[Poncho06]

I thought the argument was about a person being placed at risk without their knowledge or consent for contracting HIV. Wouldn't a child born to positive parents be at risk for contracting HIV/AIDS also be placed at risk without their consent?

I'm not sure how your IVF theory even comes into play? HIV is not a genetic disease it's a blood born pathogen. Unless you are trying to make a joke out of eugenics? Is that what you were attempting? If so you've lost me on what your point is/was.

[plan4fate]

My comment on IVF is, if you're going to play the nit pick game I will too.

1- a child cannot consent to life... so really anything beyond that is a moot point in this argument.

2- any possible illness or genetic ailment could be seen as a detriment if a child suddently has any say in the consent to life.

3- therefore, IVF would be the only option to ensure that all embryo's would be born free of defect.

4- only the healthiest people could carry them to limit the exposure to any illness in-utero or during child birth.

5- you could argue the risk from a lot of things aren't worth it during childbirth and strip away the rights of many women who give birth naturally against the odds against them.


Parents get the choice for 18 years. So while I may not agree that a person with HIV SHOULD have a child because of the risk, I will acknowledge they do have that right because the child has no right to make that risk decision themselves. The child gets the right to make their own decisions for risk when they are legally able to consent to something like sex... which is.. 16?

oh and since men and women get HIV, why shouldn't a responsible man with HIV be allowed to have a child? He doesn't have to risk spreading the illness to his partner to do so, there are non IVF ways around that.



A child with HIV can lead a semi normal life. there's a hell of a lot worse out there that people can pass on with out even knowing it that you can't live with.

[BittyBugsMama]

HIV can be transmitted from an HIV-positive woman to her child either during pregnancy, or during labour and delivery, or by breastfeeding. In Europe and the USA, about 15 to 20% of babies born to HIV-positive women who are not taking anti-HIV drugs are infected.

In most cases, HIV is thought to be transmitted during the last weeks of pregnancy or during delivery.

However, the risks of mother-to-child transmission of HIV can be reduced to below 1% by the appropriate use of HIV treatment during pregnancy and labour; by having a caesarean delivery if you have a high detectable viral load; and (when safe alternatives are available) by not breatfeeding.

In 2010, a study showed that there were no cases of mother-to-child transmission when guidelines to prevent this were properly followed.


HIV & AIDS Information :: Mother-to-baby transmission

It is possible to make transmission to the baby much less likely, a c/s section helps with that.

[Poncho06]

Umm what nitpick game. I assumed this was a debate. My apologies for not getting your vague initial point. I guess from this point on I should agree with whatever you put out there so long as it contains either one of your countless anecdotal stories or a passive aggressive smiley face.

Perhaps you would care to comment on how the current laws are being applied in today's world as well as an argument on how this is constitutional as they stand. Is this ONLY prosecutable if the partner contracts HIV? Should place people who are infected's names on a public forum so we can be sure those we are having sex with are honest with us? Should this be the case for other STD's with long term health risks? Remove the morality portion of your argument and took at the legalities of these types of laws.

Also, childbirth and related infection risk is on par with sexual transmission statistically taken at an exposure route basis even with treatment. Hence my argument on legally removing a persons right to privacy based solely upon HIV status where an additional party has the right to be affected by non disclosure.

HIV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Estimated per-act risk for acquisition of HIV by exposure route[31][32]
Exposure Route Estimated infections per 10,000
exposures to an infected source

Blood transfusion 9,000 (90%)[33]

Mother-to-child, including pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding (without treatment) 2,500 (25%)[34]

Mother-to-child, including pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding (with optimal treatment) 100–200 (1%–2%)[34]

Needle-sharing injection drug use 67 (0.67%)[35]

Percutaneous needle stick 30 (0.30%)[36]

Receptive anal intercourse (2009 and 2010 studies) 170 (1.7%)‡ [30–890][37] / 143 [48–285][32]

Receptive anal intercourse (based on data of a 1992 study) 50 (0.5%)[38][39]

Insertive anal intercourse for uncircumcised men (2010 study) 62 (0.62%)a [7–168][32]

Insertive anal intercourse for circumcised men (2010 study) 11 (0.11%)a [2–24][32]

Insertive anal intercourse (based on data of a 1992 study) 6.5(0.065%)[38][39]

Low-income country female-to-male 38 (0.38%)‡ [13–110][37]

Low-income country male-to-female 30 (0.3%)‡ [14–63][37]

Receptive (female) penile-vaginal intercourse 10 (0.1%)[38][39][40]

Insertive (male) penile-vaginal intercourse 5 (0.05%)[38][39]

Fellating a man 1 (0.01%)†b[39]

Man being fellated 0.5 (0.005%)†b[39]

Originally Posted by ~Tithen~

My comment on IVF is, if you're going to play the nit pick game I will too.

