If you weren’t 13 years old, I’d suspect that you were drunk when you typed this. Are your parents out of town?
Please address the pamphlet, and not your prejudice against Planned Parenthood’s political stances.
-
No. Intent is important. They clearly manifest the intent of keeping people safe. My gripe with them is their choice to weigh the need for privacy for an HIV sufferer higher than the need to disclose relevant information to a sexual partner. But you can’t pick only part of their advice and then point to the parade of horribles that will result if only it is followed. If ALL their advice is followed, the incidence of infection will be small. (Non-zero, but small).
-
Planned Parenthood makes no laws, enforces no policies. The only way they are a “danger” is if people listen to them, and surely those people deserve some share of the responsibilty for doing so.
-
Stop helping, mmkay?
Is there ANY woo-woo rightwing drama scare that you’re not completely down with?
If people stopped thinking about self-gratification and more about the good of all by abstaining from all sex once they knew they were infected by HIV/AIDS than the rate of infection would be even smaller…
But sigh people won’t do that.
Anyways no matter how minor this advice forms the brochure it’s still dangerous anymore than someone who writes “By the way you don’t need to get vaccines” in a long book if people listen to it.
They are a major groups considered “mainstream” as ACLU or NRA or other pressure organizations not a bunch of fringe nuts who no one listens to.
Curtis, why don’t you quit while you’re ahead, okay? Trust me, you don’t want to go down this road.
Yes. This. But then again, it seems like the type of people who would knowingly pass HIV just for the sake of getting laid, is very almost pathologically self centered.
I gotta say maybe if knowingly passing HIV came with the price tag of having to pay the victim’s HIV related health care costs, maybe transmission would plummet to ZERO!
Wait, what you’re positing doesn’t contradict what you’re claiming that it contradicts. The right exists alongside the moral obligation. While it is important to protect potential partners, HIV+ people still have the right to determine for themselves the best time and fashion to go about that.
As long as “…the best time and fashion to go about that…” is BEFORE intimate sexual contact, sure.
But that’s not what this brochure is limiting itself to, is it?
Bricker - if you really wanted an honest debate on the topic of legally enforced disclosure you could have done that without a misleading thread title and the blatant attempt to misrepresent the position of an organisation you a religiously opposed to.
I wonder if Lynn Bodoni is going to charge in and accuse Bricker of trolling.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - the title is not misleading, and there has been no misrepresentation.
The thread title is not misleading. It is precisely correct. Planned Parenthood opposes mandatory HIV disclosure before sex. The pamphlet says precisely that: they believe that laws that make disclosure mandatory are wrong, that they violate the rights of HIV+ people. It’s plainly laid out, at least twice.
Nor am I misrepresenting their position, unless you have some evidence to show that their position is not what their pamphlet says it is.
Other who have read this thread, and who are presumably fans of Planned Parenthood, have no trouble saying that this one position is not one they agree with. And I, in turn, have defended PP against Curtis’ attempt to turn this one position into a general attack on them.
Your inability to criticize them at all, even when they’ve clearly staked out an untenable position, suggests more that YOUR bias is in play. It’s true that I’m no fan of Planned Parenthood – but it’s equally true that this particular, single issue is one they’re wrong about.
Why can’t you simply acknowledge that?
Thats describes me for sure. I am no PP diehard follower/lover, but I agree in general with their mostly pragmatic approach on most things. As for the things I might disagree with them on, I at least recognize they are the sort of things that are highly debateable, with no obvious answer and ones in which IMO entirely reasonable people could have totally reasonable reasons for coming to opposite conclusions.
And then they throw this “don’t tell if you don’t want to” immoral turd out there…givign me one helluva a WTF moment.
Sure.
I think tagos is merging his feeling that PP is on “his side” and thus cannot be criticized with his feeling that I have an antipathy to PP and thus my criticisms of them must be grounded in that antipathy.
Agreed. And I don’t have a problem criminalizing failure to inform, especially before unprotected sex (I think the impetus for at least some of these laws comes from cases where HIV-positive men have had sex with numerous women without informing them of their seropositivity).
A blanket stance opposing any mandatory notification is a loser for International Planned Parenthood (does the U.S. organization agree?). I’m not even sure how this falls into their overall mission. It just provides a handy club for anti-abortion rights zealots to use on PP.
I oppose mandatory disclosure laws. Why not just brand them and get it over with? Or make them ring a bell like Medieval lepers…
This parallels my feelings in that recent-ish transsexual disclosure thread.
I have to ask…how would mandatory disclosure be enforced? Will you need to sign a contract to have sex? Does your entire preliminary conversation/foreplay/whatever need to be recorded? Most of the time when in a situation where mandatory disclosure would come into play, it’s rather intimate…usually just the two principals. He said/she said? (Or he said/he said, I guess)
Like I said before, I really think this is an area where you’re responsible for your own health. If you have a doubt about someone’s honesty about their HIV status (or their STD status in general) then don’t sleep with them. But don’t whine that you WANT to sleep with them but they might have AIDS. Welcome to my world, and the world of every gay man for the last 3 1/2 decades.
It should also be noted that because of the way that HIV infection began in the US, this subject is absolutely FRAUGHT with political and civil rights implications, regardless of how you want it to be viewed. A huge percentage of American attitudes toward HIV are caught up in late 20th-Century American attitudes toward homosexuality, and the gay community has a huge PTSD reaction to things that sound like dogwhistles in this situation because of the Great Die-Off of the 80s. Whole giant chunks of the gay community disappeared while the straight government ignored it completely, or when they didn’t ignore it, said it was God’s judgment on us.
Maybe it’s just that in my circles, we’ve had 30-odd years to get jaded about HIV and AIDS. Maybe that’s why I feel so “meh” about the OP’s outrage.
Why aren’t any other diseases subject to mandatory disclosure laws? There are plenty that are much more infectious.
Why are ringworm or impetigo sufferers not legally required to inform people before giving hugs?
Which may be what tagos pictures me as doing… but as I said in post #30, I’m not making that inferential leap, and in fact later smacked down Curtis when he tried to.
Because the circumstances under which they are morally obligated to disclose their illness is more limited than “whenever someone has line of sight”. It’s the same reasoning as with bankrupts: they are morally and legally obligated to disclose their status as bankrupts, but only in those circumstances where their status as a bankrupt may present a risk to other people.
I support mandatory disclosure laws. This also parallels my feelings on the moral obligation of transsexuals to disclose this information to their partners.
How much of a health risk are these problems? How difficult is it to cure yourself if you become infected?
The same problem applies to rape laws. And at least in the case of rapes, there is a giant gray/problematic area, because , you know, two people fucking consentually its actually the VERY dominate norm in sexual relations.
You gonna tell me the norm is “hey, you got HIV? NO problem, I got protection and its all good”? Bull hocky.
And for that last part? Boo fucking hoo.
To me this just smacks of “HIV people have a right to get laid too”.