BaronSilasGreenback #moonbat community.babycenter.com

. Grocery store worker may have infected 300 people with HIV, prosecutor says

I have a hard time thinking it is okay to charge someone for assault/attempted murder because they have a disease and raise your risk of infection due to mutually risky behavior simply because they didn't tell you about it.
The act of contracting HIV is not criminal so why would it be criminal if one of the partners has ill intent?

And what is up with the obsession with HIV? How about hepatitis? Do you think that person on the airplane a few years ago that knowingly exposed and thereby infected people with a rare form of resitent TB should be charged? Do you think the way Typhoid Mary was treated is appropriate? Until the discourse about charging sick people with assault/attempted murder stops centering around HIV I can't believe it is anything but hysteria specific to that disease.

Shellybear79 #fundie community.babycenter.com

So, saw this article today: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20352866-grocery-store-worker-may-have-infected-300-people-with-hiv-prosecutor-says?lite

Here is a question... I am not denying that keeping it a secret you have HIV is not right.. but, do we not make our own choices for sexual safety? If you have sex unprotected, you open yourself up to disease. The man who gave the victim HIV is in jail on a 250,000 bond. So what is the "crime" he committed? What legally does this fall under? What's next, a woman gets deathly ill during her pregnancy, then presses charges on the baby's father because he lied and told her he could not have kids? Now he's accountable for her illnesses? I have been an RN for years... we use universal precautions. If I use poor technique and do not protect myself and get a communicable disease, should the patient be placed in jail since he didn't tell me he has something?I already said I am a nurse, but also am new to the legal profession. (legal nurse consultant). So I would like to know, what law has been broken here? That's the bottom line. Was a CRIME committed?

, I get that they are looking into the public health concern and massive spread. I am not arguing that. This article says many of the 300 people were casual encounters from Craig's List. Sooooo... poor them? They take out a personal ad to have sex with someone they do not know, and many use no protection, but the only one to blame for the public health spread is the man in the article? I don't think so.

This whole threads screams of slut shaming.
Unless I am prepared to deal with a potential STI infection or pregnancy I should not be having sex...is that what we're getting to now?

^^ This has nothing to do with slut shaming at all. Not saying people should be 100% abstinent. Sex carries risks, period. If your OK with that, then engage. Everyone who had sex with this man
assumed those risks.

Ok, I am not going back to see who posted this, but on the comment that he intentionally took out the ad on CL just to infect people. Prove that. He even said himself he was just having sex and feared if he told his partners, they would reject him. So he kept it quiet. That to me does not say he planned on taking out ads merely to go on a rampage and get as many people infected as possible. It says to me that he enjoyed casual sex, and he did not want that part of his life to end and figured it would if he disclosed that. Let's not forget the people who had their own ads out for the same purpose. Somehow he is the male slut now or a criminal?

I don't think this should be a criminal offense. People should be treating their casual sexual partners as if they DO have an STD. Just like when you bandage someone's wounds, you treat that person's blood like there is a disease.This is one of my hot button issues. We all have our own personal responsibility is preventing the spread of HIV. This is why people don't get tested. If you don't know you're positive, you don't have to worry about the heightened social burden that comes with it.

This whole article is absolute hysteria

Thous, I agree completely

GrandpaTrav's wife #fundie community.babycenter.com

Atheist DIL won't allow us to see our grandchildren

My husband and I are Baptist and raised our son as Baptist as well. He started dating a Catholic girl on high school, and while we were never entirely supportive of the relationship we didn't actively protest. He joined the military after graduating and now they live in Washington state (we live in SoCal). They have three kids together.

Before he graduated, he announced that he was an atheist. We thought it was just a phase, something he decided because he wanted to have premarital sex with DIL. We knew this was somehow something she convinced him was right. He was deeply religious and loved Christ before he met her. They are both now "out and proud" atheists. This phase has lasted over ten years.