1- a child cannot consent to life... so really anything beyond that is a moot point in this argument.

2- any possible illness or genetic ailment could be seen as a detriment if a child suddently has any say in the consent to life.

3- therefore, IVF would be the only option to ensure that all embryo's would be born free of defect.

4- only the healthiest people could carry them to limit the exposure to any illness in-utero or during child birth.

5- you could argue the risk from a lot of things aren't worth it during childbirth and strip away the rights of many women who give birth naturally against the odds against them.


Parents get the choice for 18 years. So while I may not agree that a person with HIV SHOULD have a child because of the risk, I will acknowledge they do have that right because the child has no right to make that risk decision themselves. The child gets the right to make their own decisions for risk when they are legally able to consent to something like sex... which is.. 16?

oh and since men and women get HIV, why shouldn't a responsible man with HIV be allowed to have a child? He doesn't have to risk spreading the illness to his partner to do so, there are non IVF ways around that.



A child with HIV can lead a semi normal life. there's a hell of a lot worse out there that people can pass on with out even knowing it that you can't live with.

[plan4fate]

Hmm.. you pose a good question about prosecution.


I would say whether or not someone contracts the disease if you did not inform them you should still be prosecuted/fined. You cannot play Russian roulette with someone's health. That should be their choice to do.

Perhaps fines if there's no transmission, jail time if there is.

Condoms reduce the risk of transmission to between 5 and 15%.. that's not nearly enough for "we used a condom" to be even close to a reason for not disclosing. You don't even have to actually have sex, the risk is there, even if low, for oral sex and open mouth kissing if there are any cuts. Kissing is the lowest of low in the risk category, been one case... but the risk is there, and people have the right to make that choice for them self to take it.

Let's look at it this way. A current comparison. It's illegial to drink and drive.

If you get caught, first time, from being pulled over... you're gonna get a fine. Do it enough times, you'll probably go to jail.

If you hit someone, you're not likely to get a fine, you're likely to end up in prison.



If you get caught having sex with out disclosing your HIV status but no one gets sick, you're gonna get a fine. Probably the first couple of times. I'd say repeat offenders go to jail, they're obviously need a firmer lesson.

If you get caught having sex with out disclosing your HIV status and someone gets ill, you're going to go to jail.

[K.A.T]

Originally Posted by ~Tithen~

Hmm.. you pose a good question about prosecution.


I would say whether or not someone contracts the disease if you did not inform them you should still be prosecuted/fined. You cannot play Russian roulette with someone's health. That should be their choice to do.

Perhaps fines if there's no transmission, jail time if there is.

Condoms reduce the risk of transmission to between 5 and 15%.. that's not nearly enough for "we used a condom" to be even close to a reason for not disclosing. You don't even have to actually have sex, the risk is there, even if low, for oral sex and open mouth kissing if there are any cuts. Kissing is the lowest of low in the risk category, been one case... but the risk is there, and people have the right to make that choice for them self to take it.

Let's look at it this way. A current comparison. It's illegial to drink and drive.

If you get caught, first time, from being pulled over... you're gonna get a fine. Do it enough times, you'll probably go to jail.

If you hit someone, you're not likely to get a fine, you're likely to end up in prison.



If you get caught having sex with out disclosing your HIV status but no one gets sick, you're gonna get a fine. Probably the first couple of times. I'd say repeat offenders go to jail, they're obviously need a firmer lesson.

If you get caught having sex with out disclosing your HIV status and someone gets ill, you're going to go to jail.

Charge them with what? I'm really curious to hear an answer to this one. I'm all for charging them if they person contracted the disease. But even if they didn't? That's going overboard.

