• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

legacyzero
Banned
(10-07-2017, 08:18 PM)
legacyzero'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.

Been a while since I've seen some to-the-letter victim blaming. That's not how this works. "Man, you got infected. I guess you shoulda acted more responsibly. That'll teach you!"

And how did this law or bill discourage people from getting tested/informed? The onus should ABSOLUTELY be on the infected party to warn their would-be partner. Perhaps THEY should have acted more responsibly before THEY got infected, and can no longer live a 100% normal life that doesn't include warning people.
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:18 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bill R Boggess

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.

PrEp exists. It is also covered by insurance if you are in one of the high risk groups. Being gay qualifies as one.
plagiarize
Banned
(10-07-2017, 08:19 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bill R Boggess

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.

Missing the occasional dose of medication won't do anything. Not being on treatment obviously would greatly change things.

Of course it's the decent thing to do to tell a partner you have an STD.

Again, doesn't mean not doing it should be a felony, but only in the case of being HIV positive.

And again, please tell me which society you were referring to when you said this:

given that it empowers and emboldens a society that is already very much invested only in self.

Somnid
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:19 PM)
Somnid's Avatar
I guess it makes sense enough that we shouldn't handle negligent exposure on a legal level. Still, people not disclosing to partners are pretty awful humans. If you feel the need to hide it then how could anyone trust you aren't also a liar?
holygeesus
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:19 PM)
holygeesus's Avatar
While I personally find it morally repugnant behaviour to knowingly put a partner at risk, without warning them of the consequences, I don't see how it can really be a legal issue, as it is too easy to feign ignorance (though couldn't your medical records be opened if there is legal precedent?)

Either way, wouldn't the risk be minuscule, if protection is used anyway? Again, I find it horrible behaviour, but legally it seems a minefield to me.
Brock Reiher
Banned
(10-07-2017, 08:20 PM)

Originally Posted by Wheatly

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

Very fair. I'd still be pissed tho
GoldenEye 007
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:20 PM)
GoldenEye 007's Avatar
I think there also some posts in here being quite dismissive on the situation too. Coming across as getting treatment is no big deal and easily accessible to all and is free of side-effects. Or that the infection itself or others aren't that serious.

I'm willing to more than consider that the law was inconsistent and heavy handed. But let's not act like getting HIV isn't a big deal and a serious long-term situation to be faced with.
plagiarize
Banned
(10-07-2017, 08:21 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by legacyzero

Been a while since I've seen some to-the-letter victim blaming. That's not how this works. "Man, you got infected. I guess you shoulda acted more responsibly. That'll teach you!"

And how did this law or bill discourage people from getting tested/informed?

Because it's not a felony to have sex with someone if you have HIV but aren't diagnosed.

As it says in the OP. And as other people have explained numerous times.

But sure, your right to put your penis in someone without a condom on it, totally overrides their right to privacy about any medical conditions they may have.
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:21 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by legacyzero

Been a while since I've seen some to-the-letter victim blaming. That's not how this works. "Man, you got infected. I guess you shoulda acted more responsibly. That'll teach you!"

And how did this law or bill discourage people from getting tested/informed?

Because the law specifically says 'knowingly'. You can't get charged if you didn't know, so ergo, don't get tested so you 'didn't know'. It's an actual well known phenomenon especially in the LGBT community. What ends up happening is 'you didn't know' but you are still spreading the virus (if you have it).

The charge being lowered to a misdemeanor in this case is meant to specifically address this.
Sandoval
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:21 PM)
Sandoval's Avatar

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.

Gee so instead of dying, you're just mortally addicted to health insurance and likely broke due to copays...
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
(10-07-2017, 08:21 PM)
TechnicPuppet'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.

Diabetes is 2 different diseases. Type 2 is reversible. Type 1 isn't.
kiyomi
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:21 PM)
kiyomi's Avatar

Originally Posted by legacyzero

Been a while since I've seen some to-the-letter victim blaming. That's not how this works. "Man, you got infected. I guess you shoulda acted more responsibly. That'll teach you!"

Originally Posted by legacyzero

And how did this law or bill discourage people from getting tested/informed? The onus should ABSOLUTELY be on the infected party to warn their would-be partner. Perhaps THEY should have acted more responsibly before THEY got infected, and can no longer live a 100% normal life that doesn't include warning people.

