record high in US, CDC says:



"Hook up" culture is a huge part of this. Dating apps have contributed immensely to the spread of disease.

And a huge majority of people have no idea that they're infected with something. My buddy is 30 years old and sleeps around a ton and has never gotten an STD test. If his partner asks him, "You clean?" He can just say, "Yeah, never been sick or anything," and for most people in the heat of the moment this is good enough.

the fact that many of these are treated with antibiotics is also scary as fuck

overuse of antibiotics will eventually make this much much worse

I hope the latest and greatest Crispr and immunotherapy treatments come sooner than later

For now we need serious focus put on proper healthcare and sexual education/awareness
Bill R Boggess
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:06 PM)
Bill R Boggess's Avatar

Originally Posted by kiyomi

"Hey, sorry I got in late to work, I have a bit of a cold coming on."
"ARREST HIM!"

Yeah, because a cold virus and a virus that can decimate your immune system and once enjoyed a fatality rate of nearly 100% are the same things, right?

By the way, I and most civilized people I know make it a point to inform others around us when we have colds and flu bugs.
ChainedMaster
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 07:06 PM)

Originally Posted by metalslimer

Man it's obvious nearly no one in this thread knows anything about HIV

Don't even bother. It seems both the left and the right these days rely on emotion rather than facts with laws. There is no reason why HIV should get special treatment. But AIDS is so scary to people, they'd probably support the death penalty.
Brock Reiher
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:07 PM)
Brock Reiher's Avatar

Originally Posted by Wheatly

But,

All of us, in the first world, are vaccinated for protection against Hep B

Hep C is now curable with a 12 week treatment course of anti-virals

Assuming the person told you they have you Hep C and you were able to access treatment before serious damage occured, yeah?
Kimawolf
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:07 PM)
Well according to the CDC:

Providing HIV-positive heterosexual men and women with ART reduces the risk of HIV transmission to a negative partner by 96%. Effectiveness is lower for persons who take ART and do not maintain viral suppression. Effectiveness may be higher among persons who achieve and maintain viral suppression.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/estimat...trategies.html

That 96% is more than negligible, as such yes it should certainly be a felony to knowingly expose someone to HIV considering it is a incurable disease and can be extremely expensive. I'm not sure why there can be any argument. Even with the best treatments, you STILL have a greater than negligible chance to spread the disease to a negative person

The risk factors are not "negligible" again, unless the CDC research is just wrong, this is what they say:

The risk of getting HIV varies widely depending on the type of exposure or behavior (such as sharing needles or having sex without a condom). Some exposures to HIV carry a much higher risk of transmission than other exposures. For some exposures, while transmission is biologically possible, the risk is so low that it is not possible to put a precise number on it. But risks do add up over time. Even relatively small risks can add up over time and lead to a high lifetime risk of getting HIV. In other words, there may be a relatively small chance of acquiring HIV when engaging in a risk behavior with an infected partner only once; but, if repeated many times, the overall likelihood of becoming infected after repeated exposures is actually much higher.

The table below lists the risk of transmission per 10,000 exposures for various types of exposures.

Estimated Per-Act Probability of Acquiring HIV from an Infected Source, by Exposure Act*
Type of Exposure Risk per 10,000 Exposures
Parenteral
Blood Transfusion 9,250
Needle-Sharing During Injection Drug Use 63
Percutaneous (Needle-Stick) 23
Sexual
Receptive Anal Intercourse 138
Insertive Anal Intercourse 11
Receptive Penile-Vaginal Intercourse 8
Insertive Penile-Vaginal Intercourse 4
Receptive Oral Intercourse Low
Insertive Oral Intercourse Low
Other^
Biting Negligible
Spitting Negligible
Throwing Body Fluids (Including Semen or Saliva) Negligible
Sharing Sex Toys Negligible

. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/estimat...behaviors.html

So i think it is perfectly reasonable to expect someone with HIV, even on ART drugs to tell me because again, the risk is not "negligible". And honestly, I think you should be liable for transmitting any STD to a person knowingly but not disclosing it to them. And it is easy enough to prove if someone knew or not as medical records generally don't lie.
XenodudeX
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 07:07 PM)
XenodudeX's Avatar

Originally Posted by Plumbob

But it is reversible.

What the fuck? There is no cure for diabetes!