[plan4fate]

Endangerment? Negligence?

We charge people caught drinking and driving with driving under the influence just because they got caught. The charges change when someone gets hurt.

It should be illegal to knowingly risk transmitting a disease to someone with out letting them know the risks first. This would mean whether someone gets sick or not, not disclosing would cause legal trouble for you.

Just because nothing happened, doesn't mean next time it wont. or the time after that. Again.. you can't play Russian roulette with someone's health just because you feel having to tell them they might get HIV takes away your privacy. The other partner needs to know the exact risks before giving consent.

It's different if someone doesn't know they have HIV.



And Alicia said it very well earlier in the debate:

This is a situation where a person is aware of their disease and simply do not tell their potential partner. I think that is reckless endangerment of another person's life. It is like shooting a loaded gun into the air and then arguing you are not responsible if the bullet hits anyone. You are essentially a deadly weapon, in any other scenario - people get punished for that. Why is this situation any different?

[lesliek0211]

Originally Posted by ~Tithen~

Hmm.. you pose a good question about prosecution.


I would say whether or not someone contracts the disease if you did not inform them you should still be prosecuted/fined. You cannot play Russian roulette with someone's health. That should be their choice to do.

Perhaps fines if there's no transmission, jail time if there is.

Condoms reduce the risk of transmission to between 5 and 15%.. that's not nearly enough for "we used a condom" to be even close to a reason for not disclosing. You don't even have to actually have sex, the risk is there, even if low, for oral sex and open mouth kissing if there are any cuts. Kissing is the lowest of low in the risk category, been one case... but the risk is there, and people have the right to make that choice for them self to take it.

Let's look at it this way. A current comparison. It's illegial to drink and drive.

If you get caught, first time, from being pulled over... you're gonna get a fine. Do it enough times, you'll probably go to jail.

If you hit someone, you're not likely to get a fine, you're likely to end up in prison.



If you get caught having sex with out disclosing your HIV status but no one gets sick, you're gonna get a fine. Probably the first couple of times. I'd say repeat offenders go to jail, they're obviously need a firmer lesson.

If you get caught having sex with out disclosing your HIV status and someone gets ill, you're going to go to jail.

Aren't people having unprotected sex playing russian roulette with their own lives? So, you are going to base the punishment on the end result? That seems a bit unfair? If you put someone at risk, you put someone at risk... Shouldn't matter if you got lucky and the person didn't contract it. Further, it can take years to test positive, so perhaps that person just doesn't know they have it yet.
I do have an inmate on my caseload that was charged with this. You can be charged with felonious assault, or criminal transmission of HIV.
I am undecided on whether or not I agree with this.

[Repti.Mom]

Prostitutes who have HIV get charged more strictly than 'normal?' prostitutes. I can't seem to find exactly what they get for a charge, but most cases it is a felony. One woman in FL was charged with manslaughter even though all the men she slept with turn up negative.

I think it should be disclosed. In most states if you don't disclose an STD before marriage it warrants an annulment. I don't know about the cheating thing, I'm pretty sure no one is going to be honest enough to come forward and say "hey honey I have been doing Jill and now I have HIV!"
I think attempted manslaughter is a pretty good charge for anyone who doesn't disclose, even if they don't pass it.

[plan4fate]

Originally Posted by lesliek0211

Aren't people having unprotected sex playing russian roulette with their own lives? So, you are going to base the punishment on the end result? That seems a bit unfair? If you put someone at risk, you put someone at risk... Shouldn't matter if you got lucky and the person didn't contract it. Further, it can take years to test positive, so perhaps that person just doesn't know they have it yet.
I do have an inmate on my caseload that was charged with this. You can be charged with felonious assault, or criminal transmission of HIV.
I am undecided on whether or not I agree with this.

Argh... see my reply to Kat for this answer. NO, I want them ALL punished. But I do think the punishment should be different. You drink and drive and get caught with out hurting anyone, you get a different punishment than if you'd hit a person/car. You shoot a gun into the air and no one gets hurt you get one punishment, you hurt someone another. There will always be different punishments for the different outcomes, this is no different.



For this entire debate I have been stressing that it doesn't have to be UNPROTECTED SEX. Condoms break!