Holy fucking shit.
Crazyorloco
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:22 PM)
Crazyorloco's Avatar

Originally Posted by Beer Monkey

It should be a felony to knowingly expose anyone to ANY disease.


Not sure if serious.

Agree. These days HIV treatment is amazing. So I feel like the laws are changing with the times.

Originally Posted by ChainedMaster

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.

I actually would really appreciate it if someone disclosed they have herpes or HPV to me. I would see it as the person being a decent human being and also someone that cares about my health.
Bill R Boggess
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:22 PM)
Bill R Boggess's Avatar

Originally Posted by ChainedMaster

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.


Whatís insane to me is having so little respect for another human being as to believe that your immediate desire to have sexual gratification supersedes the need to let them know you have an STD that you might very well transfer to them.

And letís be clear, Iím talking about situations where people KNOWINGLY engage in unprotected sex despite having something like HIV or even, to a lesser extent, herpes.

Itís selfish, myopic and downright gruesome behavior.
legacyzero
Banned
(10-07-2017, 08:24 PM)
legacyzero's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Because it's not a felony to have sex with someone if you have HIV but aren't diagnosed.

As it says in the OP. And as other people have explained numerous times.

But sure, your right to put your penis in someone without a condom on it, totally overrides their right to privacy about any medical conditions they may have.

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

Because the law specifically says 'knowingly'. You can't get charged if you didn't know, so ergo, don't get tested so you 'didn't know'. It's an actual well known phenomenon especially in the LGBT community. What ends up happening is 'you didn't know' but you are still spreading the virus (if you have it).

The charge being lowered to a misdemeanor in this case is meant to specifically address this.

I can agree that not knowing is different. Sure. But again, the onus is on YOU to get tested as much as it is on EVERYONE to be educated.

And no, HIPAA laws and medical privacy is/should not be the same as knowingly infecting and endangering somebody's life and well-being. I know HIPAA laws to a degree, especially for my job. It's not the same.

Originally Posted by kiyomi

Holy fucking shit.

What? I'm using their logic. The burden absolutely should be on the person who is infected to inform who they're about to sleep with. Protection or not. Condoms break.

Even if HIV+ isn't even slightly the life risk is once was, it's still a hassle, a high cost, and a burden I wouldn't want to share. When you refuse to tell somebody about your infection, you remove their agency of choice.
Briarios
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:24 PM)
Briarios's Avatar
Just based on my limited knowledge here, I'm a wee bit torn on this ... I can see both sides.

But, the one thing being left out here is that this is taking about a consensual relationship. I mean, if you have sex with anyone, you need to accept the possibility that they may be infecting you with a disease - period.

So whether someone just doesn't know they have something or they know and they're hiding it from you, you can't just make an assumption. It's not hot and sexy, but getting tested before you start any relationship is just smart - and both parties need to share.

I know everyone wants it to be like a romantic comedy or porn, but your quality of life is more important.

Once informed, then you can make the right decision for you. I know it's not realistic to expect this of people, but everyone had to take responsibility for themselves.
Poor GRIMES
Banned
(10-07-2017, 08:25 PM)
I can agree with those saying the law is discriminatory.

I can also agree that exposing anyone to an illness willingly should be considered a felony, but HIV should not be the only STD targeted in this instance.

Itís a complicated issue because of the treatments available now. But, I honestly think you should be openly relaying that information to your partners whether you are undetectable or positive and allow them the ability to choose if theyíre open to sleeping with you knowing that.
Merc_
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:25 PM)
Merc_'s Avatar
I like how nobody has answered the question of how much medical treatment for HIV will cost a person even though it's been asked in this thread multiple times.

Gee, I wonder why?
Plumbob
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:26 PM)
Plumbob's Avatar
It's pretty dark to see so many people trying to defend the act of deliberately exposing a sex partner to HIV.

When we talk about consent, we call it "informed consent" - but I guess it's okay to not inform your partner about life-altering consequences if you proceed?
Bold One
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:26 PM)
Bold One's Avatar

Originally Posted by GaimeGuy

Look, HIV is no longer the death sentence it once was, but it still does shorten one's life span by 5-20 years (depending on the study done), it's still incurable, it still is a death sentence for fertility, and it still incurs significant lifelong medical expenses.

