Every once in a while there’s a news story about someone who has AIDS and knows it, having unprotected sex with someone and not telling this second person.
The likelihood of transmission isn’t 100%, but it’s also not 0%. Most people would have said “no” firmly if they knew their partner had AIDS, and either would have used a condom or just not had sex. The second person could say they did not give consent to possibly contracting HIV.
When these stories appear in the news, often some scientists say the likelihood of virus transmission is not particularly high, so it shouldn’t be illegal… but I see this as a consent issue.
In most cases* the fault is equally shared by the second person, who just assumes the partner is HIV-negative, so doesn’t use protection. There’s a rule that’s been around for decades: If you don’t KNOW your partner’s HIV status, assume it’s positive, and act accordingly. Safe sex requires BOTH people to act responsibly.
*The exception would be if the second person thought they were in a long-term monogamous relationship, having every reason to think the other person wasn’t having unprotected sex with others.
I think financial domination can get ethically problematic very quickly and the more extreme examples I would have no problems criminalizing under fraud statutes. Unlike most sexual acts where both sides are seeking pleasure so they’re on relatively equal footing, financial domination has a profit motive which turns it into a very unequal relationship.
I think he’s joking about 4, and in 2 & 3, it’s difficult to establish how meaningful consent is.
Regarding 1, this poster says it well:
Are you referring to unrelated couples, and whether or not they should be sterilized? Down Syndrome is a malfunction of spindle fibers that divide the chromosomes to create the haploid reproductive cell. The older you are, the worse your spindle fibers are at their job, and that means not just in making haploid cells, but in cell division in your regular cells, which is why you age, and are more likely to get cancer the older you are. So older women are more likely to have DS babies, but young women have them as well. There is no test to see whether a person is likely to have one, and because the women statistically likely to have them have fewer total babies, eliminating births to, say, women over 37 would eliminate only a minority of DS babies. Women in their late 20s, who have the greatest number of babies by far, also have the greatest number of DS babies (per the genetic counselor I saw when I was pregnant at 39).
Autism has genetic components, but it is not as simple as “autism is a recessive trait,” like cystic fibrosis. There is therefore no test to see if a person carries an “autism gene” like carrying the cystic fibrosis gene, which can be tested for pre-pregnancy.
That’s every couple. Most cases of Down syndrome are the result of spontaneous nondisjunction, and in most cases, we don’t know what causes autism. There are some genetic disorders that have autism as a symptom.
All of us have some potentially devastating genetic disease somewhere in our chromosomes; most of us will never know it.
My taxes subsidise the health care of someone who injures themselves with a barbed wire dildo, so I guess I have a (non-moral) stake there, but then again, people injure themselves windsurfing, and I’ve never stood up against that.
For me, it really is as simple as “Two consenting adults in private can do whatever they please” - so the answer is “none”.
Incest? Icky, but that doesn’t warrant criminalising it. Violence? Again, if that’s what both parties signed up to then cool. Even extreme violence, if that’s what they’re into. Murder? Well - here we’re going beyond ‘sexual acts’ and asking the question ‘If I ask you to kill me and you do, have you committed a crime?’. I would say no, but this is the subject of another thread… Mentally Handicapped people? Again, this is an issue of consent - if both parties are able to give informed consent then whatever… Prostitution? As long as the seller is not being coerced by the buyer or third parties then fine by me… Super/sub-ordinate relationships? Like university professors and students, doctors and patients, employers and employees, etc…? Once again, only an issue for me if there is an implied or explicit coercion involved.
A stickier issue is how one defines ‘consent’ and ‘coercion’ in many of the above, though. A daughter might say that she consents to having sex with her father, but it would seem an awful lot like she was being manipulated or abused - what role should authorities play in a case like that? Similarly, the ethics of a non-handicapped person having sex with someone who is developmentally disabled are pretty complicated. I am sure some would argue that prostitutes, in some cases, by virtue of economic necessity/drug addiction/whatever are coerced into doing what they do because of their circumstance, so in effect it is not really consensual - even if they say it is. Likewise, if I have a relationship with my subordinate at work, it may well be that he/she is trying to get something out of it in some way - how do you untangle that to establish if our sexual acts are coerced in some way?
So, yeah, simple and complicated at the same time…
All of the really icky things are actually illegal in and of themselves, so if they occur during sex, they are still illegal.
If you accidentally kill someone while doing something obviously dangerous, that would fall under negligent homicide or at least some kind of manslaughter even if they gave consent.
Or if you kill and eat someone, that’s still murder, even if the person gave consent.
Or amputation-that’s practicing medicine without a license.
Since it’s quite possible for people to have sex without having children, I don’t see any rationale for banning incest in and of itself.
I disagree with this. We aren’t talking about a general safety measure. The hypo was that one of the sexual partners knew that he was HIV positive yet failed to share that with his partner.
That seems to be different than the general risk that one takes that his or her partner may unknowingly transmit a disease.
If I gave you a ride, and I knew that my gas pedal had a tendency to stick at random times, and we got into an accident, would we be equally at fault for the injuries because, hey, cars can break down sometimes, or am I more at fault for not telling you about the very dangerous condition my vehicle was in?
The examples/analogies are replete: If I knowingly give you poison food, is it your fault equally because every person should be aware of the food they consume? If you lean on a certain part of the railing on my front porch that I know is loose, are you equally responsible because every person should ensure that what they lean against is stable?
The problem is that, at least in the gay community, there has been an epidemic of stuck gas pedals, poisoned food and unstable railings for decades. These are known, actual dangers, and you don’t know which gas pedals, food or railings you can trust. At what point, when people around you are dropping like flies, should you be responsible for your own protection?
But the suggestion that the uninfected party should be responsible for his own protection is not at all inconsistent with the notion that the infected party should be responsible for not infecting people.
And I suggest the infected party has a greater responsibility because he has greater knowledge of the pertinent facts, and he is aware that he does. Supressio veri (misprepresentation by failure to state true facts) is one of the long-established categories of deceit.
Someone who knows they are infected with HIV should not be having sex with people who don’t know this, any more than someone who knows they are infected with smallpox should be taking jobs in food preparation without mentioning that fact.
But if you’re having sex with people whose sexual history you don’t know, it’s your responsibility to protect yourself. It’s a moot point whose responsibility is greater. Arresting the other person for non-disclosure won’t cure your STD.