First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last

Illegal to have sex if you have HIV AIDS MRSA etc

6858 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
38 / F / Pluto
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08

azndude619 wrote:

i say HELL YA they r so stupid 2 hav AIDS and ATD


*blinks*

You really think it's a lack of intelligence that infects people? Carelessness, I'll grant you in most cases. On top of that, you can't make something illegal just because they were "stupid". That alone doesn't make them legally responsible for transmission of the disease.

Now, if they are aware of the disease and knowinly risk thier partner without thier consent, I think there should be a punishment. However, given that medical records are sealed, I don't think you'd be able to prove that they did it willfully. If it's done accidentally, because the infected is not yet aware of their condition (possibly as a result of willful transmission from a previous partner) they shouldn't be held accountable.
16241 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
37 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
By this idea, I mean the though of "Illegal to have sex if you have HIV/AIDS"

Now, not only is this idea, against the human rights law. and i'm pretty sure, this idea, is also probably against the freedom law things.

What people do in bed, are now not allowed for everyone over 18? Just because those people are sick with HIV?

amuse me, this idea never came to me, because from the bottom of my heart, its complete BS. Normally I wouldn't say anything this rash.

but this idea, suggests nothing BUT wrong. If a person does something stupid, and let it be the mistake of their life. we, the people who can help, must help them, and try to stop this without doing anything that makes those even more out cast than they already are. and is NOT here to put Oil on Fire.

this is, once again, a completely stupid suggestion, think of all the things that this idea would cause if it were to made real. With the population of those people who have those "HIV" in North America, think about all the mess this whole idea/issue can/may/will cause.

don't propose something merely out of "oh! this seems debatable!" Really, IT ISN'T debatable. Even if it was their mistake in the first place, you shouldn't mark them, label them for life that they for that one little mistake. No one is perfect; because we're human.
950 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
32 / M / San Antonio, Texas
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
.
1028 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
37 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08

Onerain wrote:

Hey kid, the world is run in retributive justice. In ethics and law, "Let the punishment fit the crime" is the principle that the severity of penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and proportional to the severity of the infraction. Its presence has been shown in the ancient Jewish culture by its inclusion in the law of Moses, specifically in Deuteronomy 19:17-21, which includes the punishments of "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Many other documents reflect this value in the world's cultures. Proportionality requires that the level of punishment be scaled relative to the severity of the offending behaviour.

For putting a definite death sentence on others will require, in retributive justice, very harsh actions on prepetrator and its like. Imagine in the polish case 12 females was infect with HIV with a person who knows he is having it,What justice can they seek?

The emergency laws in the plague periods of 1300s and 1400s pale in what the thread master suggest which is the utilitarian law by banning them. However, I'm of a differing stance because i don't believe in social ethics, these ethics have to be pass down through customs and traditions. with the current weakening traditions and customs observation from youth, I'm more in flavor of the civil law justice system that china practises. Easy to manage, short and sweet.

You are very offensive in your remarks to all the users in the crunchyroll, As if you are high and mighty, i don't see much depth in your derisive posts either, as if the main purpose of you coming to this thread is to start flaming. I like to post short answers because the response i get are useful for my researchs.


Yours sincerely,
attained LLB,research studying for LLM


Well let me put this in a very simple way:

What political system does most us live in? Is it not democracy? And in regard in that manner, what purpose does a law in a democratic sytem have? Is it not to protect its people?

Is a person having a disease is less of a person than a healthy person? What crime has a person infected with a disease (HIV) have? Simply banning them from sex does not stop AIDS from spreading. For all I have seen, most of the comments and justification that many people have here is baseless and argumentatively weak.

Putting a restriction on sex is one thing, banning is another thing.

Get your facts right. If one so much believe in 'freedom', and yet posting comments like they're a first rate citizens. What ajoke.
1587 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
26 / M / somewhere
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
if this does happen then wouldnt that make a condom more useless?
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
of courseee.. XD
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
.... wtf? stupid question,
and i think it is rude and prejudice to make it illegal for someone to not have sex if they have a sexual disease.
it's like saying that gays can't vote because they're homosexual. or blacks have to sit in the back of the bus.
it's messed up.
there are ways to prevent it. end of discussion.
3558 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
27 / F / California
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
who are we to stop these people from having sex??? just like who are we to say gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married???
950 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
32 / M / San Antonio, Texas
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08

chinesefries wrote:

.... wtf? stupid question,
and i think it is rude and prejudice to make it illegal for someone to not have sex if they have a sexual disease.
it's like saying that gays can't vote because they're homosexual. or blacks have to sit in the back of the bus.
it's messed up.
there are ways to prevent it. end of discussion.