There's no reason exposing others to this kind of a chronic condition shouldn't be considered an affront to society. That's what a crime is. That's why the state, instead of the victim, is the prosecution (plaintiff)

Knowingly exposing someone to that is also a morally repugnant thing to do.
plagiarize
Banned
(10-07-2017, 08:27 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Somnid

I guess it makes sense enough that we shouldn't handle negligent exposure on a legal level. Still, people not disclosing to partners are pretty awful humans. If you feel the need to hide it then how could anyone trust you aren't also a liar?

Hypothetically, say I'm taking my treatment responsibly, and my viral load has been measured as 0 the lest two times I got checked up. The CDC have ruled that there is 0 chance I would infect you.

You want to have unprotected sex with me. I know that because of your outdated understanding of what it is to be HIV positive, you wouldn't sleep with me if you knew I was HIV positive, even though there is 0 chance I would infect you. So I don't tell you.

We have sex.

You don't get HIV.

Later, you see some of my viral load results by accident. You become irrationally scared (because the results show my load is 0) and began to sweat that you've got AIDS now. You spend a day or so stressed out, until you can get tested and get your results back. They are naturally negative.

Was it wrong of me not to tell you? I'd say yes.

Should I have to spend a year in prison for it?

Hell no.
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:27 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by Merc_

I like how nobody has answered the question of how much medical treatment for HIV will cost a person even though it's been asked in this thread multiple times.

Gee, I wonder why?

The cost of medical treatment or just general Healthcare in general in the USA is a whole other issue entirely. It's expensive, period.
Plumbob
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:29 PM)
Plumbob's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

The cost of medical treatment or just general Healthcare in general in the USA is a whole other issue entirely. It's expensive, period.

It is the issue. Not everyone can afford care.
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:29 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by Plumbob

It's pretty dark to see so many people trying to defend the act of deliberately exposing a sex partner to HIV.

When we talk about consent, we call it "informed consent" - but I guess it's okay to not inform your partner about life-altering consequences if you proceed?

We are not advocating for 'knowingly' exposing someone to HIV. We are simply saying that there is a double standard that exists and the problems with current laws regarding the criminalization of HIV when other diseases are not specially targeted. It's a lot more nuanced than 'you want everyone exposed to have HIV!'.
FiggyCal
Banned
(10-07-2017, 08:30 PM)

Originally Posted by legacyzero

I can agree that not knowing is different. Sure. But again, the onus is on YOU to get tested as much as it is on EVERYONE to be educated.

And no, HIPAA laws and medical privacy is/should not be the same as knowingly infecting and endangering somebody's life and well-being. I know HIPPA laws to a degree, especially for my job. It's not the same.


What? I'm using their logic. The burden absolutely should be on the person who is infected to inform who they're about to sleep with. Protection or not. Condoms break.

Even if HIV+ isn't even slightly the life risk is once was, it's still a hassle, a high cost, and a burden I wouldn't want to share. When you refuse to tell somebody about your infection, you remove their agency of choice.

Right, especially since they may not have agreed to sexual intercourse if they had known about the infection risk. And (probably) if you know you have hiv and you don't tell your partner, it's because you know they would not sleep with you. It's basically violating their right to consent.
legacyzero
Banned
(10-07-2017, 08:30 PM)
legacyzero's Avatar

Originally Posted by Merc_

I like how nobody has answered the question of how much medical treatment for HIV will cost a person even though it's been asked in this thread multiple times.

Gee, I wonder why?

Because your financial burden isn't their problem.

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

The cost of medical treatment or just general Healthcare in general in the USA is a whole other issue entirely. It's expensive, period.

It isn't a whole other issue at all. It's a PRIMARY issue. HIV may not be the death sentence that most paint it as, but everything else that comes with it is terrifying too.
VeeP
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:31 PM)
VeeP's Avatar

Originally Posted by Baraka Obama

I feel as if you donít know anything about HIV and current medicine.

