Deliberately infecting others with HIV will no longer be a felony in California

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Hepatitis B?


I'm saying that a pre-existing condition that has severely compromised the person's immune system would appear, in that case, to be the underlying problem.

What pre-existing condition are you thinking of?

I never mentioned about a pre-existing condition, but just because you've a condition which causes your immune system to be weak does not give anyone a single right to knowingly infect you with a virus which will destroy even further your immune system that then kills you.
Arguing that it was the immune system condition that was your downfall is idiotic at best.
So, are you saying that just because your immune system was weak to begin with means it's not that a big of deal that HIV is now entered into the mix as it's ultimately your weak immune system that would have killed you off?

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But you can't seriously believe that someone with a 'weak' immune system, with no specific illness, will be killed by HIV?

I assume you have some specific, fairly dramatic, pre-existing condition in mind?

Otherwise you're just wasting time here, tbf.

I think you're just talking ****e at this stage.
Do you even know what HIV is? What it does? If you have a strong healthy immune system and you realise damn quick you've got HIV then you will be able to treat it.
If you don't realise you have it then HIV will kill your immune system to the point where you die.
It isn't rocket science but if me trying to talk to you about this is a waste of time then we can simply ignore each other.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

..and that eventuality is pretty much unheard-of, by now.

Honestly, some people here seem to think it's still 1985.

Really? So does HIV develop into AIDS if not treated? What happens when the disease starts killing off the body's ability to defend itself?

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It typically does, yeah, as everyone knows ... but if someone is having unprotected sex with various partners and not bothering to have an STI check over a number of years, I don't see they can be blameless... they are arguably guilty themselves, by omission.

Again, I'm not saying that those who deliberately pass on HIV should be blameless. I'm saying they should be sanctioned.

I'm merely supporting one arm of the Californian legislators' position, that those who are receiving therapy for HIV should no longer be prosecuted as felons, considering their chance of transmitting the virus is negligible.

This is nonsense.
If you are receiving therapy for HIV then the burden of this is on the person to disclose it to the partner beforehand or at the very least use protection.
If you have gone into a sexual relationship knowing damn well you have the disease but choosing not to tell the person and in turn giving this person the disease then you should be prosecuted as such.

bear1 wrote: »

It isn't moral.

Non-disclosure? Sure. What is immoral isn't always illegal though.

Maybe this is just me but giving someone HIV/AIDS should be punishable.

There's the "giving" word again. "Giving" someone a disease and exposing someone to potential infection are two entirely different things.

One is an act of intent. The other is an act of negligence.

In the latter case, the act remains (effectively) criminal negligence, but there are far less hurdles to securing a conviction.

It's easy for us here to say this is wrong or this is good as we (maybe) aren't effected by this situation but if it did effect you.. how would you react?

Each story would have its own context tbh. The number of people who've gone around deliberately attempting to infect others is tiny. Compared to those who didn't even know they were infected or who were careless/in denial, the number of deliberate infections is negligible.

And yes, maybe knowingly giving partners other sexual diseases should punishable too.

Certainly should be actionable under tort, and chargeable with criminal negligence where it is a lifelong or life-limiting illness.

If I knocked someone over and broke their spine, leaving them in a wheelchair, I could expect a criminal charge. Why not the same for a permanent/long-term STD?

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

I'm starting to believe that you can get liberals to literally believe ANYTHING as long as you frame it as a diversity/discrimination issue. They'll swallow any new age political junk science that has that magic label attached. And I do mean anything.
I thought the US religious right had the monopoly on that sort of thinking, how wrong I was.

This is an ideology, society, and culture that is in full meltdown.

I'm no liberal, although you would probably class me as one, but you must be having a laugh talking about American liberals swallowing junk science when it's the ones on the other side who are denying the existence of global warming and objecting to evolution being taught in schools. I dont see what junk science really has to do with this subject, although I suspect you're probably referring to one specific completely unrelated subject when you refer to "new age political junk science that has that magic label attached"..

seamus wrote: »

Non-disclosure? Sure. What is immoral isn't always illegal though.

There's the "giving" word again. "Giving" someone a disease and exposing someone to potential infection are two entirely different things.

One is an act of intent. The other is an act of negligence.

In the latter case, the act remains (effectively) criminal negligence, but there are far less hurdles to securing a conviction.

Each story would have its own context tbh. The number of people who've gone around deliberately attempting to infect others is tiny. Compared to those who didn't even know they were infected or who were careless/in denial, the number of deliberate infections is negligible.

Certainly should be actionable under tort, and chargeable with criminal negligence where it is a lifelong or life-limiting illness.

If I knocked someone over and broke their spine, leaving them in a wheelchair, I could expect a criminal charge. Why not the same for a permanent/long-term STD?

I see what you're saying.
And re the last part, I would agree to people being punished if they knowingly pass on the disease.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No it isn't. It currently applies to people being treated for HIV, who engage in sexual intercourse with another person, knowing they have a negligible chance of passing it on. That's the problem.

Why can't they just disclose this information and let their sexual partner make an informed decision if they want to take that risk or not.