Well, my husband has been vocal lately about his distaste for DIL and her corrupting ways on our son. He has made it clear that he WILL talk to our grandchildren about Christ, and encourage them to accept him into their hearts. When DIL protested to this, he said fine, we will do it when they're older (around 12). Again she got angry and said no. A few months ago during a visit, things got heated and DIL told us that we were not ever allowed to speak about Christ or religion to her children. My husband protested and she kicked us out of their home. I was so disappointed when my son allowed this to happen. What happened to honoring thy father and mother?!

Since then, there have only been a few phone calls between us and my son. The kids are never "available". We requested them for a few weeks this summer and my son only replied that that would not be happening. When asked when we can come visit again, or whether or not he and the girls will be coming down to visit us, he just says no. DIL is no longer comfortable with us having a relationship with them. My DIL has led my son away from Christ and is deliberately alienating my grandchildren from Him, as well as us.

I am so hurt and honestly have no idea what to do anymore. I am at a loss. I am so worried about my grand babies. I am considering contacting a lawyer about establishing grandparent's rights, although I don't know how that would work seeing as we are in different states.

Thank you for reading.

Ms.Miyagi #fundie community.babycenter.com

Generally, it's not a crime to spread disease (although there have been exceptions historically and have people been prosecuted for spreading HIV? I can't remember)...BUt, just.no. The onus is on non-infected people to know their partners before sleeping with them and practicing safe sex or to accept the consequences. I'm okay with that.

thoushallnot benamed #fundie community.babycenter.com

[ Grocery store worker may have infected 300 people with HIV, prosecutor says
Here is a question... I am not denying that keeping it a secret you have HIV is not right.. but, do we not make our own choices for sexual safety? If you have sex unprotected, you open yourself up to disease. The man who gave the victim HIV is in jail on a 250,000 bond. So what is the "crime" he committed? What legally does this fall under? What's next, a woman gets deathly ill during her pregnancy, then presses charges on the baby's father because he lied and told her he could not have kids? Now he's accountable for her illnesses? I have been an RN for years... we use universal precautions. If I use poor technique and do not protect myself and get a communicable disease, should the patient be placed in jail since he didn't tell me he has something?

Again, not stating it's OK to just go fk everyone and be a liar... but a criminal offense? ]

[ If he knew about it and didn't say anything then yes, he should be charged.
That is like lending someone your car and neglecting to say that the breaks don't work.

Not even close. Saying that your brakes don't work doesn't prevent you from forming romantic relationships. Saying you have HIV almost guarantees the end of a relationship.

[ Are you saying that it's perfectly fine to have unprotected sex and not disclose that you are HIV+? ]

Absolutely not. But I think it's completely unfair to expect people to not act human. Disclosure of HIV is extremely challenging, especially when you know it means rejection. To criminalize something so emotionally charged when it can be prevented by two parties, not just one, seems wrong to me.

Was the guy in the article an asshole? Absolutely. But he doesn't represent the majority of people with HIV that sometimes make mistakes because the pain of rejection is just too great.

I'd argue that having unprotected casual sex is risking spread of the disease PERIOD. That's how this disease is spread. If people would just stop having unprotected casual sex, HIV would go away. If your arguement is the burden it places on society, maybe we should just outlaw unprotected casual sex.

But that's not what this is about. It's about the lepers infringing on our rights to safe Craigslist sex.

It should also be noted, untreated HIV can cause cognitive issues that impair judgement and impulse control.

I don't understand the reluctance to share in the responsibility of HIV transmission. If doing so is such a hardship for you, why are you so willing to impose that hardship onto someone that is ill?

Me neither. My husband and I get an HIV test every year because I believe in sharing the public health burden.

I would love to get Joyous' opinion on this as I consider her our resident public health expert.

[ [I also think everyone has the right to have sex without the fear of DEATH!]