Hey, could you elaborate on this? As far as I know, AIDs can be treated, but it can't be cured. HPV can't be cured, but it has vaccines available against it - and overall has better systems in place to prevent complications (Pap smears, etc.). Hepatitis B is often given as vaccines in most countries, and in the majority of people it resolves on it's own. And as far as I know Syphilis can be cured.


I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this law. There's a lot of things to consider. Having HIV is still a stigma in the US, and this might be good step in trying to reduce that. But then you also have those (very rare) reports where sometimes people try to infect as many people with HIV as possible, and things like that, and having it's possible getting rid of this law would make people feel less responsible.
plagiarize
Banned
(10-07-2017, 08:31 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Merc_

I like how nobody has answered the question of how much medical treatment for HIV will cost a person even though it's been asked in this thread multiple times.

Gee, I wonder why?

It's way too expensive.

Like just about every other treatment for a disease you have to live with is in America.

Expose does not equal infect. There are steps everyone can and should take to protect themselves from STDs. You can never know if the person you are sleeping with has them, and they may have no idea themselves.

Felony means a year or more in prison.

Expose means that happens to me whether you got infected or not.
GoldenEye 007
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:31 PM)
GoldenEye 007's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

The cost of medical treatment or just general Healthcare in general in the USA is a whole other issue entirely. It's expensive, period.

This is true. So it stands to reason people might not want a possibility of an increase of $10,000-$20,000 a year until they die or there is a full cure. Not sure if that is before or after insurance - I assume before.

I don't think you can divorce cost from an issue like this. Especially because of the state of health care in the US.
ChainedMaster
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 08:31 PM)

Originally Posted by Crazyorloco

Agree. These days HIV treatment is amazing. So I feel like the laws are changing with the times.



I actually would really appreciate it if someone disclosed they have herpes or HPV to me. I would see it as the person being a decent human being and also someone that cares about my health.

If you care that much about HPV, get vaccinated. So many people have it unknowingly that there's no reason to disclose it to someone who refuses to get vaccinated.
CDX
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:31 PM)
CDX's Avatar
I don't agree with this AT ALL. I'm also of the opinion that having sex with someone while having almost any STD that is undisclosed to the other should ALSO be criminal. So that's my perspective.

It only has a nearly zero transmission rate if people are adhering to the proper treatment. People may think they are adhering to the proper treatment dosage, but intact may not be at all.

HIV will give you LIFELONG expensive medical expenses, and we live in country that doesn't have even have UHC. PrEP isn't even affordable for everyone that wants it.
To Far Away Times
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:32 PM)
To Far Away Times's Avatar
That's... not right.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
(10-07-2017, 08:32 PM)
SapientWolf's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Hypothetically, say I'm taking my treatment responsibly, and my viral load has been measured as 0 the lest two times I got checked up. The CDC have ruled that there is 0 chance I would infect you.

You want to have unprotected sex with me. I know that because of your outdated understanding of what it is to be HIV positive, you wouldn't sleep with me if you knew I was HIV positive, even though there is 0 chance I would infect you. So I don't tell you.

We have sex.

You don't get HIV.

Later, you see some of my viral load results by accident. You become irrationally scared (because the results show my load is 0) and began to sweat that you've got AIDS now. You spend a day or so stressed out, until you can get tested and get your results back. They are naturally negative.

Was it wrong of me not to tell you? I'd say yes.

Should I have to spend a year in prison for it?

Hell no.

That's a grey area for informed consent, and grey isn't a good color for sexual consent.
Plumbob
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:33 PM)
Plumbob's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

We are not advocating for 'knowingly' exposing someone to HIV. We are simply saying that there is a double standard that exists and the problems with current laws regarding the criminalization of HIV when other diseases are not specially targeted. It's a lot more nuanced than 'you want everyone exposed to have HIV!'.

So you support criminalization of deliberate exposure to any STI. I think that's a reasonable approach.
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:33 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by FiggyCal

Right, especially since they may not have agreed to sexual intercourse if they had known about the infection risk. And (probably) if you know you have hiv and you don't tell your partner, it's because you know they would not sleep with you. It's basically violating their right to consent.

Then why target HIV specifically? This is a rhetorical question.

It should be all or nothing.


Originally Posted by Plumbob

So you support criminalization of deliberate exposure to any STI. I think that's a reasonable approach.

