Knowingly Exposing Sex Partners To HIV Would No Longer Be A Felony Under This California Bill

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LIVEFRMNYC, Mar 19, 2017.

  1. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #1
    I'm with the Republicans on this one. This is a dumb idea!!!!



    http://www.vibe.com/2017/03/califor...arge/?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=syndication

     
  2. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #2
  3. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #3
    Did you actually read the article or just the headline? Unless you pass a law mandating that everyone get regularly tested for HIV, the existing law, while well-intentioned, will continue to not have any impact because people will continue to NOT get tested for HIV because once they are aware of their status, they become criminally liable for their actions.. As it is today, ignorance is freedom and the law is not enforceable.
     
  4. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #4
    I can clearly find value in a law where those who are aware they are hiv + knowingly exposes their partner through unprotected sex without prior disclosure.
     
  5. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #5
    If you go to the LA Times article that the OP's article sources you'll find this ...
    I'm with the OP. I don't agree with loosening this standard. And I don't expect this bill to be passed.

    For those interested, here is the bill: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB239
     
  6. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #6
    Yes, I support the intent of the law. However, if people are fearful of getting tested for HIV, the law is pointless.

    The operative word in the existing law is "knowingly" exposing sexual partners to HIV.
     
  7. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    There's three things at work here.

    1. Is a prostitute going to get tested for HIV?
    2. If positive, will a prostitute disclose to a customer that they are HIV positive?
    3. Do you believe this law will significantly increase the likelihood of numbers 1 and 2?

    Personally, I don't see it. I could be wrong, but my sense of human nature doesn't lead me to believe the law is a compelling reason to spark a change in the behavior of prostitutes.
     
  8. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #8
    I understand your point but don't think it's too realistic.

    If you know you are hiv+ and expose someone without disclosure you should be criminally liable. I support it.
     
  9. snorkelman macrumors 6502a

    snorkelman

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    #9
    If there's complaints that particular law is somehow 'discriminatory' because it focuses on HIV then surely the answer would be to extend it rather than repeal it - should be legally obliged to inform partners of any STD that they already know they're infected with before unprotected sex
     
  10. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #10
    I don't believe that the current law or the proposed law is the answer. I'm just pointing out how neither law will make much of a difference.
     
  11. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #11
    I know there are a lot of drugs to make HIV infection a more manageable disease, but I don't think we are there yet to treat this as merely another disease.

    No one should be knowingly infecting people and not even informing people of the possibility. That's just so selfish and wrong. On the other hand, everyone should be assuming that everyone else is potentially infected because not only could they be lying, but they might not even know.

    As for sperm banks and donating blood, shouldn't things be tested as a matter of routine? I don't see where the issue of disclosure comes in here, other than maybe wasting time, money and human resources on donations that can not be used. But how do you prove someone knew when they might not have? I don't see how you prove that case unless you have medical records. And so much testing is anonymous, so there would be no record.
     
  12. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #12
    Oh yeh I don't want to get tested for a deadly disease that I exposed myself to because I prefer to not have a liability of telling people about it vs getting treatment and not ****ing dieing an excruciating death.

    ****ing ridiculous argument.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 19, 2017 ---
    If they had any prescriptions to treat HIV it would be pretty clear that they knew they had HIV.
     
  13. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #13
    Get rid of the "knowingly" part. Make it a crime to expose a partner with HIV unknowingly if you haven't been tested in X amount of time. Tests aren't that expensive. HIV treatments are expensive. The stigma is there for a good reason.
     
  14. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #14
    That would fall under the medical record thing I mentioned since you'd have to have a doctor's visit, prescription written, etc. in order to accomplish that. However, if someone is relatively newly infected, they might not have done any of that yet. But still able to infect others regardless.
     
  15. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #15
    Maybe pass a law that states anyone convicted of prostitution must take an HIV test.
     
  16. LIVEFRMNYC thread starter macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #16
    I agree with your logic, but that's not reality. HIV can be undetected for years and still be passed around. You can have undetectable blood levels and still have detectable semen levels. Maybe testing should be more extensive than just the blood. But I'm far from an expert in the matter.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 19, 2017 ---
    Well, they do that for everyone that is booked in county jail for any charges they have.
     
  17. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #17
    If people want to kill themselves by not getting tested that is up to them. I would say to expand the law to cover other STDs as well as for people who chose to put others at risk of vaccine preventable diseases by not getting vaccinated.
     
  18. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    I think what you want is workable real world solutions. So we shouldn't ignore @sodapop1's point of view.
     
  19. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #19
    That's more of an implementation detail. My underlying point was that "I didn't know I had it" shouldn't be a long term excuse. On a side note, education should help more than destigmatization.
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    What happens if one is in a monogamous relationship?
    --- Post Merged, Mar 19, 2017 ---
    What happens if my girlfriend was sleeping around without my knowledge and passed an STD onto me, and then I found out she had an affair so I cheated back?
     
  21. jeyf macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    #21
    HIV is not the dreaded thingy it was in the days of old.
     
  22. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    Having to take a daily pill to control it is kinda a big deal...
     
  23. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #23
    I suggested that people shouldn't be able to avoid long term testing, then claim they didn't know. In your scenario, the woman should be arrested first. If the guy also wasn't tested in some time and did the stupid thing (have sex with others prior to testing), then he could also be liable. In general I don't think "I didn't know" is a good excuse when it's feasibly avoidable.

    I'm not sure about the cheating back thing though. It's silly behavior. When you know someone isn't trustworthy, cut them out of your life. If you don't live together, you don't even have to break up with her. You could ignore her and block her number if necessary.

    That's silly. if you value your health, it is a big deal.
     
  24. jeyf macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    #24
    You will not immediately die from AIDS as in the days of old.
     
  25. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #25
    So just remove the word "knowingly".
     

Share This Page