Why do you think that's a right? Do you also think you have the right to go out in public and not contract a cold? Or eat raw meat without getting salmonella? Sex has always and will always come with risks, some of them deadly. ]

Madapanta #fundie community.babycenter.com

[ Do you think people with hiv/aids should disclose their status? ]

Hell NO!

[ The risk is an interesting thing with the intentional spread of disease. If someone wants to infect as many people as they can they are not going to be honest with a partner. You take risk, but that risk can be limited if your partner is honest with you. I don't like this idea that the victims are to blame when infected by someone deliberately spreading diseases

I don't believe that blame ever applies to the spread of disease. Microbes do what microbes do. We can't control them.

All we can do is lower our risk by taking reasonable precautions. Testing, barriers, possibly abstinence.

It's like getting in the car. You always have the possibility of being in an accident. There's no way to remove that risk entirely. All you can do is things to lower your risk. Drive defensively. Or to mitigate the damage if you are unlucky enough to get in an accident. Wear your seatbelt, have airbags, etc.

Nobody is at fault when the virus is contracted, no more so than someone is at fault when pregnancy occur. Exposure to HIV doesn't guarantee contraction of the virus anymore than exposure to cold germs mean you will get a cold, or exposure to sperm means you will get pregnant. It is certainly a risk, but it is not a guarantee. Viruses do what they do, and immune systems do what they do. To assign fault seems strange to me.

[ OK, what if someone who knowingly has HIV rapes a woman

Should his sentence be harsher because he also gave her HIV?What if a woman got back from the dr and he told her she has HIV. She had been cheating on her husband with several men while she was away on business and could have contracted them from any one of them. She goes home and does not disclose this information to her husband and has sex with him. He now has HIV. Should she be charged with assault for knowingly giving him HIV? Or should he always wear a condom when Having sex with his wife who he, as far as he knows, is loving and faithful?A man and a woman have been dating for several years, but never had sex. The woman is a virgin. They have sex for the first time on their wedding night. Her now husband reveals to her the next day that he has HIV and has had it from before they started dating. Should he be charged with assault?A couple have been dating and have been engaging in protected sex for several months. They jointly decide to stop using barrier protections. One of them agrees to this while knowing that they have HIV. The second person contracts HIV shortly after. Should the partner be charged with assault? ]

Yoshi, in each of your hypotheticals, I would not support charging with the crime of transmission of HIV. Each of those cases of consentual sex with a non disclosing partner is extremely unfortunate, and the person has every reason to be furious with their partner, but I don't see it as criminal.
The onus is on non-infected people to know their partners before sleeping with them and practicing safe sex or to accept the consequences. I'm okay with that.
Here's the thing. With regard to every other virus, we put the onus on the individiual for self-protection. We tell people not to touch their eyes, nose, and mouth. To wash their hands, to wear gloves when working with the sick. We don't require disclosure of a viral infection before interaction with another person. We make requests that people stay home, cover thier noses and mouths when they cough/sneeze, and avoid contact with the old, young, or immunocompromised when they are sick, but we don't prosecute them when they don't follow those requests. What makes HIV so special? What makes the act of having sex any different than going to work with the flu? Neither act is a guarantee of transmission of the virus.

[ Knowingly spreading the disease can kill people and cause huge financial burden to not just the infected but to the whole society. ]

Having intercourse with a person while HIV+ isn't knowingly spreading the disease. It's knowingly risking spreading the disease, but exposure to the virus is not a guarantee of contraction of the virus.

[She could have demanded that he be tested before engaging in unprotected sex with someone from a high risk group. He had never been tested, but we can argue that he had an obligation to get tested knowing he was a drug user sharing needles]

Obligation to get himself tested? What kind of obligation, a legal one? A moral one? A personal well-being one?

I'd argue that we all have the right to live in ignorance of our own disease.

And until the stigma of being HIV+ is erased, I'd argue that I understand exactly why people would chose not to know.

Again, I don't like fault or blame language with regard to viruses and bacteria.

