"Healthy, Happy, and Hot" - Planned Parenthood Opposes Mandatory HIV Disclosure Before Sex

You pointed out that legislation to that end exists, so I assume you also believe it’s practicable. Otherwise, the legislation is meaningless.

Given that you were arguing that there was a slippery slope, from making knowingly exposing someone to an uncurable disease without their consent illegal, to making it compulsary to disclose thoughts, I don’t think your feelings are particularly accurate.

Do you really believe this? Enforcing this area of morality (“don’t cause harm to other people without their consent”) is the most important role of government. It’s the reason why we have laws against murder, theft, fraud, assault, illegal dumping and so on.

And your point is what? There are plenty of ways to reduce the chances of transmission HIV to basically zero. I don’t think in this day and age, in a country where people are educated about the disease and have the means to prevent transmission, we can pretend that sex with an HIV+ person is inherently risky.

I’m sorry, please show me where I said that? You are completely misrepresenting what I said.

Yes, you have an impressive grasp of Latin (although I believe “ignorantium” is usually spelled with an “n”). Good on you! I’m sure your mastery of a dead language comes in handy in the courtroom. Newsflash though: we’re not in a courtroom, and your accusations are baseless.

First, the argument ad ignoratium (sic) part. Wiki defines it as follows:

I did no such thing. Unless you took my comment that, “I am not sure your analysis gives a complete picture of how they feel about the issue”, to mean that I assume you are wrong.

Second, you have not met even the lowest burden of proof. You linked to a pamphlet from International Planned Parenthood. You have failed to investigate or present any information about any of the following things:

  1. Is this pamphlet representative of International Planned Parenthood’s opinions on the subject at hand?

  2. Was this pamphlet published and in widespread use? Is it current, etc.?

  3. How is The International Planned Parenthood Federation related to the group traditionally identified solely as “Planned Parenthood” in the US, and are their opinions on this matter the same?

Answering those questions, among others, would begin to meet your burden of proof.

I don’t claim to know (or really care) what their official position is. The problem I have is when people take memos, notes, or the actions of one person in a large umbrella organization, and try to pretend that’s what the whole organization feels. You are just being naive if you think I can’t find some embarrassing, “officially-sanctioned” document from any organization that big that makes statements and claims that they do not officially advocate. The ACORN situation, and the Michael Steele’s Bondage-gate scandal are two recent ones that come to mind.

Moreover, when you read the links in the pamphlet, most reasonable people would get the impression that the message was tailored primarily to people in places where the stigma and consequences of disclosure were far more severe than they are here in the US.

If your OP had asked everybody to get all outraged about IPPF endorsing these beliefs in country where disclosure can mean a very real possibility of death or physical reprisal, I doubt you would have gotten the rise out of people you likely intended. Like most things, this pamphlet was likely tailored to an audience, largely based on unique circumstances. In short, context matters. Why you failed to present any is a mystery to me, but I think your decision not to do so unfair to the organization. Which I why I suggested, you know, actually asking them if you want to know what their official opinion on the matter is.

I am not questioning the quote, I am questioning your interpretation of the quote, and your stubborn refusal to investigate or appreciate the context of the advice that was given. Presenting it the way you did is certain to get a rise out of people, but even a superficial glance at some of the supporting documents leads one to believe that the situations is far more complicated than you presented it. In short, I think you were trying outrage people far more than you were trying to educate them.

But back to the issue at hand.

I really don’t care too much how IPPF feels, I have presented my opinion on the matter. As such, I don’t really intend to get into a pissing contest with you about how much evidence must be adduced to meet “Bricker’s golden standard of proof” regarding how IPPF feels.

As I stated before, I do not feel as though a person who fails to disclose their status to a partner should be held criminally liable. Not only do I feel as though it is one’s duty to take a bare minimum of time to protect themselves, and inquire about a partner’s status, but I also feels as though the law would be a net negative for society as a whole, and might likely stigmatize HIV even more. If you wish to discuss those points any further, please let me know.

Nitpick: Actually, it’s much lower than that - 25% transmission without treatment, and as low as 1% with antiretroviral treatment and c-section. Cite

The conversation had evolved to that point by discussing the existence of the laws and how a court would view them, with another poster expressing the belief that courts would strike down notification laws, for example, when in fact it’s almost uniformly the opposite. To show this truth, I cited a representative handful of cases in which notification laws had been upheld, pointed out the many states that had such laws and the paucity of decisions overturning them.