And I've also stated if they don't know, they cannot be at fault unless they know they've been exposed!

can you provide a link to that years comment? From everything I find 99% of people get a positive test within 6 months. AIDS however can take years to get a positive test.

How long after a possible exposure should I wait to get tested for HIV?
Most HIV tests are antibody tests that measure the antibodies your body makes against HIV. It can take some time for the immune system to produce enough antibodies for the antibody test to detect and this time period can vary from person to person. This time period is commonly referred to as the “window period”. Most people will develop detectable antibodies within 2 to 8 weeks (the average is 25 days). Even so, there is a chance that some individuals will take longer to develop detectable antibodies. Therefore, if the initial negative HIV test was conducted within the first 3 months after possible exposure, repeat testing should be considered >3 months after the exposure occurred to account for the possibility of a false-negative result. Ninety seven percent will develop antibodies in the first 3 months following the time of their infection. In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months to develop antibodies to HIV.

Another type of test is an RNA test, which detects the HIV virus directly. The time between HIV infection and RNA detection is 9-11 days. These tests, which are more costly and used less often than antibody tests, are used in some parts of the United States.

National HIV and STD Testing Resources - Frequently Asked Questions

and

AIDS Information, Education, Action, Awareness | When do you know for sure that you are not infected with HIV?

I don't know about the US, but we were preached to have an STI test done every 6 months including an HIV test if we had multiple partners even if we were using protection when I was younger. I assume that is still the case.

[K.A.T]

Originally Posted by ~Tithen~

Endangerment? Negligence?

We charge people caught drinking and driving with driving under the influence just because they got caught. The charges change when someone gets hurt.

It should be illegal to knowingly risk transmitting a disease to someone with out letting them know the risks first. This would mean whether someone gets sick or not, not disclosing would cause legal trouble for you.

Just because nothing happened, doesn't mean next time it wont. or the time after that. Again.. you can't play Russian roulette with someone's health just because you feel having to tell them they might get HIV takes away your privacy. The other partner needs to know the exact risks before giving consent.

It's different if someone doesn't know they have HIV.



And Alicia said it very well earlier in the debate:

I'm very well aware of what she said. Read my first response to this thread. I do feel they should notify the other party. However, I'm failing to see why they should be charged with someone no matter what. To charge someone because they may have knowingly infected a person is too broad of a slope to go down. That opens the door to charge all people who did not know they had something because they may have infected a person. As I stated more than once, I'm fine with charging a person who knowingly INFECTED another with HIV. But that's where it stops. I'm not good with the may have infected. Look at the cases that Jamie already posted about a condom not being an excuse. With legislation that charges all for the possible transmission, a lot of people could be charged with something simply because they had consensual sex with a person who knew the risks they were taking. That is taking away the rights of people with HIV/AIDS. I'm not willing to go there.

[HappyHippy]

You don't need to have unprotected sex to get the virus. Condoms aren't 100%. Informed consent means you're informed about the STDs/STIs your possible sexual partner has. I don't see why anyone thinks that a person with a disease shouldn't have to tell someone else about when engaging in sexual acts where the other person can contract the disease, condom or not. In many cases it's considered a felony assault, and sometimes a felony assault with a deadly weapon.

[glasscandie]

Originally Posted by ~Tithen~

If they themselves DO NOT KNOW they have HIV, unless they know they have been exposed, would not be at fault in my opinion. If you know you've been exposed, you should be tested immediately, and disclose to future partners that you have been exposed, and are awaiting results. That still gives them the CHOICE.

So now we're not only requiring disclosure of personal medical issues, but also requiring testing if one was exposed? What would be treated as "exposure"? Unprotected sex? Cut on your finger working in a medical environment? Sued if you DIDN'T get tested, may have HIV, and potentially exposed someone else even if you didn't have it afterall? There are way too many individual rights being violated here for it to be law - ethically, sure, that's how it should be.

And who's saying unprotected? My first loss was the result of a condom mishap, new brand, didn't fit right apparently cause it slipped off. If my ex had HIV, I'd have been freaking out right about then. Instead I got knocked up. Condoms break, they are not perfect... you cannot rely on a condom as a method of silence. The only sure fire way to not transmit anything during sex, is to not have it in the first place.

