Man stabs lover to death after she didn't tell him she had HIV before they had sex

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Eh.. the responsibility lies with the woman to tell if she is infected. Actually to so much so, that if he had contracted it from her (and not gone total psycho and killed her) she would face jail time for not telling him. It's definitely not certain he contracted it, probably depends on how much sex they had and other factors.

Of course.

BUT IF SHE NEGLECTS HER LEGAL AND ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY

HE DOES NOT GET TO KILL HER.

reply to post by repeatoffender


I am not defending her. She isn't alive. What is left to defend?

Except maybe her children....


I am saying he had no right, legal or otherwise....to kill her.

Originally posted by blu3nowh3r3
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Im pretty sure it is illegal... some form of assault I believe.

It is but there is a whole lot of criteria and stuff to prove before someone can be tried and found guilty of deliberately having sex for the purpose of giving someone aids, or even of not telling someone they had aids.

reply to post by litterbaux

Your reading comprehension needs a little work.

What's this all about?
Please, don't make me list your faults.

I am not arguing with you.
You have given me like 4 replies and I am answering them.

Stuff happens. I get it.
But no matter what the guy doesn't get to kill the mother.
No matter how guilty she is or of what.
People can try and justify it but they'd be wasting their time.
It is not justifiable. Simply sad. No argument here.

This guy here planned this out. all we have here, factually is his word that she told him, was there any blood-test performed to confirm he or she had HIV? That's unknown. Who is fooling who? He might could have found out he was HIV positive and she might be the one that didn't know...and killed her to prevent her from turning him in.

You never know; but there is one missing voice here and people need to see the facts before they can rule-out this guy's motives for doing anything. Bringing-up HIV right out of the gate makes it suspicious that there is more to this "story" than we realize...

I don't believe anything at this time, there's more unknown, than known...but we have that HUGE BIG ELEPHANT sitting there in the room, don't we?

Think: Now what motives would this guy have for saying or not saying this or that...sounds like he's using that to justify committing murder.

reply to post by newcovenant


That is true, very true. Where are the blood tests confirming this and you really can't establish that now...but I'd get a genotype / phenotype test done on both if they had it to see if both individual's type of HIV were the same strain or different, or absent from one and not the other...which would tell it all there.

If he had just recently met her and started to date, should not a person wear protection. And in that same vein, it would be most-like a young mother to want a potential boyfriend / partner to be tested...which makes this guy seem even more suspicious. And all it would have taken is to decide NOT to have sex or USE protection....you could eliminate the risk of anything right there, and instead taking of a life, and that's pitiful.

Unless this guy lost his mental ability out of paranoia and fear...now that would be motive too...something here made this guy bolt in sheer terror...this seems like an impulsive act...

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Wow...

You've lost all credibility with me. At least in this thread, and probably beyond. That is one of the most blatant examples of the misrepresentation of data I've seen.

Now normally, this isn't a reason to really care, but BUNK information on this topic can lead people who don't do their own research to get the wrong impression of TRUE RISK. That can get people KILLED.

I stated actual Statistics and linked to studies that back me up. I see you saying I am wrong, and then offer nothing that contradicts me, in fact, you say I am wrong and then you prove me right as I will show.

Now, I may just be a simple guy from Missouri these days, but that sounds exceptionally dangerous and described in biological detail precisely HOW and WHY it's exceptionally dangerous for male AND female. Not alike....it's clear females are more likely to contract by sheer physiology. But..only by a bit.

So give me the odds of Female to Male and Male to Female transmission. I see you making claims, but I see no statistics backing your claims up.

"If you don't have an open wound...it has no way in" some may say (and.ahem..HAVE). Well, I'm not sure what gender someone is who is saying that, as we all generally know the basic biology of the other sex, let alone our own..and to keep this whole thing as G rated in a touchy subject as possible, there is a BIG GAPING INFECTION PATH at the end of the male genetalia. As this rather clear report...from your source....so graphically describes in detail.

Did I say that? No. So why are you trying to debunk what I said with statements made by someone else?

but then, there is your study...which is on the next page in sequence to the one I took those quotes from. With a couple further minutes looking. I found an abstract directly out of the study some are trying to quote here with very badly misplaced context. Dangerously so.

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies of the risk of HIV-1 transmission per heterosexual contact. 43 publications comprising 25 different study populations were identified. Pooled female-to-male (0.04% per act [95% CI 0.01-0.14]) and male-to-female (0.08% per act [95% CI 0.06-0.11]) transmission estimates in high-income countries indicated a low risk of infection in the absence of antiretrovirals. Low-income country female-to-male (0.38% per act [95% CI 0.13-1.10]) and male-to-female (0.30% per act [95% CI 0.14-0.63]) estimates in the absence of commercial sex exposure (CSE) were higher. In meta-regression analysis, the infectivity across estimates in the absence of CSE was significantly associated with sex, setting, the interaction between setting and sex, and antenatal HIV prevalence.

Source

The odds you just cited are .04%, or 1:2500 per episode of sex. My original quote was 1:2000, which means I took the road to overestimate the risk. The odds for a woman are TWICE as likely, .08% or 1:1250, which is exactly what I stated.

Now that is the first part of the abstract. There is another half to it and I'd suggest everyone check that out. It's real clear they are using sampling methods to generate the statistics for per incident exposure numbers across society as a whole as looked at by sub group. That is a WORLD APART from say this specific individual man has less than 1% chance of infection by having sex with a female infected and carrying a viral load.

Bad information in this area CAN get people KILLED. I'd hope everyone check themselves if any questions exist as to what is dangerous for the spread of HIV/AIDS.

No, it's not. You obviously have no idea how statistics work, that is exactly what it means.

Now then, please show me exactly what I said that was wrong and give me actual numbers that prove I am wrong. All you have done is said I am wrong and then you quote figures that prove I am right. If you can't prove my earlier statement of 1:2000 odds to get HIV from a woman per sexual encounter false with actual numbers do not bother answering, we will all assume you are too embarassed to post and apologize to me.