Some of you people don't even know how well known chronic conditions work, let alone HIV. Pathetic.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:08 PM)
Zaraki_Kenpachi's Avatar
I thought I saw it all but there's a large portion of this thread thinks you should be able to willingly infect people with diseases that canít be cured. Disgusting and sad
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:09 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zaraki_Kenpachi

I thought I saw it all but there's a large portion of this thread thinks you should be able to willingly infect people with diseases that canít be cured. Disgusting and sad

Read the thread again.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:09 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kimawolf

Well according to the CDC:



https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/estimat...trategies.html

That 96% is more than negligible, as such yes it should certainly be a felony to knowingly expose someone to HIV considering it is a incurable disease and can be extremely expensive. I'm not sure why there can be any argument. Even with the best treatments, you STILL have a greater than negligible chance to spread the disease to a negative person

The risk factors are not "negligible" again, unless the CDC research is just wrong, this is what they say:


. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/estimat...behaviors.html

So i think it is perfectly reasonable to expect someone with HIV, even on ART drugs to tell me because again, the risk is not "negligible". And honestly, I think you should be liable for transmitting any STD to a person knowingly but not disclosing it to them. And it is easy enough to prove if someone knew or not as medical records generally don't lie.

That first link is based on 2011 studies.

Here's a more recent CDC piece on HRT:

Across three different studies, including thousands of couples and many thousand acts of sex without a condom or pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), no HIV transmissions to an HIV-negative partner were observed when the HIV-positive person was virally suppressed. This means that people who take ART daily as prescribed and achieve and maintain an undetectable viral load have effectively no risk of sexually transmitting the virus to an HIV-negative partner.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/dcl/dcl/092717.html
Bill R Boggess
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:10 PM)
Bill R Boggess's Avatar
Anyone who knowingly exposes another person to any form of STD without telling them Ė even one that is as benign as herpes Ė is a piece of shit.

Anyone who knowingly exposes another person to something as serious as HIV without informing them is a sociopathic monster.

Yeah, AIDS was burdened with an unfair stigma for decades but regardless of the advancements in treatment, itís still a very serious disease and one that at the very least will force you to alter your life forever.

As another person stated, instead of decriminalizing this, why not make it a crime to expose somebody to ANY serious STD and make the penalty proportionate to the seriousness of the disease.

Also, proving actual intent to spread would be difficult. And having sex with somebody and not telling them you have a potentially fatal disease that you could transfer to them is a textbook definition of depraved indifference.

I do understand some of the concerns the bill addresses but I donít agree with taking this step given that it empowers and emboldens a society that is already very much invested only in self.
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:10 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kimawolf

Well according to the CDC:



https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/estimat...trategies.html

That 96% is more than negligible, as such yes it should certainly be a felony to knowingly expose someone to HIV considering it is a incurable disease and can be extremely expensive. I'm not sure why there can be any argument. Even with the best treatments, you STILL have a greater than negligible chance to spread the disease to a negative person

The risk factors are not "negligible" again, unless the CDC research is just wrong, this is what they say:


. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/estimat...behaviors.html

So i think it is perfectly reasonable to expect someone with HIV, even on ART drugs to tell me because again, the risk is not "negligible". And honestly, I think you should be liable for transmitting any STD to a person knowingly but not disclosing it to them. And it is easy enough to prove if someone knew or not as medical records generally don't lie.

The second part of your post is taking about having sex with someone with HIV who isn't on treatment.

But yeah here is the updated CDC statement on the matter:

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/dcl/dcl/092717.html

Note that the risk is now nonexistent for those who are undetectable.
Last edited by titiklabingapat; 10-07-2017 at 07:12 PM.
Brock Reiher
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:11 PM)
Brock Reiher's Avatar

Originally Posted by XenodudeX

What the fuck? There is no cure for diabetes!

Some of you people don't even know how well known chronic conditions work, let alone HIV. Pathetic.

Type 2 diabetes is sometimes reversible but for most people it's not realistic.
Wheatly
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:11 PM)
Wheatly's Avatar

Originally Posted by XenodudeX

What the fuck? There is no cure for diabetes!

Some of you people don't even know how well known chronic conditions work, let alone HIV. Pathetic.

