HIV testing - A standard part of your yearly physical

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Langox510x

decided to infect someone by not telling them

Here's the thing -- by having unprotected sex with someone, you're assuming the risk, aren't you? Why should the law consider the person who passed on the HIV "guilty" of anything when the other person engaged in consensual sex with him or her? That makes no sense.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Here's the thing -- by having unprotected sex with someone, you're assuming the risk, aren't you? Why should the law consider the person who passed on the HIV "guilty" of anything when the other person engaged in consensual sex with him or her? That makes no sense.

By accepting a drink from someone you don't know, you're assuming the risk that there might be a date-rape drug in the drink...but it's still illegal to slip someone the date-rape drug without their consent, and that person, if caught would be prosecuted.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

By accepting a drink from someone you don't know, you're assuming the risk that there might be a date-rape drug in the drink...but it's still illegal to slip someone the date-rape drug without their consent, and that person, if caught would be prosecuted.

Having consensual sex with someone without a condom results in an exchange of bodily fluids. I mean for real, when you have sex and don't use a condom, don't you KNOW that dude's stuff is going to end up in your body? I think that's different from being drugged. A better analogy would be -- if you have sex with someone and don't use birth control, you're assuming the risk that you'll get knocked up. If you get knocked up even though you don't want to, can the guy be prosecuted? Tortious pregnancy? Illegal insemination? Or too bad so sad for you?

My question is -- if you KNOW bodily fluids will be exchanged, why would you ever assume your partner doesn't have diseases?

What I really don't get about any sort of crime related to knowing HIV infection, aside from the sheer stupidity of the whole concept -- isn't it incredibly counterproductive? Assuming that any such law requires the person passing on HIV to know that he or she is infected and not tell the sex partner -- well, duh, let's all just not ever get tested! Then we'll never know and nobody can ever say that we knowingly or intentionally infected anyone!

[Langox510x]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Having consensual sex with someone without a condom results in an exchange of bodily fluids. I mean for real, when you have sex and don't use a condom, don't you KNOW that dude's stuff is going to end up in your body? I think that's different from being drugged. A better analogy would be -- if you have sex with someone and don't use birth control, you're assuming the risk that you'll get knocked up. If you get knocked up even though you don't want to, can the guy be prosecuted? Tortious pregnancy? Illegal insemination? Or too bad so sad for you?

My question is -- if you KNOW bodily fluids will be exchanged, why would you ever assume your partner doesn't have diseases?

I think we should tick with an analogy such as the date rape drug. A girl who doesn't use birth control can't claim that the guy knew she would get pregnant. Plus like rape purposely infecting someone with AID's is illegal and can get you time in prison.

AID's isn't something that kills off one person then goes away, AID's is exponential. 2 then 4 then 8 then 16 then 32 and so on. Think about 50 years ago when AID's was unheard of and now is some big figure in the millions. Another 50 years from now we might be saying billions.

I'm not trying to get off topic here, but in my natural resources class we have been talking about exponential growth rate of humans, which is now up to 1.3% which means population growth at this rate could double in 70 or so years. I'm seriously going to see what percentage rate AID's is spreading.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Langox510x

Plus like rape purposely infecting someone with AID's is illegal and can get you time in prison.

Your post raises many, many questions, but for a start, can you provide a citation for this?

[Langox510x]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Your post raises many, many questions, but for a start, can you provide a citation for this?

For now here are a couple of people who were just charged. We have a case from back at home that was a little famous a few years back because the man actually wanted to infect as many wmn as possible. The first case I heard on this was back when I was in HS, and a woman had the same intention of infecting as many men as she could, I believe in the 30's before she was caught.

Well I'll see if I can find the case that happened back at home, but for now I did a quick google search and this guy was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. I'll see if I can dig up something better in a bit.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...55C0A961948260

This one is a little more on point except that again it was just a charge and is actually in suppost of the man:
http://www.thebinarycircumstance.com...the-black-man/

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by Langox510x

For now here are a couple of people who were just charged. We have a case from back at home that was a little famous a few years back because the man actually wanted to infect as many wmn as possible. The first case I heard on this was back when I was in HS, and a woman had the same intention of infecting as many men as she could, I believe in the 30's before she was caught.

Well I'll see if I can find the case that happened back at home, but for now I did a quick google search and this guy was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. I'll see if I can dig up something better in a bit.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...55C0A961948260

This one is a little more on point except that again it was just a charge and is actually in suppost of the man:
http://www.thebinarycircumstance.com...the-black-man/

I'm at the point where I'm confused about the point you're trying to make. Can you restate it? Are you saying that any and all persons who infect others with HIV should be charged with a crime for infecting person X and every other person that person X infects?

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by Langox510x

I think we should tick with an analogy such as the date rape drug. A girl who doesn't use birth control can't claim that the guy knew she would get pregnant. Plus like rape purposely infecting someone with AID's is illegal and can get you time in prison.

Regardless of whether the "infector" knew they were HIV+, valkyrie still made a valid point. If you agree to have unprotected sex with someone you are making a choice to put yourself at risk. (I'm not saying the person would deserve to be infected if they did put themselves at risk....so don't even go there.)

[Langox510x]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

By accepting a drink from someone you don't know, you're assuming the risk that there might be a date-rape drug in the drink...but it's still illegal to slip someone the date-rape drug without their consent, and that person, if caught would be prosecuted.

I was just about to go there.

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

I don't think it's very hard to pull in three figures a year. Also, AIDS has no apostrophe.

Oh, I mean 6, lol!