Correct.
Bold One
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:34 PM)
Bold One'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.

WTF?


Did I misread that?
Brock Reiher
Banned
(10-07-2017, 08:34 PM)

Originally Posted by Plumbob

So you support criminalization of deliberate exposure to any STI. I think that's a reasonable approach.

That would be impossible to prove though, yeah? Like you could always say you didn't even know you hate it or that it was in remission so it should have been safe.
Bill R Boggess
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:34 PM)
Bill R Boggess's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Missing the occasional dose of medication won't do anything. Not being on treatment obviously would greatly change things.

Of course it's the decent thing to do to tell a partner you have an STD.

Again, doesn't mean not doing it should be a felony, but only in the case of being HIV positive.

And again, please tell me which society you were referring to when you said this:

I already explained who I was referring to.

America = Arguably the most selfish country on earth.

Why? Did you think that was a veiled attack on the gay community? Because I can assure you, I'm a passionate supporter of LGBT rights.

Like I stated previously, I get why people feel this law stigmatizes AIDS/HIV given the history of the disease but I also think anyone who knowingly infects another with HIV should be treated like a criminal.

It's fucking atrocious and unfathomable that anyone would choose not to let somebody else know before having intercourse.
Nerazar
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:34 PM)
I am relieved that HIV is no longer a brutal death sentence like it was before... but reading some comments which downplay the consequences of it is scary indeed. Knowingly exposing anyone to HIV or other serious diseases should be punished harshly just like poisoning food items in a supermarket.

So my take would be to increase punishment for that kind of behavior and to extend it to other STDs. It is a different situation if you don't know about the infection, though.
Kebiinu
Banned
(10-07-2017, 08:35 PM)
Lol @ some of y'all saying "ALL STDs should be criminalized!" do you know how prevalent STDs are in America? A quick google search will show that as many as 90% of American adults have been exposed to herpes. An absolutely incurable disease that can appear around the genitals and as cold sores. Ever had a cold sore before? Congratulations, you have herpes. Make sure you diagnose that information to every potential date/fling/romance. HPV? 75%...but dont worry, in most cases the virus has no health issues! Still, it's an STD we gotta criminalize, yeah?

Take responsibility. Get educated. Get tested. America is already a cesspit ripe with disease. Don't blame others when you should be asking yourself why you never used a condom, or why "Yeah, I'm clean." is a good enough response before you drop your pants.

My coworker/good friend has a body count of 16+ of random women and romances, when I asked him if he knows his status, his response was "Well I'm sure I'm clean, I've never noticed anything." and when I asked him about the last time he's been tested for STD's, he told me he's NEVER been tested. NEVER BEEN TESTED. The man is 26 years old, slept with all types of women, kissed all types of mouths, and he's NEVER been tested.

I guffawed at his responses, but he was telling me how it's not a big deal at all. He's a totally normal dude otherwise, and I know he's one of many, many Americans. Maybe even some of y'all can relate...

When was the last time you've been tested? If your answer isn't "less than six months ago," then you honestly have no say in whether or not STD's should be criminalized.

Worry about yourself, not putting people in jail for shit like this.

Originally Posted by legacyzero

Been a while since I've seen some to-the-letter victim blaming. That's not how this works. "Man, you got infected. I guess you shoulda acted more responsibly. That'll teach you!"

And how did this law or bill discourage people from getting tested/informed? The onus should ABSOLUTELY be on the infected party to warn their would-be partner. Perhaps THEY should have acted more responsibly before THEY got infected, and can no longer live a 100% normal life that doesn't include warning people.

Lmfao. Thanks for proving my point.
Mammoth Jones
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:35 PM)
Mammoth Jones's Avatar
I doubt there should some epidemic of people knowingly out to spread HIV. There will always be bug chasers. But I consider that more of a mental health thing. It's up to people having sex with those whose status is unknown to them to make sure they're practicing safe sex.

Originally Posted by Sandoval

Gee so instead of dying, you're just mortally addicted to health insurance and likely broke due to copays...