It's not anybody's fault you contract HIV, ever. Unless, I suppose, someone injects the virus directly and intentionally into your blood stream.

But as I've repeatedly said, exposure to the virus doesn't equal contraction of the virus. Sex has risks. It just does. One of those risks is disease.(and lest I be cast as a total prude who is afraid of sex and is all pro-absinence and all that shit, I'm not. I had my fun in my single days. I knew the risks I took to have it, too. And I knew what I needed to do to lower those risk to a level where I felt the reward outweighed the risk)

I'd argue you can't intentionally spread a virus. You can only intentionally expose someone to a virus

jsscuban #fundie community.babycenter.com

Okay, now for a serious debate.

Here are a couple stories of people who have been tried, convicted and sentenced to jail for having unprotected sex without disclosing the fact that they are HIV positive.



Is this a good idea? Shouldn't the onus to have safe sex fall on both parties, not just the HIV partner? Does this have the potential for serious misuse?

[ It's a crime if a company knowingly exposes their employees to a dangerous substance like asbestos and it makes them sick. I don't see this as any different. ]

Because in the case of unprotected sex, you are knowingly taking a risk by having unprotected sex. It's not the same as going to work without a gas mask on because you believe your employer when they say there is no asbestos. Even if your partner says they are clean, you still know there is a risk they are not

[ But as a participant in consensual sex you have a right to know if you are going to be exposed to a deadly disease. If a person knows that they are HIV positive then they have an obligation to inform potential sexual partners. The failure to do so is at the very least deception and at the very worst homicide ]

You also have a responsibility to protect yourself through any and all means. I meet a guy at the bar, he says he's clean, so I have unprotected sex with him? Getting an STD wouldn't be even a little bit my fault?

But where do we draw the line? HPV is also a potentially deadly STD. If a man gives me HPV and I get cervical cancer, is he criminally liable?

[ Well maybe if you know for a fact that you have an STD of any kind you should lay this information out on the table before having sex, or you are liable. ]

So are the courts going to start fining frat boys for giving girls crabs? What about if I have the flu, but I go to the store to buy medicine and inadvertently infect a baby, who gets seriously ill. Should I be held criminally liable for that? I knowingly took my germs in public.

Seriously, responsibility for safe sex is a two way street.

Megan151 #fundie community.babycenter.com

The Bible teaches that God values all human life from conception (including those that don't come to term for whatever reason) I desire for my thougts and opinions to be matched up to God's Word. As for my beliefs, and how they reflect upon my own personal situation-

I have a condition called Hyperemsis Gravidarum in which while pregnant I will literally throw up to death without medical help. Although the help sometimes can be no help if my body rejects it, and even when my body accepts it, it is in no way a cure. I am hooked up to medical pumps, have to take all different sorts of pills, and get Iv's. Being pregnant is a choice that i have to walk into knowing i could end up dying (i know we could all somehow die of pregnancy, but for me, the chance is much greater, especially coupled with any other problems that coud arise). Also, as long as my organs remain functioning and do not shut down, my gestitating baby grows perfectly, pregnancy is a huge risk for me, while my baby endures it almost completely to no ill effect. Once my baby is birthed, all my issues disappear completely.

I told my husband that if it were a choice to save me or our baby, save the baby. I would do anything to save my baby, even to the point of giving up my life, but i won't take away my baby's life to save myself. And, i believe that because i am taking the risk of having sex, then i must take on all risk and responsibilities that that can bring about.

The issue is a hard pressed issue because of the fact that most people are having sex just to fulfill thier own desires and don't take a baby possibly happening into consideration. It's hard for me to say how the government or the state should be involved, but i can say, only tackling the tail end of the issue will never solve the problem. People have to get it into their heads that sex always equals the possibilty of a baby, always, and if they arent willing to have one, then sex must be abstained from. But, it seems trying to convince people to not live based upon what they feel is almost impossible. The battle for human life needs to happen at all ends, before a pregnancy happens, and after. The whole situation breaks my heart. It gets overlooked, taken as opinion, and pushed into a relm of thinking that people's hearts can be legislated.