You actually can't compare that in a sense...Neither one of those are hazardous to anyones health. You don't die from either one of those nor will you give birth to a child with the disease. There's really on one way to prevent it and thats not have sex =/.
278 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
28 / F / California
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
Well maybe you should get your partner (and even yourself) tested before having sex. It's not just the person who has the disease because for all you know they don't know they have it.

Obviously it's really messed up to sleep around if you have HIV/AIDS or any other STD. But as I've said get your partner tested and vice versa. It's also your responsibility to be careful who you sleep with.

And people brining religion into this please stop. Not everyone believes sex before marriage is wrong.
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
MRSA.. They should be locked up! It's like letting someone who has TB walk around! But.. Illegal to have sex? That's going too far.
47421 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
26 / F / Australia.
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
it happens, people do it.
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
long introduction...

I thought about it and I don't think there should be any illegal or offense if a hiv/aids carrier has sex and doesn't tell their partner. If there are offenses for hiv/aids then there should be offenses for stds as well. They are just as bad and there are ones that cannot be cured and you suffer for life. No one wants to live with any of these diseases. Getting pregnant accidentally should also be a crime as well if this was ever to happen (getting hiv/aids, stds, and unwanted pregnancy changes a persons life forever). What I'm trying to say is, everybody knows the consequences of having sex. There's always that chance that your partner could be lying to you or hiding the fact that they don't have stds, or hiv/aids, or that they put on a condom, or used birth control pills properly, or they didn't put their 'little soldiers' in you. You try to trust someone and they screw you over, that's your fault for trusting them. I don't think anyone should be sent to jail or charged because you made the wrong call by willingly having sex with that person.
7716 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
80 / M / Florida, US
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
I don't think they should make it public knowledge. However, blood tests should be either mandatory or special incentives should be given to those who are past a certain age. Perhaps, people 18 years or older should have their blood tested and anyone younger should be encouraged to. Or, having your blood tested is a requirement whenever you cross into any country. If you are a business man or travel constantly, they can also make it that you have to get your blood tested every 6 months or 1 year. You can't prevent HIV from spreading but can retard the spread even more and if people do infect others, you can have a better idea as to who knew when they gave it to the person and even follow the trail until you reach the person who spread it with the knowledge of having it.

I might feel differently if I have HIV or if a loved one has it; but, HIV is still a virus that is spreading even if it is spread sexually and through the bloodstream. It is logical to deal with any terminal disease properly. The most extreme is quarantine or extermination, which I think is way too much. But setting up government guidelines or having a restricted national database on everyone's blood. HIV isn't as contagious as other terminal viruses/diseases out there, but some degree of public safety could be taken. If it really had to come down to the point where the information had to be publicly accessible, it would suck to have HIV but public views on it doesn't get rid of the fact that it's there to prevent the spread of a disease to save the population.

Are you a victim if you have HIV? Yes. But it's also almost always your fault as well unless you were born with it. We all know of the risks of unprotected sex. Even protected sex. If I had unprotected sex (even if it was a long relationship and she told me that she was tested fine) and contracted HIV, it was my fault. I knew of the risks. It was also her fault as well, of course. As well as the person before her. HIV is one of the few terminal diseases that actually requires you to do something beyond breathing and ingesting to spread and contract. Even if it's not nearly as bad if you weren't aware, you still f*cked up. You gambled and lost.

Should it be illegal to have sex if you have HIV? Tough call. If I had HIV, I wouldn't have sex with anyone. I've seen condoms break. It's not a hundred percent. But what if you both fall in love and the other person wants to have sex with you? Perhaps they can set rules. ie. You can only have protected sex after you marry the person.
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
It's already a law in most places that if someone who is HIV positive has unprotected sex with someone (and does not tell the individual about the circumstances), they can be charged with murder, attempted murder, or involuntary manslaughter.

I do think the above mentioned law is a very good law but I don't think making it illegal for them to have sex would be fair, especially if they are in a constructive relationship with a partner who is very well aware of the situation. Also, it's cruel to force people to live half lives simply because they are sick. You wouldn't tell someone with tuberculosis to stop breathing because they might cough near you (therefore you catching a potentially deadly illness), therefore telling someone with aids or hiv not to be intimate with their partner is kind of cruel as well. As long as people take the time to snap on a condom, and do everything they can within their power to ensure their partner is as safe as they can make it, then they should have the freedom to express their affection with that person so long as they remain honest and protective of said individual.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.