Well you're half right

Type 1 is incurable but Type 2 is reversible (if lifestyle mods are enacted early enough) / preventable
FiggyCal
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:12 PM)
FiggyCal's Avatar

Originally Posted by legacyzero

I think you got your wires crossed. I dont understand.

The law is the accountability for those who are positive to be up front. Makes no sense to hear "Well I guess since there's no longer a law requiring I inform my partners, I feel much more accountable to do so!" That just makes no sense.

I think the point is that you have to know you have the disease. So people would just not get tested and have sex anyways so they wouldn't be charged. But that seems insane to me that it would happen at all.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:12 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bill R Boggess

Anyone who knowingly exposes another person to any form of STD without telling them Ė even one that is as benign as herpes Ė is a piece of shit.

Anyone who knowingly exposes another person to something as serious as HIV without informing them is a sociopathic monster.

Yeah, AIDS was burdened with an unfair stigma for decades but regardless of the advancements in treatment, itís still a very serious disease and one that at the very least will force you to alter your life forever.

As another person stated, instead of decriminalizing this, why not make it a crime to expose somebody to ANY serious STD and make the penalty proportionate to the seriousness of the disease.

Also, proving actual intent to spread would be difficult. And having sex with somebody and not telling them you have a potentially fatal disease that you could transfer to them is a textbook definition of depraved indifference.

I do understand some of the concerns the bill addresses but I donít agree with taking this step given that it empowers and emboldens a society that is already very much invested only in self.

Which society would that be?
prophetvx
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 07:12 PM)

Originally Posted by XenodudeX

What the fuck? There is no cure for diabetes!

Some of you people don't even know how well known chronic conditions work, let alone HIV. Pathetic.

Type 2 diabetes can in many cases be reversed with proper diet, weight control and exercise.

Many are too far gone by the point they get diagnosed though.
Kebiinu
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:13 PM)
Kebiinu's Avatar
If someone got treated for HIV, found out they have it, and neglected to tell their partners. The risk is on YOU. You chose to have sex with that person. Anytime you have sex with someone, you're taking a risk (and not just HIV, either) and it's not THEIR job to inform YOU on their status.

Would it be a nice thing to do? Yes. Should they go to jail if they don't? No.

Most people with HIV don't even know they have it. And the reason most don't know they have it, is because they fear the diagnosis, not the disease. The stigmas on HIV make it as if the diagnosis itself is a death sentence. Then people fear dating (or even just being around) people with HIV, and now you have people being selfish with their status on top of that.

This bill doesn't make those problems go away, but it encourages people to get tested, and get informed. It also makes people (like y'all) who are trying to live in a bubble; more aware of the various incurable and curable diseases you are at risk of contracting every, single, time you have sex.

Use condoms, protect yourself, get tested. Shit, if you REALLY want to be safe, don't have sex at all. We need to stop criminalizing HIV.
Widdle Puppy
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:14 PM)
Widdle Puppy's Avatar
The original law may have come from shitty people but I can't say knowingly exposing someone to the disease shouldn't be a crime.
Plumbob
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:14 PM)
Plumbob's Avatar

Originally Posted by XenodudeX

What the fuck? There is no cure for diabetes!

Some of you people don't even know how well known chronic conditions work, let alone HIV. Pathetic.

Don't call people pathetic unless you're absolutely sure you're correct.

Originally Posted by WebMD

In one study, people with type 2 diabetes exercised for 175 minutes a week, limited their calories to 1,200 to 1,800 per day, and got weekly counseling and education on these lifestyle changes.

Within a year, about 10% got off their diabetes medications or improved to the point where their blood sugar level was no longer in the diabetes range, and was instead classified as prediabetes.

Results were best for those who lost the most weight or who started the program with less severe or newly diagnosed diabetes. Fifteen percent to 20% of these people were able to stop taking their diabetes medications.

https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/type-...ype-2-diabetes
Vuci
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 07:15 PM)

Originally Posted by Kebiinu

As a gay in NYC, I support this.

Why? Curious. Edit: I see you answered in detail.
Canít say I agree..
Wheatly
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:15 PM)
Wheatly's Avatar

Originally Posted by Brock Reiher

Assuming the person told you they have you Hep C and you were able to access treatment before serious damage occured, yeah?

