Originally Posted by
Suzaku
We don't see eye to eye in the level of information you need, and probably never will. I don't agree that you need 100% full disclosure to have consented to the act. The parties are adults, with adult mental faculties, and they can make adult decisions. We all made decisions and took actions that had unintended consequences, and we live with those consequences.
If you want to analogize to businesses, there is the sale transaction with 100% full disclosures and warranties, and the one that is sold "as is." I see that a sexual relationship is closer to a transaction that is "as is," whereas you feel that 100% disclosure is necessary. Neither of us will budge from our position, lets just drop it.
I don't think you should legislate to put the burden solely on one party, when it takes two to tango - even when one party has more information. You get into a gang fight and kill someone you get charged with manslaughter, both parties on some level chose to get involve in a gang fight. You kill some innocent bystander minding their business - you get charged with murder.
Further, even if you get infected with HIV, there is no guarantee that you will die from AIDS. Is there still liability if that person gets run over by the bus right after they find out their diagnosis?
It is a malicious act when an HIV patient takes an infected syringe and stabs someone, intentionally or unintentionally. I think it is the uninfected person's duty to protect themselves, and engage in protected sex.
I was not asserting that there is no discrimination in this world. But from a public policy standpoint you balance the public interest you want to protect vs. the costs, "infringement." I don't disagree that HIV or AIDS is a horrible disease and there is a compelling public interest to protect the people.
However, in protecting the public interest you should choose the less invasive and less discriminatory method available. Is it really that difficult and burdensome to use a condom?
There are taxes on cigarettes and laws, in some countries, that prohibit a smoker from smoking in public places. These laws clearly discriminate against people that smoke. They should have the right to smoke wherever they please, but what about the public interest of protecting people against second hand smoke? The public cannot choose to not breath; hence, we legislate to restrict people from smoking in public places.
In this case, the public can choose to engage in protected sex. This is a less discriminatory and just as effective method to protect the public interest.
I am not only balancing the HIV patient's right to privacy but also their rights to engage in sexual activity without government regulation. If the condom is ineffective in preventing the spread of AIDS, then there is a compelling public interest to legislate - but you have yet to convince me that the condom is ineffective.
Where do you think we should stop?
Not to mention this is an administrative nightmare. Most people have multiple sexual partners and it could be years before they're diagnosed with the disease. And the virus, unfortunately, does not come with a nametag that identifies the source and the date of infection.