The conversation then moved to equivalent laws concerning other diseases and the remedies that the law provides if infected persons recklessly expose others. I mentioned quarantine laws, and you acknowledged the existence of federal awl to accomplish that but suggested you were unaware of any analogous state law.

I provided the state law.

There was never any argument about whether, and to what extent, it’s practical. Obviously legally-enforced quarantine has an uphill battle, and it would be difficult to show instances of its imposition primarily because the vast majority of infected tuberculosis sufferers voluntarily comply with the necessary quarantine measures.

Right here:

Identification of logical fallacies is not actually a courtroom technique (or, to the extent that it is, it’s couched much differently). No, no – it’s a debate technique. And, hey! Look at that! Here we are in Great DEBATES.

Sure you did. You said:

This is classic argument from ignorance. It invites the inference that because we don’t know how they feel, the answer must be contrary to my position. Argument from ignorance is a special case of the burden of proof fallacy, which I mentioned and which we’ll now expose in a bit more detail:

Hah!

No. Why should those be my tasks? I have presented (warning: Latin phrase ahead; run!) a “prima facie” case for my position. That is, I have shown evidence supporting my position. If you wish to “rebut” that evidence by showing, for example, that the pamphlet is outdated, repudiated, a forgery, or unrepresentative in some other ways of the view of International Planned Parenthood, that’s fine. But that’s for you to do. My case is made.

See, that’s how “debate” works. One side presents a position and then evidence that supports his claims. The other side must then “rebut” his case by arguing alternate valid inferences exist form the same evidence, or by providing additional evidence that suggests other inferences.

When someone tries to meet this challenge by saying, “Well, you didn’t show this other evidence, and if you did, it would probably say you’re wrong,” that’s “argument from ignorance,” a classic logical fallacy.

I guess your high school didn’t have a debate team, huh?

Great! So you take the ball and run with it. Show us all the evidence that supports your view – show us some publication intended for the U.S. where Planned Parenthood endorses mandatory notification laws. I’ll happily amend my position when faced with that evidence.

But in ten minutes or so of looking, I sure can’t find it. And since you’re the one that claims it even exists, and if it existed would vindicate you, it’s up to you to cough it up.

There are many posts on that subject in this very thread. Discuss away.

The Virginia legislation you cited says, “any communicable disease of public health threat”. Influenza sufferers clearly do not voluntarily comply with necessary quarantine measures, even if tuberculosis sufferers apparently do.

If HIV is a public health threat of sufficient gravity to require laws mandating disclosure by carriers, why isn’t influenza?

ETA: I understand the rationale behind this law. What I don’t understand is why it exists only in the case of HIV. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I’m going to assume that it comes down to outdated morality - HIV is the “gay disease”.

I think if you were to survey the populace, the vast majority of people would support a notification requirement – not because it’s a gay disease, but because it’s a fatal disease that’s spread by intimate contact. It’s almost sui generis in this regard (link for brickbacon’s benefit). Diseases that spread via aerosol are not good candidates for notification; quarantine is necessary. No one can believe that an HIV sufferer should be quarantined. Other STDs are generally not fatal, although I imagine a case could be made for non-fatal but incurable diseases like herpes.

In the end, then, it comes down to the fact that the vast majority of people believe there should be some legal consequences for someone who exposes them to the risk of contracting a fatal disease via intimate contact, and that this is not a particularly bigoted view. In fact, I suspect (the majority of people being straight) that when the average person pictures being placed at risk in this manner, he or she is imagining an opposite-sex encounter.

People don’t always act rationally when it comes to their own health or facing up to hard truths. Putting any kind of hurdle in front of them can cause an unintended consequence. With treatments available today we as a society want people to get tested and get treatment, not just isolate themselves. In the past people have avoided getting AIDS testing for all sorts of reasons, let’s not add another one.

While I think it’s the right thing to do (disclose status before getting involved) I’m not completely comfortable with making it mandatory. If there was no stigma involved with disclosing status I would be more comfortable, but that’s not likely today. I don’t have a good answer.

This pretty much sums up my own feelings on this, after I’ve spent 3 pages trying to argue out to the same point. Although I’d add a side order of “Regardless of whether someone discloses or not, protect yourself, goddamit!”

So how is this worse than a fatal disease spread by ordinary contact?

It’s not worse.

