Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California

a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly.
People are accessing antiretroviral therapy (ART) more and more. If I'm not mistaken that is something they will have to do for the rest of their lives because it doesn't get rid of the virus, it just slows the rate of replication to keep it from progressing to full blown AIDS.

It is probably free in Africa, but here a person that contracts HIV will have to pay dearly for the treatment in more ways than one.

a reply to: Mandroid7


Nope. Not Ok. A forced change of someone's life like that should be criminal.

a reply to: tigertatzen

So in other words your good with the misdemeanor charge for knowingly infecting someone with HIV?

a reply to: TheRedneck

(I would assume by lowering the spread of the disease or by regular treatment to slow progression, both mentioned in my links).

Be careful of what you assume, antiretrovirals are effective. Both in reducing immunodeficiency related diseases and in HIV loading.
scholar.google.com...,5

Therefore HIV still leads to AIDS, and AIDS is still fatal.

Then having sex should be considered homicide, I guess. What are the laws in your state?

a reply to: queenofswords

That's what I got from a quick search myself. I will admit I am no expert on HIV or AIDS (or medicine for that matter), but it seems to me that HIV infected fluids are indeed a "deadly weapon" based on the apparent facts that

• HIV will always develop into AIDS at some point, and AIDS is fatal, therefore "deadly."
  
• Anything that can be used to injure another person can be a "weapon"... it is completely possible, although difficult, to kill a healthy human being with a #2 pencil, making it a "weapon" if used with such intent.

I was hoping Phage could provide me with some good news that maybe AIDS was no longer fatal, or that a cure was available, but so far it seems all I have gotten is semantics.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: queenofswords

8 years isn't near enough for someone knowing they are HIV positive and not disclosing it to a potential sexual partner.

Well, that's what the old law provided for.

Your flippant attitude about this is unfathomable to a rational person.

Flippant? No. Do you think not telling a partner you have syphilis is ok to be a misdemeanor?

Are you being serious?

Syphilis is not like HIV. It is horrible to infect someone knowing you have it, but they will find out soon enough they contracted it....and guess what, Phage? Syphilis is curable. And you won't have to endure a lifetime of expensive therapy treatments to keep it from turning into a killer.

If you can't comprehend the difference, then I just don't know what to tell you.

a reply to: TheRedneck

HIV will always develop into AIDS at some point, and AIDS is fatal, therefore "deadly."

Life could be considered fatal.
futurism.com...

a reply to: queenofswords

If you can't comprehend the difference, then I just don't know what to tell you.

I know there's a difference. But it sounds like you think having sex with someone if you know you have HIV constitutes homicide as well.

a reply to: Phage

I've got a spare shovel if you need a hand with that hole?

a reply to: Phage

Be careful of what you assume, antiretrovirals are effective.

You're using semantics, Phage. None of these treatments cure HIV; they only delay its progress and require lifelong treatment.

Then having sex should be considered homicide, I guess. What are the laws in your state?

Manslaughter would be more appropriate, unless someone can prove there was intent to kill instead of gross negligence. And of course, that is only applicable to individuals who know beforehand that they are infected... otherwise there can be no intent and no negligence.

I don't know the laws in Alabama... I am married and faithful, as is my wife. I have no need to waste my time looking up laws that will not affect me.

Do you believe that people should be allowed to spread diseases without severe penalties?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

Life could be considered fatal.

And that could be considered ridiculous.

TheRedneck

a reply to: tadaman

I agree, and we all can't afford health care, and those that can't, really cant afford the 400k for medication and will progress to full blown AIDS.
I am going with the stance at the end of the article.

lawmakers including Sen. Joel Anderson of Alpine voted against the bill, arguing it puts the public at risk. “I’m of the mind that if you purposefully inflict another with a disease that alters their lifestyle the rest of their life, puts them on a regimen of medications to maintain any kind of normalcy, it should be a felony,” Anderson said during the floor debate. “It’s absolutely crazy to me that we should go light on this.”

This whole thing is bizarre

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: queenofswords

If you can't comprehend the difference, then I just don't know what to tell you.

I know there's a difference. But it sounds like you think having sex with someone if you know you have HIV constitutes homicide as well.

Attempted homicide and/or assault with a deadly weapon at a minimum. If the victim(s) die from the infection then murder charges should apply.

For anyone who KNOWINGLY infects others with HIV/AIDS.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You're using semantics, Phage. None of these treatments cure HIV; they only delay its progress and require lifelong treatment.

You said that HIV always causes AIDS.

Do you believe that people should be allowed to spread diseases without severe penalties?

Is 8 years severe enough? Do you think that everyone who is exposed to a disease contracts it?

But perhaps more to the point, do you think the existing law did anything at all to reduce the fear and ignorance about the disease. Do you think that it inhibited people from having sex? Do you think it encouraged the practice of safe sex? Do you think that making it a "special" disease in the eyes of the law has any special benefit? At all?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

I was speaking of assaulting someone with a deadly weapon like HIV not being a felony.

HIV is not a deadly weapon. It is a virus.


An ice pick is not a deadly weapon until it is used as one .

a reply to: Phage

If your daughter came to you and told you that she is HIV positive because she slept with a guy that knew he had it but didn't tell her, would you be so flippant? Now your daughter has to endure a lifelong therapy of expensive pharmaceuticals to keep her from progressing to full blown AIDS. It will color her entire world till the day she dies.

Sure. She can lead a good life as long as she keeps up her treatments. It will affect future pregnancies and she will always carry the contagion.

So, yes. His action, his non-disclosure, resulting in her contracting this virus, should be a felony, imo.

a reply to: queenofswords
I'm not being flippant. I would be angry. Angry with him and angry with her for being so careless in this wonderful world of ours. I would also be angry if she got pregnant, which is also pretty much a lifelong situation.

So, yes. His action, his non-disclosure, resulting in her contracting this virus, should be a felony, imo.

Would his being imprisoned for eight years change anything?

I think if people are dumb enough to stick it all over the place, they deserve to get aids. Now the TV ads are things like " if you're from the baby boomers era you have a high chance of having shingles." Wonder how that happened? Could it be that society has become a FCK clustering orgy fest and now any disease is treated as just something that happens to people, no big deal right?

a reply to: queenofswords

No he wouldn't, he would probably rain hellfire on him from his hangglider with some weird space weapon, and I would help, 'cause that is just f'd up beyond belief to do to someone.

a reply to: Phage

You said that HIV always causes AIDS.

And it does if the person lives long enough for it to progress. Cancer is considered fatal too, but it is completely possible for someone with cancer to die from being run over by a beer truck.

If it is a felony to drive recklessly and kill a person because of one's reckless actions (manslaughter), then I believe having intimate relations while both knowing one has a potentially fatal disease and refuses to disclose it should be treated similarly.

TheRedneck