Amorfati #fundie community.babycenter.com

If a woman continues to use drugs while knowingly pregnant and refuses to seek treatment then yes, I don't see why she wouldn't at the very least, have her maternal rights severed until she stabilizes.
Under the supervision of a Dr. That is one thing. Knowingly self medicating despite the obvious risks is anotther

[[ In the Wisconsin case, she wasn't just "allowed to take potentially harmful drugs under the supervision of a Dr." She was FORCED to take potentially harmful drugs despite having gotten herself clean. Because that fetus had a "representative" who got to decide instead of the mother herself. HOW does that not outrage you? ]]

Again- no qualms with how either of those cases were handled (except in Rowland's I wish the Drs had authority to implement C-section against her wishes and save the other child.)

[[ a woman wishes to avoid unnecessary surgery if she can. She seeks to deliver vaginally but is denied access to any hospital unless she agrees to give up her right to medical decision-making and schedules cesarean surgery. Her attempt to labor and delivery at home is discovered and she is taken into custody by a sheriff while in active labor, transported against her will to the hospital with her legs strapped together, and forced to have the surgery;Despite knowing that forced cesarean surgery could kill her, a court orders a pregnant woman to undergo that surgery – and both she and the baby die;A hospital obtains a court order forcing a woman to undergo cesarean surgery. Her opposition is so strong that hospital staff ties her down with leather wrist and ankle cuffs while she screams for help.

I have no qualms with the decision reached in the Pemberton case. Attempting a VBAC at home is incredibly high risk, and I don't believe the birth plan of the mother > the health of the fetus.

HappyMamaJ #fundie community.babycenter.com


The woman in the story posted by the OP is an example of what it ultimately means to be a mother. To be willing to give up your life for your child. To protect and defend that life.

To those who would kill their baby to save their life, what would your children and husband think of you? Could you really tell your children that you killed their sibling just so you could have a few more years (comparatively speaking; life on earth is so brief compared to our eternal life) here on Earth?

It takes a lot of courage to do what that woman did. We have to look beyond our own wants and needs and do what is right.

rismom5 #fundie community.babycenter.com

[about a pregnant 10 year rold rape victim]

This story makes me very sad. And also brings back a lot of bad memories for me of my past. I am pro-life. I believe that abortion kills a life. I have a DD who is 9 and if something like this happened to her. I would kill the person that did it to her before killing the baby.

I have a girl friend that had an abortion at an early age in life she has so many problems now, and when you talk to her it always goes back to she wished she would not have killed her baby.

I never had an abortion but I have had 3 MC all of these where after my DD (who is 9 now) was born. She understood each MC she understood that the babies died. She took them very hard and her grades even dropped in school. So I know my DD would understand that an abortion was killing the baby.

I would have my DD to the dr weekly for her health and the babies health. I would pull her out of school and home school her. And then I would push the idea of adoption for her. If she wanted to keep the baby then I would raise that baby with her, and she could be the big sister.

This story makes me very sad. NO ONE SHOULD EVER GO THOUGH THIS. But a life is a life. If you want to kill someone, KILL THE MAN THAT DID THIS TO HER.

[sooo prolife]

AGirlThatLovesJesus #fundie community.babycenter.com

pp poster mentioned about someone having etopic pregnancy! Would that even be considered an abortion? Because the baby wouldn't live there. It's not the place God made for babies to be. I pray really hard on this one because I have had a tubal reversal and the chances of etopic pregnancy go up quite a bit..I just can't imagine taking that shot Cry

Now I believe if the baby can live and the mother is going to die then the mother should die for her baby. It's wrong to chose our life over theirs! And in no way do I support I made a mistake abortion or anything of that nature. And yes we should speak out against it!!