Yes. Which is where personal accountability comes into play. Don't want HIV/some other STD? Don't have sex with people you don't know very well.

I've had three HIV tests in the 12 years I've been sexually active. Two for exposed blood products, one after a very drunken on night stand that had genital contact (not enough that most people would even think to get a test), I'd have let it go until I found out he was actively Bi and my gay friends insisted I get tested. I was in relationships with the two blood product ones, and we didn't have sex until my results were back. Sure, we could have used condoms, but the risk weren't worth it for us.. so we didn't do anything at all.

And that makes the most sense. Unfortunately, with the idea of putting it into law - HIV tests aren't the most reliable. Which is why there are secondary follow up tests that happen some 6 months or so later after the initial one comes up negative. It doesn't always show up right away. You're asking a lot of interference from the gov't and other enforcement agencies per person, per lawd knows what would constitute "exposure"...for something that is really personal responsibility, action, and common sense.

I think knowing transmitting or exposing someone to anything NON CURABLE (while herpes can have long remissions, it is not considered curable as you always retain the virus) with out consent should be a crime.

It should be a crime to lie about any medical issues that would affect another person. It should NOT be mandated to be tested for HIV should you be potentially exposed (way too many possibilities there that would interfere with personal rights), to disclose a personal medical issues (even if it's something like HIV).

[HappyHippy]

What does length of time knowing the infected person have to do with anything? What if a couple is dating a year prior to sex and this whole year the infected person knows about his/her HIV status but never tells the other person? And in some of the cases that I read about, the women were dating this paticular man awhile before having sex with him.

[plan4fate]

Originally Posted by glasscandie

[/B]So now we're not only requiring disclosure of personal medical issues, but also requiring testing if one was exposed? What would be treated as "exposure"? Unprotected sex? Cut on your finger working in a medical environment? Sued if you DIDN'T get tested, may have HIV, and potentially exposed someone else even if you didn't have it afterall? There are way too many individual rights being violated here for it to be law - ethically, sure, that's how it should be.

Yes. Which is where personal accountability comes into play. Don't want HIV/some other STD? Don't have sex with people you don't know very well.

And that makes the most sense. Unfortunately, with the idea of putting it into law - HIV tests aren't the most reliable. Which is why there are secondary follow up tests that happen some 6 months or so later after the initial one comes up negative. It doesn't always show up right away. You're asking a lot of interference from the gov't and other enforcement agencies per person, per lawd knows what would constitute "exposure"...for something that is really personal responsibility, action, and common sense.


It should be a crime to lie about any medical issues that would affect another person. It should NOT be mandated to be tested for HIV should you be potentially exposed (way too many possibilities there that would interfere with personal rights), to disclose a personal medical issues (even if it's something like HIV).

Hmm... I need a good way to word this. Exposed as in Confirmed exposure? Advised they've been exposed by the one who exposed them? If you've been told you've been exposed and you do nothing about it, and then proceed to pass the disease around, that's negligence. (the rest of this thought is finished in the next paragraph)

I haven't said everyone should be tested, or it be mandated. But not getting tested after being advised you've been exposed is irresponsible and if you find out, and have passed it on? You knew you'd been exposed, there is no "I didn't know card" You knew you were exposed, you chose not to act and then potentially expose others. That person made two choices to conceal the problem.

So individual rights. Why is it the person who isn't infected's responsibility here? They are a victim. A victim of someone who knew there were risks, but did not disclose them. Whether's it's protected sex or unprotected sex, you have the right to know all the details before you consent.


And I agree with Happy Hippy. Length of time doesn't have anything to do with it. It could be someone you've known for two years as a friend, they didn't have to tell you about the HIV them either.. you weren't doing anything risky. It makes no difference in the end, if they aren't telling you, they are willfully risking your life with out consent. Which they have no right to do.

[K.A.T]

OK screw our rights lets just have them all violated so we can always be protected and safe. Sorry, that's just not how things work.

[lesliek0211]

Originally Posted by ~Tithen~

Argh... see my reply to Kat for this answer. NO, I want them ALL punished. But I do think the punishment should be different. You drink and drive and get caught with out hurting anyone, you get a different punishment than if you'd hit a person/car. You shoot a gun into the air and no one gets hurt you get one punishment, you hurt someone another. There will always be different punishments for the different outcomes, this is no different.



