So you wouldn’t care if you happened to get into a cab with a drunk cabbie and you didnt know it? And, even worse, when he crashes and maims your ass you’d be all “hey, I took that risk”…please…
Well it shouldn’t be. The behaviour being discussed is only worse than the status quo in the “being a bigger jerk” sense, not in the “doing more damage” sense. At absolute worst it’s exactly the same as the current situation.
Well, the law reaches both the case of the person who lies about his HIV status if asked, and the person who fails to volunteer it. Are you suggesting you’d be in favor of criminalizing the lie, but giving a passed to the person who is not asked?
Don’t you get it? Its the new “don’t ask, dont tell” but with extra morality added!
Aren’t you droll?
No, I am fabulous, minus the super secret HIV part.
The cab driver is breaking the law, and would be held liable. Having sex as an HIV+ person is not against the law. The two situations are not analogous. Furthermore, there is an understandable assumption that a cab driver is not operating his cab while drunk/high/etc. Can anyone in this day and age say the same about a stranger who you decide to have unprotected sex with? Most people I know operate under the assumption that a stranger you have sex with is carrying some kind of STD. That’s why they either wear condoms, or avoid sleeping with strangers.
A closer analogy might be your initial premise coupled with a passenger who decides not to wear a seatbelt despite smelling alcohol on the cabbie’s breath and noticing slurred speech. Also, there is significant media attention and educational material telling everyone about the prevalence of drunk cab drivers, how to avoid them, the dangers of not checking your cab driver’s BAC level, and ubiquitous Breathalyzers available for free. If someone in that situation gets into an accident, after getting in the cab, I think they would bare a lot of the responsibility.
I would be in favor of criminalizing the behavior of a person who knowingly lies as opposed to someone who fails to volunteer the information. Let me be clear, I think the infected person in both situations is doing something wrong and morally disgusting, but I am not sure a person in the latter situation should be criminally prosecuted.
Even then, though, it’s pretty clear that Planned Parenthood disagrees; they believe that any attempt to make disclosure mandatory violates the rights of the HIV+ person. They make no distinction between volunteering and responding to a question.
Why would you even think this is anything other than the ordinary use of the state’s police power and which would be reviewed under the rational basis test?
I have nothing to add to this thread just wanted to note I agree with jayjay 100% on this issue.
I’m bronzing that post… 
And WHY is being a drunk cab driver AGAINST the law?
Ughhh…its because his right to get drunk is not as important as the right of his passengers (or other people on the road) to NO HAVE TO take the uninformed risks that his ass is drunk.
Or are you saying if it WASNT against the law, because it wasnt against the law it would be ok?
People with HIV should absolutely have to tell anyone they have sex with. Why is this an issue? Willing transmission of a fatal disease for personal pleasure should be considered something akin to manslaughter.
I feel kinda strong about this because I know a guy who has herpes, and is still sleeping with tons of women. I seriously doubt that he tells any of them beforehand.
And YET the drunk CAB driver would STILL be held criminally liable,even IF I am stupid enough to catch a ride with Tipsy McDrunkenton.
I can be a retard when it comes to protecting my house and my valuables. It STILL doesnt absolve the thief from criminal liability when he steals my shit.
Least that post won’t be HIV positive…but I wouldnt count on it.
:rolleyes:
Perhaps. I don’t necessarily agree with PPI. Regardless, I am not sure your analysis gives a complete picture of how they feel about the issue. If you read the link on the first page you quoted from, some arguments are listed why they believe criminalization is bad (another cite here). I think your overview is unfair for a few reasons. First, this is the INTERNATIONAL Planned Parenthood. It’s also a pamphlet; hardly the place to present all the intricacies of the situation. If you read some of the linked sites, they talk about problems in Western Africa where women who disclosed to their partners have legitimate fears of physical reprisal (including murder). You better believe disclosure under those circumstances is a violation of one’s rights. The context is very important. Either way, if you really want to know how they feel, why don’t you contact them to get their point of view rather than making an assumption.
As someone who’s generally a PP supporter, I am nonetheless appalled by this stance and frankly, I’d be willing to accept mandatory-disclosure laws for ANY situation (not just HIV+ people) such that
- Person A has a currently-incurable disease and
- Person A and Person B are about to engage in an activity that will specifically put Person B at risk of contracting said disease.
I am also willing to recognize that the problem with this stance is that if ignorance is a valid defense (and it has to be, just to cover the asymptomatic edge cases), the same kind of people who don’t voluntarily disclose now may well simply not get tested so as to be able to plausibly deny knowledge of their condition. I’m not convinced this is a huge risk factor–except in the cases of asymptomatic carriers or men infected with one of the lesser strains of HPV (no symptoms, but can be transmitted), even the biggest jerk is going to notice getting sick and get their genitals checked out on the off chance it CAN be cured.
Basically, I do support a right to privacy, but in the specific case of activities with potential to transmit disease, it seems more analogous to bankruptcy laws than anything else–one’s potential partner has a right to INFORMED risk decisions that trumps your privacy right here.
On edit:
brickbacon raises an excellent point. I’m more willing to accept the position that the privacy right trumps when in a situation where there is legitimate fear of reprisal. My statement above is from a western first world perspective.
It’s against the law because we say it is, and because it’s inherently dangerous. Having sex with someone who is HIV+ is not.
As I said, it’s a closer analogy, not perfect.
When was the last time this was actually enforced?