This. I'll never be able to cosign acting like HIV is no biggie. Maybe it's a generational thing. But you have to take a strict regimen of drugs for the rest of your life. And hope you have insurance to cover it. And even then it will still affect you.
GregLombardi
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:36 PM)
GregLombardi's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

If you are undetectable (someone on treatment) it is impossible for you to infect someone.

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue is people who have HIV, aren't properly treating themselves, and then having unprotected sex with unknowing participants and never telling them they are positive and are still detectable. Or, like that story out of the UK recently, purposefully finding men to have sex with on grindr in order to give them HIV.

As a person with a horse in this race, I think it is horrifying that someone can expose you to HIV without saying something and have no consequences.
btgorman
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:36 PM)
btgorman's Avatar
California... what are you doing? Stupid thing to do.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
(10-07-2017, 08:37 PM)
Never thought I would see so much support to willingly infecting people.

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.

That`s reasonable in that case, not like what is being advocated in this thread.
Temeculan3000
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:37 PM)
Temeculan3000's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kebiinu

Lol @ some of y'all saying "ALL STDs should be criminalized!" do you know how prevalent STDs are in America? A quick google search will show that as many as 90% of American adults have been exposed to herpes. An absolutely incurable disease that can appear around the genitals and as cold sores. Ever had a cold sore before? Congratulations, you have herpes. Make sure you diagnose that information to every potential date/fling/romance. HPV? 75%...but dont worry, in most cases the virus has no health issues! Still, it's an STD we gotta criminalize, yeah?

Take responsibility. Get educated. Get tested. America is already a cesspit ripe with disease. Don't blame others when you should be asking yourself why you never used a condom, or why "Yeah, I'm clean." is a good enough response before you drop your pants.

My coworker/good friend has a body count of 16+ of random women and romances, when I asked him if he knows his status, his response was "Well I'm sure I'm clean, I've never noticed anything." and when I asked him about the last time he's been tested for STD's, he told me he's NEVER been tested. NEVER BEEN TESTED. The man is 26 years old, slept with all types of women, kissed all types of mouths, and he's NEVER been tested.

I guffawed at his responses, but he was telling me how it's not a big deal at all. He's a totally normal dude otherwise, and I know he's one of many, many Americans. Maybe even some of y'all can relate...

When was the last time you've been tested? If your answer isn't "less than six months ago," then you honestly have no say in whether or not STD's should be criminalized.

Worry about yourself, not putting people in jail for shit like this.

I've never had one, the rest of you can go to jail. I look forward to lighter traffic and no waits at restaurants.
ZealousD
Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
(10-07-2017, 08:37 PM)
ZealousD's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

Hiv is the only disease where it is even a crime to 'knowingly' expose it so that should tell you all you need to know the intention of the original law.

I don't think this is actually true. Pretty sure you can get locked up for bioterrorism.
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:37 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nerazar

I am relieved that HIV is no longer a brutal death sentence like it was before... but reading some comments which downplay the consequences of it is scary indeed. Knowingly exposing anyone to HIV or other serious diseases should be punished harshly just like poisoning food items in a supermarket.

So my take would be to increase punishment for that kind of behavior and to extend it to other STDs. It is a different situation if you don't know about the infection, though.

The last part is exactly the reason why these laws are more harmful in the end. It incentivizes not getting tested at all while still porking.


Originally Posted by ZealousD

I don't think this is actually true. Pretty sure you can get locked up for bioterrorism.

That's a terrorism charge...
Plumbob
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:37 PM)
Plumbob's Avatar

Originally Posted by Brock Reiher

That would be impossible to prove though, yeah? Like you could always say you didn't even know you hate it or that it was in remission so it should have been safe.

Cases like this would be difficult to prosecute. Doesn't mean the law shouldn't exist.
Spiritual_Chaos
Banned
(10-07-2017, 08:38 PM)

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

Hiv is the only disease where it is even a crime to 'knowingly' expose it so that should tell you all you need to know the intention of the original law.

Not True. Not in sweden. There are a few diseases (hiv, klamydia etc) Where it is a crime not to inform your partner.
Temeculan3000
Member
(10-07-2017, 08:38 PM)
Temeculan3000's Avatar

Originally Posted by ZealousD

I don't think this is actually true. Pretty sure you can get locked up for bioterrorism.

Just a little slap on the wrist in California.

Thread Tools