And the law accurately reflects that. A fatal disease spreadable by ordinary contact may be addressed by quarantine. That remedy would be overkill - no pun intended - for a fatal disease spread only by intimate contact. So in that case, we merely impose a criminal penalty for failing to warn those you choose to put at risk.

Slippery slope or not, I cannot imagine why this particular disease should be given the exemption and other things not. There are other deadly illnesses than simply HIV

What you gave as an example is not an example of morality more than it is the practical effect of laws and protection. Morality, to me, are things like “you must help other people”. Murder, theft, and fraud laws protect people and is only moral in the sense that we would not want those things done to us. I object to the government legislating morals that have nothing to do with protection, such as obscenity laws, censorship, and sex. The government should never legislate those, nor should local governments be able to

Back to the topic, I would, however, be completely favorable to a law that punishes people who willingly tries to infect someone with their own HIV. So no to the disclosure before hand, but if the other person gets infected, throw the book at them.

Right, I get that. My point is that since HIV is less dangerous than influenza, why does it need criminal penalties?

I’m sorry – perhaps you could re-summarize the series of steps that led you to the conclusion that HIV is less dangerous than influenza?

Did you miss these?

Ahhh…

“Drunk drivers cause 30% of all accidents. Since that means sober drivers cause 70% of accidents, drunks are actually the safer drivers!”

There are other distinctions to be made, of course. Suffice (I hope) to say that I’m sure you know the actual mortality rate of influenza is far less than that of HIV.

Except that I never said the answer was contrary to your position. I said you did not present a good argument as to that actually being their position as opposed to an argument presented in a pdf put out by INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you mean IPPF when you say Planned Parenthood, but even in doing so, you have not given any context for the statement.

This is an classic example of the way you go about discussing things. I get that your legal training prevents you from actually looking at things like a normal, rational person, but if take a step back from the situation, you would see how the way you presented things is not fair. I repeat, nearly every umbrella organization has put out material, in one form or another, that does not present the official opinion of the organization. You decided that taking one quote, out of context, was enough to make a case about how a whole organization feels. Can you really make broad claims about ACORN or Michael Steele/The GOP based on the two scandals they recently had?

Sorry, I think that’s bullshit. Even more so because I believe it was a calculated effort to get a reaction from people. Particularly the aw shucks, conservative routine you put on at the end.

Once again, more sophistry. While you get in right in the OP, your title says Planned Parenthood, not International Planned Parenthood. Two different, but related, organizations. The resulting discussion of constitutionality, etc. generally revolves around circumstances unique to the US. That would be fine if your OP was merely a starting off point, but the presenting the issue in such a way that the two organizations, who may have entirely different opinions on the matter, will likely be conflated is poor form on your part.

Additionally, taking the time to find out how, and where the pamphlet was disseminated would hopefully allow you to edit your OP for clarity. Something along the lines of: IPPF thinks mandatory disclosure laws in Liberia (for example) are a violation of one’s rights. I guarantee the reaction would be been dramatically different.

Answer me one question. Can you honestly say your opinion, and the opinions of most in this thread would be the same if they knew the IPPF were presenting this tailored message to an audience in a country where people are killed for disclosing their status? There is decent evidence on the linked pages that that is the case. Hopefully, if IPPF responds to my email, we will all have more clarity on the situation.

I have e-mailed IPPF to see if they will answer my questions. I will let you know if they get back to me.

Apart from clearly linking to a document that was put out by the IPPF?

If it will frame the debate better, I am happy to affirm and agree that this is about the International Planned Parenthood group, and I have no specific evidence of how the US-based groups feel.

However, in a short search, I discover that the Michigan Planned Parenthood group says they officially oppose a bill requiring that whenever a child less than 14 years of age is pregnant or has an STD, all mandated reporters must inform authorities of suspected child abuse. Not quite what I was looking for, and I’m sure you’ll be along to inform me that the Michigan Planned Parenthood folks are in no way indicative of the rest of the country.

I offer this merely to highlight that in a few minutes of Google research, the specific position of Planned Parenthood, America, if such an organization even exists, is not laid out specifically. They have not condemned the International version, embraced it, or distinguished it.

Except that there’s nothing, not the slightest scintilla, of evidence to suggest they meant to limit their opinion. They could easily have done so – just a word about “developing nations,” for example, would have given them that contextt. But they didn’t, and now you inveigh against me for that failure.

WHAT “decent” evidence is that??