For this entire debate I have been stressing that it doesn't have to be UNPROTECTED SEX. Condoms break!

And I've also stated if they don't know, they cannot be at fault unless they know they've been exposed!

can you provide a link to that years comment? From everything I find 99% of people get a positive test within 6 months. AIDS however can take years to get a positive test.



National HIV and STD Testing Resources - Frequently Asked Questions

and

AIDS Information, Education, Action, Awareness | When do you know for sure that you are not infected with HIV?

I don't know about the US, but we were preached to have an STI test done every 6 months including an HIV test if we had multiple partners even if we were using protection when I was younger. I assume that is still the case.

My bad, I was thinking of AIDS rather than HIV. Either way, tons of people don't get tested regularly, so will we charge them if they pass it on too? Because they were negligent in finding out (even if they haven't been exposed)?

[glasscandie]

Originally Posted by HappyHippy

What does length of time knowing the infected person have to do with anything? What if a couple is dating a year prior to sex and this whole year the infected person knows about his/her HIV status but never tells the other person? And in some of the cases that I read about, the women were dating this paticular man awhile before having sex with him.

You're going to argue that your risks are absolutely the same of contracting HIV or some other STD from someone you've dated for awhile vs. a one night stand you met at a bar? Really?

The chance of exposure is there every time you have sex, but the actual risk is quite different between a one night stand and a long-time partner, don't you think?

ETA: You're talking about anecdotal stories. Look up stats on HIV exposure in people in long-term relationships vs. one-night-stands. Research indicates that monogamy is associated with lower rates of infection.

Originally Posted by ~Tithen~

Hmm... I need a good way to word this. Exposed as in Confirmed exposure? Advised they've been exposed by the one who exposed them? If you've been told you've been exposed and you do nothing about it, and then proceed to pass the disease around, that's negligence. (the rest of this thought is finished in the next paragraph)

I haven't said everyone should be tested, or it be mandated. But not getting tested after being advised you've been exposed is irresponsible and if you find out, and have passed it on? You knew you'd been exposed, there is no "I didn't know card" You knew you were exposed, you chose not to act and then potentially expose others. That person made two choices to conceal the problem.

So individual rights. Why is it the person who isn't infected's responsibility here? They are a victim. A victim of someone who knew there were risks, but did not disclose them. Whether's it's protected sex or unprotected sex, you have the right to know all the details before you consent.


And I agree with Happy Hippy. Length of time doesn't have anything to do with it. It could be someone you've known for two years as a friend, they didn't have to tell you about the HIV them either.. you weren't doing anything risky. It makes no difference in the end, if they aren't telling you, they are willfully risking your life with out consent. Which they have no right to do.

It has nothing to do with being a victim. It has to do with protecting yourself. When it comes down to it, you can still be a victim and you can still have an HIV positive diagnosis. Mantra: You can't rely on other people to look out for your best interests. Only you can do that.

Personal responsibility. Period.

[HappyHippy]

No, I'm saying it only takes once. So why does it matter if you had sex with a guy during a one night stand, or a guy you've been dating for a year? Both could have HIV. Just because you've known them longer doesn't mean your chance to contract the disease is less. Like I said in my previous post, some of the cases I was reading about the women were dating their boyfriend for awhile before having sex/unprotected sex and they got HIV from him. He knew he was infected but lied to his girlfriends.

I'm all for personal responsability, but that is a two way street. If you are HIV positive it is your *personal responsability* to let your future sex partner know you are HIV positive. You don't have the right, in my opinion, to knowingly have sex with people without informing them you have HIV. And that opinion is when the person *knows* they have HIV. Why should you have a right to privacy when that is a deadly disease and you are knowingly exposing someone?

It really does seem like blaming the victim. "You didn't wear a condom", "You trusted someone", etc. Every day we rely on other people to help keep us safe. Police, other drivers on the road, neighbors/family/friends, Chefs making sure their food is safe for consumption, farmers, public transit, and so on. This isn't any different. People who are carrying a STD/STI have their own personal responsability to let people they may have sex with know.

[melkissa2004]

Where are the HIV & AIDS deniers at?