It seems there are a lot of wires being crossed in this thread.
Open communication is the ideal and of course ideally we should be able to talk to each other about this stuff and inform each other if we have something like HIV.
However, there's a HUGE difference between "you SHOULD tell someone if you have HIV" and "you're LEGALLY MANDATED to tell someone if you have HIV and will be guilty of a felony if you don't." (There's also a huge difference between you should face a felony, something you don't face with any other disease if you knowingly expose someone to HIV, and that you should face a misdemeanor if you do so, like everything else).
The first is a good thing. That's what should happen, ideally. The latter is completely counter-productive and just leads to people never even getting tested if they have HIV ever, even if they suspect it.
It's not contradictory to say that you think it's something that should happen, that they should talk about it, but you also feel that should it not be disclosed, they shouldn't be liable for a felony of all things. You can feel that it's a terrible thing to do, to not tell them (I don't agree with that myself and recognize that it's more complicated than that, but people are welcome to their feelings and I won't disparage them for that, drawing their own conclusions, and feeling differently). That it makes them a terrible person, or perhaps even more than that. But not all terrible behavior needs to be illicit, and particularly not to the level of being a felony offense. Specifically when current treatment makes the risk of transmission as close to zero as possible. Not zero. But as close to it as possible.
That being the case, that if the proper precautions are being taken to reduce the level of transmission to being as close to zero as possible, the idea of it being a felony being crazy to me (particularly when other diseases aren't held to that standard regardless). You're free to feel that that's still shitty behavior. I disagree, but that's still fair enough. But when the risk of transmission is as close to nonexistent as possible and the person who's HIV+ faces a MUCH greater chance of repercussions by simply revealing that fact (due to persecution/prejudice/misconceptions that remain concerning HIV and AIDS) than their partner ever did of being infected, it being a felony of all things isn't the right answer to me. Is it shitty behavior? Perhaps. But should it not only be illicit, but a felony at that? No. Not all shitty behavior needs to be illicit, particularly when the risk of transmission with proper precautions is as close to zero as possible.
Like.. to give an analogy, that's like making all heterosexual vaginal intercourse a felony because of the possibility that you're "knowingly exposing you're partner to not only the possibility of an unintentional pregnancy, but also such severe conditions as an ectopic pregnancy" regardless of whether birth control, condoms, IUDs, or any other forms of contraception is used or not. Since technically the risk of an unintentional pregnancy (and thus also the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy, which, if nothing is done, can lead to rupture of the fallopian tubes, internal bleeding/hemorrhaging, and death to both mother and child) is also non-zero regardless of how many forms of protection are used, and thus can conceivably cause the death of the would-be mother.
Of course, that's naturally ridiculous--but that's the logic people seem to be using here. That regardless of how minute the chance, there's still a chance the other person could be infected with HIV. Doesn't matter how stupidly low or practically nonexistent that chance is. It exists, and therefore is the other person's business by virtue of that fact. Same logic. Any vaginal intercourse carries the risk, however minute and contrived, of the death of the woman. Therefore, it should be illicit to protect women.
That's where that type of logic leads. Obviously, that's contrived as hell. But the possibility exists, so that should be enough right? Of course not, cause that would be crazy and obviously doesn't work besides. Same deal. Call it shitty behavior if you wish. But there's a huge difference between something being shitty behavior and that behavior being designated a FELONY of all things.
Cause yes, it's possible to argue that it's poor form not to tell someone. But nonetheless, the possibility of transmission, with proper medication, is just as low if not lower than causing an unintentional ectopic pregnancy while having protected vaginal sex. And similarly, while it's nonetheless technically possible that HIV could be spread regardless of the precautions taken, it's also possible that simply telling someone that you're HIV+ opens yourself up to persecution or attack or the loss of your job, etc, in certain areas due to misconceptions and prejudice that remains. The chance of spreading HIV is technically possible if precautions are taken, but only technically. But if that technicality is nonetheless enough, those other situations must be considered for the same reason. And while fear of persecution may not justify not telling someone, considering those kind of fears makes it more understandable at the very least WHY they wouldn't tell someone y'know? And even if that still makes them a bad person regardless, being a bad person and it making them a criminal are two entirely different ballfields.
So TL;DR:
Is it shitty behavior not to tell someone? Perhaps. But feeling that you SHOULD tell someone and feeling that you should be GUILTY OF A FELONY if you don't tell someone are two very different things. Especially when, no matter how well-intentioned people feel laws like that are, it being a felony is a terrible flawed policy that doesn't achieve its aims at all, and only makes people more hesitant to even get TESTED for HIV in the first place (which naturally means, particularly with misconceptions over what the law itself does and does not prohibit as good/illicit behavior and not being sure if it's an all-or-nothing deal or what, that they aren't getting treatment either, and because they aren't seeking treatment, that they're a GREATER risk for transmitting the virus as a direct result of the effects of this law than they would be if it didn't exist. If it didn't exist, people would be more willing to find out if they have it, and in turn seek treatment, with that treatment in turn reducing their risk of transmitting the disease to next to zero. But since it does, they don't even find out if they're HIV+ at all, don't seek treatment, and thus are much more likely to spread it than they otherwise would be. Like I said, completely counter-productive).
So people are free to think that's terrible, shitty behavior. I disagree, but that's one thing. It's a completely different to think that it's not only shitty behavior not to tell someone, but that it should also be a felony ON TOP OF THAT, particularly since that's counterproductive legislation that if anything has the exact opposite results from what it intends, and only makes the problems it intends to solve worse. Those are two different things, and it's not contradictory to think that it makes you a terrible person not to tell someone, but that you nonetheless don't feel that it should be a felony.
I hope that it's just a lot of wires getting crossed in this thread, and thinking that they're saying something they're not, and that this helps with that if so.