For most people, it takes >20 years to develop into cirrhosis

Assuming you get checked up regularly at the doctor and have liver markers checked in half a decade or so - it isn't really a problem nowadays
ChainedMaster
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 07:15 PM)

Originally Posted by Bill R Boggess

Anyone who knowingly exposes another person to any form of STD without telling them Ė even one that is as benign as herpes Ė is a piece of shit.

Anyone who knowingly exposes another person to something as serious as HIV without informing them is a sociopathic monster.

Yeah, AIDS was burdened with an unfair stigma for decades but regardless of the advancements in treatment, itís still a very serious disease and one that at the very least will force you to alter your life forever.

As another person stated, instead of decriminalizing this, why not make it a crime to expose somebody to ANY serious STD and make the penalty proportionate to the seriousness of the disease.

Also, proving actual intent to spread would be difficult. And having sex with somebody and not telling them you have a potentially fatal disease that you could transfer to them is a textbook definition of depraved indifference.

I do understand some of the concerns the bill addresses but I donít agree with taking this step given that it empowers and emboldens a society that is already very much invested only in self.

So many people have herpes and HPV, it's insane to expect them to have to disclose it. People would never get laid. Fuck that. Penalties for people with HIV, syphilis, etc. Make sense. Get vaccinated if you're scared of fucking genital warts.
Bill R Boggess
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:16 PM)
Bill R Boggess's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

That first link is based on 2011 studies.

Here's a more recent CDC piece on HRT:



https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/dcl/dcl/092717.html

What if they miss a dose of medication?

What if they aren't on medication?

The decent hing to do is let the other person know the situation and make the decision for themselves. At the very least, they can employ additional measures to ensure their own safety and piece of mind.
plagiarize
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:17 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kebiinu

If someone got treated for HIV, found out they have it, and neglected to tell their partners. The risk is on YOU. You chose to have sex with that person. Anytime you have sex with someone, you're taking a risk (and not just HIV, either) and it's not THEIR job to inform YOU on their status.

Would it be a nice thing to do? Yes. Should they go to jail if they don't? No.

Most people with HIV don't even know they have it. And the reason most don't know they have it, is because they fear the diagnosis, not the disease. The stigmas on HIV make it as if the diagnosis itself is a death sentence. Then people fear dating (or even just being around) people with HIV, and now you have people being selfish with their status on top of that.

This bill doesn't make those problems go away, but it encourages people to get tested, and get informed. It also makes people (like y'all) who are trying to live in a bubble; more aware of the various incurable and curable diseases you are at risk of contracting every, single, time you have sex.

Use condoms, protect yourself, get tested. Shit, if you REALLY want to be safe, don't have sex at all. We need to stop criminalizing HIV.

Yup.

Morals shouldn't lead to laws that do demonstrable harm. That's what appears to have happened in the case of making exposing someone to HIV a felony.

And notice that it's *exposing* people. Not infecting. The people who know they have it, by and large are much less infectious than those that don't know. And people are discouraged from getting tested by things like it being a felony to knowingly expose people to it.
kiyomi
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:17 PM)
kiyomi's Avatar

Originally Posted by legacyzero

I think you got your wires crossed. I dont understand.

The law is the accountability for those who are positive to be up front. Makes no sense to hear "Well I guess since there's no longer a law requiring I inform my partners, I feel much more accountable to do so!" That just makes no sense.

I guess I just feel that if two people knowingly have HIV, that between them, the one who lives in a state where it's not a felony to openly acknowledge that fact, and take a normal, healthy part in society, is more likely to be open about it. Whereas the person who lives in a state where it's still considered a felony, is less likely to want to disclose their STD to other people in situations where they could be exposing someone.

I realise that the notion of 'exposure' is up for debate, I'm just a proponent of letting people speak and be open about their status.
Emwitus
car flags....
car flags everywhere
(10-07-2017, 07:17 PM)
Emwitus's Avatar

Originally Posted by FiggyCal

This doesn't seem like a great idea.

Also I don't know how this could be true:



Is it?

They just released a research study finding where they said hiv patients under a certain viral load aren't at risk of transmitting the virus.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ransmit-virus/
Bill R Boggess
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:17 PM)
Bill R Boggess's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Which society would that be?

America as a whole, which is comprised of a population largely up its own ass.

We are a selfish people and in my estimation that is only worsening.

Perhaps you disagree.

Thread Tools